AG Lynch Has Not Decided Whether to Turn Over Fast and Furious Documents

[Vigilante]

Nothing like DEFYING the court...now take note liberal scum, It seems the COURT has NO FUCKING POWER to ENFORCE their rulings.... In other words, if you are the HEAD of the Executive branch of Gov't, YOUR AG DOES WHAT YOU WANT (If you are a Socialist/DemocRAT in the White House!) and the Constitution be damned because NO ONE HAS THE BALLS, YET ALONE THE POWER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MILITARY ENFORCEMENT BUT THE PRESIDENT!!!!!...Think about it!

Cybercast News Service ^ | January 21, 2016 | 7:01 AM EST | Susan Jones
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Wednesday she has received a federal court ruling that says the Justice Department may not invoke executive privilege to withhold documents from a congressional committee investigating the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal. But that doesn't mean the Justice Department will now give those subpoenaed documents to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Sen. Jim Lankford (R-Okla.), who previously served on the House Oversight Committee, noted that the court told Lynch's office to turn over those documents by February 2nd. ...

 

[depotoo]

What else is new?

 

[waltky]

Appeals panel says No to DoJ withholding Fast & Furious documents...

Appeals Panel Overturns Ruling Allowing DOJ to Withhold Fast & Furious Docs
February 15, 2016 | –- A three-judge federal appeals panel in Washington has overturned a lower court ruling that allowed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to withhold documents from the public regarding its Fast and Furious gun-running scandal.

Senior Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg, who wrote the February 12 ruling, cited a prior case which found that “the test for determining whether an agency has improperly withheld records placed under seal by a court is ‘whether the seal, like an injunction, prohibits the agency from disclosing the records’.” But “the government has not carried its burden in this case,” Ginsburg concluded. However, Friday’s appellate ruling does not order the immediate release of the Fast and Furious documents which Judicial Watch had requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). It merely sends the case back to the lower court for clarification.

In Operation Fast and Furious, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents in Phoenix allowed drug cartel “straw purchasers” to buy more than 2,000 firearms in the U.S. and smuggle them over the border into Mexico, including two AK-47s used to murder U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in 2010. Last December, two men convicted of killing Terry were sentenced to life in prison. “In October 2011, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed Attorney General Eric Holder for documents relating to the ‘Fast and Furious’ operation,” according to Friday ‘s ruling. But “when the Attorney General refused to produce some of the subpoenaed records on the ground of executive privilege, the House sued to enforce its subpoena.”

U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed with weapons ATF allowed to "walk" into Mexico.​

On March 18, 2013, at the Justice Department’s request, Circuit Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson referred that case, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform v. Holder, to mediation. Two days later, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request seeking “any and all records of communications, correspondence, and contacts between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform concerning or relating to a settlement” between them. DOJ identified eight documents in response to the FOIA request but refused to hand them over, telling Judicial Watch that “all of the information responsive to your request is withheld in full… subject to court-imposed non-disclosure requirements.”

On Sept. 5, 2013 Judicial Watch sued DOJ for the withheld documents. In August 2014, District Judge Richard Leon ruled that Judge Jackson’s remark at a January 10, 2013 status hearing (“I don’t know what you said. I don’t want to know.”) “was an explicit statement from Judge Jackson instructing the parties to keep the substance of their settlement discussions private.” The appellate judges disagreed. Judge Jackson’s statement “clearly bars the parties from divulging the contents of their settlement discussions only to her,” according to last week's ruling.

MORE

 

[depotoo]

Thank you, waltky