The F&F Tealeaves......

[Flopper]

This article:
Why contempt case against Holder may be doomed - CNN.com

Does a good job of laying out the situation and what most is most likely to happen. I am sure this will devolve into a food fight, but it's hard to argue with the facts laid out in the above opinion piece:

Unfortunately for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, its legal position is uncertain at best, and almost all political considerations would seem to favor the White House.

The form of executive privilege at stake in the current dispute is "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions.

The House could ask the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to prosecute Holder for contempt, but the Justice Department long ago took the position -- in a very careful opinion written by then Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson -- that the department is not required by law to prosecute executive officials for contempt when the ground for subpoena noncompliance is a claim of executive privilege.

So that would leave the House with the one remaining legal option of launching an impeachment investigation, which brings us to the political side of things.

It also must be said that Issa's past attacks on the administration amply feed a narrative that his subpoena is about politics, not principle.

Having months ago called Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times" -- in the face of such modern historical escapades as Watergate, Iran-Contra or the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- the chairman is not well-situated to play a Sam Ervin-like role, policing the presidency more in sadness than in angry partisanship.

It's such an obvious political witch hunt. I doubt this one will survive the summer.

 

[asaratis]

Holder perjured himself before Congress.
Congress subpoenaed F&F documents
Holder THEN wants to plead the 5th.
PROBLEM: He ALREADY testified!
President claims Exec Privilege.

Q: How do you change your already sworn testimony to pleading the 5th?

Plus. Why did Holder retract his claim that the Bush Admin had done the same thing?

Because Bush had not done the same thing and it easy to prove that. Bush had the guns in Wide Receiver tracked. Bush had the Mexican government informed and involved in trying to capture drug lords. Bush's motives were in keeping with the war on drugs and drug cartels.

Obama's motives were to gain sympathy for more gun control in the US....so he STAGED the illegal sales and transport of the guns into Mexico, Obama PUT THE GUNS in the hands of criminals.

Obama is DIRECTLY responsible for the death of an ATF agent.

Obama is a goddamned criminal...being defended and protected by another goddamned criminal...and both of them wield the power of the US government.

 

[geauxtohell]

I agree with that middle statement - it's parallel to attorney client privilege and definitely constitutional.

To answer the last line, the only burden to compel those documents is probable cause - probable cause that the internal deliberations included efforts to violate the law. Privilege is forfeited in that case. That is my understanding.

Wait. You just claimed something existed in fact.

Now are you claiming that there is "probable cause" to believe that something existed?

I don't recall doing so at all. I suggest you read my comments again.

Once again, IF internal deliberations include efforts to break the law, any law, then the privilege those documents would have held is forfeited. Period.

And, to compel such documents, the authoritative body only needs probable cause that there were efforts to break the law, any law - and the law was broken, I guess should be added. Period.

That is what I said and that is my understanding of those discovery rules.

This is operating under the assumption that internal deliberations in fact include efforts to break the law - which neither your nor Issa knows to be the case.

 

[The Infidel]

It's such an obvious political witch hunt. I doubt this one will survive the summer.

I know.... another VAST rightwing conspiracy

 

[geauxtohell]

Oh **** you.... I dont care what I say..... you are a hack and a schill for Obama and his minions, and will defend them no matter what.

You are a disgrace


I bring you proof that Attorney General Mukasey was not the one who started Fast & Furious, and this is your response... pathetic.

I realize that being called on the carpet for your hackery upsets you. Now take your ball and go home. Adults are talking.

Ive been called on the carpet for nothing... you have been exposed for being a hack.


Well maybe not.... I think the logical thinkers here already knew it.

Just curious, do you think your IQ increases proportionately to your font size?

 

[geauxtohell]

It's amazing to behold the lengths the libtards on this board will go to champion corruption.




just remember Holder gave the mexicans guns, real guns and Terry got rubber bullets and death. that's what you're championing.

So guns do kill people?

Yep they do... when they are pointed at individual and the trigger is pulled.



You jackass

So we need gun control then.......

 

[Katzndogz]

I agree with that middle statement - it's parallel to attorney client privilege and definitely constitutional.

To answer the last line, the only burden to compel those documents is probable cause - probable cause that the internal deliberations included efforts to violate the law. Privilege is forfeited in that case. That is my understanding.

Wait. You just claimed something existed in fact.

Now are you claiming that there is "probable cause" to believe that something existed?

I don't recall doing so at all. I suggest you read my comments again.

Once again, IF internal deliberations include efforts to break the law, any law, then the privilege those documents would have held is forfeited. Period.

And, to compel such documents, the authoritative body only needs probable cause that there were efforts to break the law, any law - and the law was broken, I guess should be added. Period.

That is what I said and that is my understanding of those discovery rules.

That's not the purpose in this case. All of the documents requested were generated AFTER it was already known that a F&F gun was used to kill Brian Terry as well as others. It was already proved that over 2,000 firearms were provided to the cartels. None of that is an issue.

Holder said that obama knew nothing about this operation. He was never told, no one in the white house was ever told so no one at the highest levels approved. All of the decisions about F&F were made at much lower levels.

The oversight committee asked for all documents that would show that the highest levels of government didn't know and never approved anything like giving guns to the cartels. What communications there were would not mention F&F, and would only show surprise and punitive action once the action was discovered.

An EO only provides protection for presidential communications and then only under certain limited circumstances. In order to get protection, there must first be a communication. If there was in fact no presidential communicaitons concerning F&F, the documents have to be turned over because there is no protection.

If Holder was telling the truth, that obama knew nothing, there is no EO protection. obama can only use executive privilege if there is executive communication and Holder was lying all along.

 

[Wiseacre]

This investigation has been ongoing for what, a year and a half? The Obama WH and the DOJ could've turned over everything they had at that point and this would all be over. Unless of course there was something damaging, which they had to hide. I do not profess to know if any laws were broken; what I do believe however, is that political games have been played from the getgo by the Obama Admin to try to paint the repubs as the political bad guys on a witch hunt. I cannot fault the Congress for trying to uncover the truth; it was a dumbass idea that was poorly managed and executed and people died as a result on both sides of the border, one of them a US Border Patrol agent.

And as a result of the tactics employed by Obama and Holder and the DOJ, the public's opinion of our leadership in DC on both sides suffers. With all the bullshit going on, is there anybody left who trusts any of these clowns? Does anybody beleive they are acting in our best interests, or are they playing political games all the time to gain some political advantage. It ******* sucks, we're wasting time on this shit when it should've been resolved long ago. And the responsibility for that rests primarily on the Obama admin. They've stonewalled, delayed, misrepresented, deceived and in every way possible tried to obscure or hide the truth. If they are not thrown out of office we'll deserve what we get.

 

[Claudette]

This boils down to whether or not Holder knew about F&F and whether or not people in the WH knew. In Holder's case, either he did know and is now lying about it and trying to cover it up, or he didn't know but should have. I think both he and the WH did know but tried to hide it. Which is one reason why Obama has cited executive privilege.

Bingo. You don't enact EP without a good reason.

The good reason?? Your hiding something.

 

[geauxtohell]

This boils down to whether or not Holder knew about F&F and whether or not people in the WH knew. In Holder's case, either he did know and is now lying about it and trying to cover it up, or he didn't know but should have. I think both he and the WH did know but tried to hide it. Which is one reason why Obama has cited executive privilege.

Bingo. You don't enact EP without a good reason.

The good reason?? Your hiding something.

Yeah. Just like the Fifth Amendment and search warrants! I should never demand a cop have a warrant for searching my house unless I have something to hide, right?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This boils down to whether or not Holder knew about F&F and whether or not people in the WH knew. In Holder's case, either he did know and is now lying about it and trying to cover it up, or he didn't know but should have. I think both he and the WH did know but tried to hide it. Which is one reason why Obama has cited executive privilege.

Bingo. You don't enact EP without a good reason.

The good reason?? Your hiding something.

Yeah. Just like the Fifth Amendment and search warrants! I should never demand a cop have a warrant for searching my house unless I have something to hide, right?

The fifth amendment is nothing close to executive privilege
What does fast and furious have to do with national security?

What is “executive privilege?”
The earliest American example of executive privilege may be President Thomas Jefferson’s claim that he could keep a letter from a military advisor secret from Vice President Aaron Burr’s treason tribunal, but the Supreme Court did not begin to define the privilege’s contours until the White House tried to block disclosure of the now-famous Nixon tapes.

The Court’s decision eventually led to the tapes’ disclosure, but the justices recognized in their 1974 United States v. Nixon decision that “those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.” Presidents must have a limited power to resist disclosure of certain information when keeping that information confidential is necessary to ensure a well-functioning executive branch of government. This power exists in addition to other checks on the disclosure of government documents, such as the president’s power to classify sensitive national security information.

Executive Privilege 101

 

[geauxtohell]

Bingo. You don't enact EP without a good reason.

The good reason?? Your hiding something.

Yeah. Just like the Fifth Amendment and search warrants! I should never demand a cop have a warrant for searching my house unless I have something to hide, right?

The fifth amendment is nothing close to executive privilege
What does fast and furious have to do with national security?

What is “executive privilege?”
The earliest American example of executive privilege may be President Thomas Jefferson’s claim that he could keep a letter from a military advisor secret from Vice President Aaron Burr’s treason tribunal, but the Supreme Court did not begin to define the privilege’s contours until the White House tried to block disclosure of the now-famous Nixon tapes.

The Court’s decision eventually led to the tapes’ disclosure, but the justices recognized in their 1974 United States v. Nixon decision that “those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.” Presidents must have a limited power to resist disclosure of certain information when keeping that information confidential is necessary to ensure a well-functioning executive branch of government. This power exists in addition to other checks on the disclosure of government documents, such as the president’s power to classify sensitive national security information.

Executive Privilege 101

Except that is not why they evoked it. The article lays it out pretty clearly if you bothered to read it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah. Just like the Fifth Amendment and search warrants! I should never demand a cop have a warrant for searching my house unless I have something to hide, right?

The fifth amendment is nothing close to executive privilege
What does fast and furious have to do with national security?

What is “executive privilege?”
The earliest American example of executive privilege may be President Thomas Jefferson’s claim that he could keep a letter from a military advisor secret from Vice President Aaron Burr’s treason tribunal, but the Supreme Court did not begin to define the privilege’s contours until the White House tried to block disclosure of the now-famous Nixon tapes.

The Court’s decision eventually led to the tapes’ disclosure, but the justices recognized in their 1974 United States v. Nixon decision that “those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process.” Presidents must have a limited power to resist disclosure of certain information when keeping that information confidential is necessary to ensure a well-functioning executive branch of government. This power exists in addition to other checks on the disclosure of government documents, such as the president’s power to classify sensitive national security information.

Executive Privilege 101

Except that is not why they evoked it. The article lays it out pretty clearly if you bothered to read it.

Nixon vs U.S. outlines how executive privilege can be used. It's dealing with national security. Fast and the furious is not.

 

[Claudette]

Well since FF ain't sensitive classified national security info one has to wonder whats so secret about the documents?

So secret that the Prez enacted EP to protect them??

Personally I think its all about covering some asses that arre hangin out big time over FF.

 

[Si modo]

Wait. You just claimed something existed in fact.

Now are you claiming that there is "probable cause" to believe that something existed?

I don't recall doing so at all. I suggest you read my comments again.

Once again, IF internal deliberations include efforts to break the law, any law, then the privilege those documents would have held is forfeited. Period.

And, to compel such documents, the authoritative body only needs probable cause that there were efforts to break the law, any law - and the law was broken, I guess should be added. Period.

That is what I said and that is my understanding of those discovery rules.

That's not the purpose in this case. All of the documents requested were generated AFTER it was already known that a F&F gun was used to kill Brian Terry as well as others. It was already proved that over 2,000 firearms were provided to the cartels. None of that is an issue.

Holder said that obama knew nothing about this operation. He was never told, no one in the white house was ever told so no one at the highest levels approved. All of the decisions about F&F were made at much lower levels.

The oversight committee asked for all documents that would show that the highest levels of government didn't know and never approved anything like giving guns to the cartels. What communications there were would not mention F&F, and would only show surprise and punitive action once the action was discovered.

An EO only provides protection for presidential communications and then only under certain limited circumstances. In order to get protection, there must first be a communication. If there was in fact no presidential communicaitons concerning F&F, the documents have to be turned over because there is no protection.

If Holder was telling the truth, that obama knew nothing, there is no EO protection. obama can only use executive privilege if there is executive communication and Holder was lying all along.

Yes, that is the case. And, as Holder already testified as a matter of fact that BO didn't know anything, then the 5th for the agency is already waived as well. Holder ain't that bright, apparently.

And, as you said, we know from Nixon, that EO's cannot be used to cover up knowledge of something.

 

[GodSaveAmerica]

The identity of who in the DOJ authorized the ATF to bring assault weapons to Mexican drug gangs is contained in the memos that Obama wants to keep privileged. Pretty obvious what's going on here.

 

[Synthaholic]

It's amazing to behold the lengths the libtards on this board will go to champion corruption.




just remember Holder gave the mexicans guns, real guns and Terry got rubber bullets and death. that's what you're championing.

Wrong, Dirty Granny - AG Mukasey did that, and Holder continued the policy.

 

[Synthaholic]

Second retraction of Fast and Furious Assertions

Da: Wednesday, June 20, 2012

The Justice Department has retracted a second statement made to the Senate Judiciary Committee. During a hearing last week, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that his predecessor, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, had been briefed about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver. Now, the Department is retracting that statement and claiming Holder “inadvertently” made that claim to the Committee. The Department’s letter failed to apologize to former Attorney General Mukasey for the false accusation. This is the second major retraction the Justice Department has made in the last seven months. In December 2011, the Department retracted its claim that the ATF had not allowed illegally purchased guns to be trafficked to Mexico. Sen. Chuck Grassley’s letter and the Department’s response can be viewed here-1. …

Grassley made the following comment on these developments.

“This is the second time in nearly seven months that the Department has gotten its facts wrong about gunwalking. Attorney General Holder accused Attorney General Mukasey, without producing any evidence, of having been briefed on gunwalking in Wide Receiver. The case Attorney General Mukasey was briefed on, Hernandez, is fundamentally different from both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious since it involved cooperation with the Mexican government. Attorney General Holder’s retraction should have included an apology to the former Attorney General.


Sheila Jackson Lee: This F&F debacle started under Bush « Hot Air

"Lying" means there was mens rea. A misstatement doesn't equate to a lie. Holder could have indeed been lying, but at this time, it is presumptive to claim he was.

Oh **** you.... I dont care what I say..... you are a hack and a schill for Obama and his minions, and will defend them no matter what.

You are a disgrace


I bring you proof that Attorney General Mukasey was not the one who started Fast & Furious, and this is your response... pathetic.

Bullshit! Here's the memo:

The Memo Michael Mukasey Got On ATF's Gun Walking | TPM Document Collection

 

[geauxtohell]

So has the gun that killed Terry actually been linked to F&F? Why is there even debate about this?

 

[Si modo]

"Lying" means there was mens rea. A misstatement doesn't equate to a lie. Holder could have indeed been lying, but at this time, it is presumptive to claim he was.

Oh **** you.... I dont care what I say..... you are a hack and a schill for Obama and his minions, and will defend them no matter what.

You are a disgrace


I bring you proof that Attorney General Mukasey was not the one who started Fast & Furious, and this is your response... pathetic.

Bullshit! Here's the memo:

The Memo Michael Mukasey Got On ATF's Gun Walking | TPM Document Collection

Under the Bush administration, several sting operations were conducted in which straw buyers were allowed to purchase guns and attempts were made to follow the guns to, and in some cases over, the border. The largest and most well known operation was called “Wide Receiver”. The other operations were similar. During these operations approximately 200-250 firearms “got away”. The fact that some guns did cross the border is the only similarity between the Bush era program and Fast and Furious.

Let’s compare the two programs:

Cooperation with Mexico:
Wide Receiver: Mexican Law Enforcement notified, Mexico consented and was a full partner.
Fast and Furious: Mexico intentionally kept in the dark. No coordination or consent.

Surveillance of Firearms:
Wide Receiver: Agents attempted to keep track of the guns at all times.
Fast and Furious: Agents were ordered not to track the guns after they were purchased.

Use of Tracking Devices:
Wide Receiver: Extensive – placed in every lot of guns purchased
Fast and Furious: One “agent built” device in one gun

Performance of Tracking Devices:
Wide Receiver: Smugglers figured out how to defeat trackers
Fast and Furious: Smugglers didn’t have to do anything

Number of Firearms Sent to Cartels:
Wide Receiver: About 250
Fast and Furious: Exact number unknown, but over 2,500

Actions at the Border:
Wide Receiver: Attempted to hand off surveillance to Mexican law enforcement
Fast and Furious: ATF worked with Customs to make sure guns were not stopped at border

Reaction to guns “getting away”:
Wide Receiver: Program terminated. William Newell wrote memo saying “never again”
Fast and Furious: Program continued – recovered guns tracked and mapped.
​

Reasoned Politics: Wide Receiver vs. Fast and Furious