Holder asking White House to invoke Executive Privilege on Fast & Furious docs - GRANTED!!

[Dennis Olson]

Things are going to get TOO hot for Obama with this.

If there was ever a time for him to set in motion a false flag, this is it.



Remember the thread in the Bomb Shelter that says "GET READY FOR JUNE 20TH?"


There ya go. Check the date...

[smokin]

I feel for the wife and family of the border patrol agent who died because of f & f. People should be marching to D.C. This is a travesty and a corruption of justice.

[Terriannie]

Just curious and turned the tv to CNN where the talking heads are basicly laughing it off by claiming this was just a Republican thing because it's an election year. I know, I know, what else would they say especially so soon? Still, the FACT of the matter is Obama is HIDING something and no amount of smirks will change that. How I wish I could see some of those smirks get wiped off that but that's a channel I usually NEVER turn on.

[Dennis Olson]

No smokin, what this is is the usurpation of the United States government by an outside entity. One that is bent on the destruction of the Republic, and which has employed the chocolate messiah as their "tool" to make it happen. And this "tool" has now openly declared that the Constitution is no longer the law of the land in the United States. All the while those elected to the other branches watch this happen without taking the slightest action.


If ever I saw "the time" for the Second American Revolution, this is that time.

[Blastoff]

There are supposed to be multiple whistleblowers. I wonder does the committee already have copies of the pertinant documents?

[Grantbo]

With this act bamma has made it clear that not only his AG is guilty of some/many offenses but the WH is too.

Why would Bamma be willing to take this hit during election season? I think the hit he'll take now is much less that what would come out of the AG doc were released. I don't think bamma or his guys will comply with congress or anything close to a controling legal authority now or after the next election. (Will there be an election?) He's made it clear that the constitution and rule of law are no longer matter in this country.

He'll get away with this since no one will stand up to him. We are now a banana dictatorship.

[Dennis Olson]

Issa pushes ahead with Holder contempt vote despite Obama intervention

Published June 20, 2012

| FoxNews.com

Rep. Darrell Issa said Wednesday that he is pressing ahead with a committee vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, despite an 11th-hour move by President Obama to exert executive privilege over the Fast and Furious documents at the heart of the dispute.

The announcement immediately touched off a caustic debate on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, as Democrats accused Issa of prosecuting a "political witch hunt" and Republicans stepped up their criticism of Holder's "stonewalling" over the Fast and Furious probe. Even for Washington, the tone at the hearing was decidedly bitter and accusatory.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was first informed of the president's decision to exert executive privilege in a letter Wednesday morning, shortly before the contempt vote was scheduled.

Issa said committee staff are evaluating the letter but described the move as too little, too late as he and other GOP lawmakers questioned the basis for the assertion.

"This untimely assertion by the Justice Department falls short of any reason to delay today's proceedings," Issa said.

Issa accused the Justice Department of trying to compel the committee to close its investigation in exchange for documents it hasn't yet seen. "I can't accept that deal. No other committee chairman would," he said.

But Issa's Democratic counterpart, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., fired back that Holder never made such a demand, and said the attorney general had come to the committee in "good faith" to try and work out an agreement.

Cummings said the upcoming contempt vote has "diminished" the prestige of the panel. "For the past year, you've been holding the Attorney General to an impossible standard," he said, addressing Issa. "Mr. Chairman, it did not have to be this way. It really didn't."

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., added that she was "horrified" by the panel's looming vote, calling it a "political witch hunt" and accusing Republicans of "overruling" the president.

If the vote proceeds, Republicans have more than enough votes on committee to pass the contempt resolution. However, Holder would not be considered held in contempt of Congress unless and until the full House approves the measure.

The move by Holder and Obama to lock down some requested documents only complicates the fight over the botched anti-gunrunning operation between the legislative and executive branches.

After Holder made the request to Obama via letter on Tuesday, Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote to Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., on Wednesday informing him that the president has granted the request.

"We regret that we have arrived at this point, after the many steps we have taken to address the committee's concerns and to accommodate the committee's legitimate oversight interests regarding Operation Fast and Furious," Cole wrote. "Although we are deeply disappointed that the committee appears intent on proceeding with a contempt vote, the department remains willing to work with the committee to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues."

Obama's decision pertains to documents from February 2011 and afterward examining how Justice officials learned about the Fast and Furious probe.

Holder, in his letter to Obama, said those documents pertain to the "deliberative process" on how to respond to congressional and media inquiries.

Wednesday's developments follow a flurry of activity Tuesday, as Holder tried to negotiate a way to avert the contempt proceedings. Issa had earlier indicated a willingness to postpone the vote after Holder indicated a willingness to make compromises and supply some documents in response to House Republicans' subpoena.

But Issa told reporters after a roughly 20-minute meeting with Holder Tuesday that the attorney general instead briefed them on the documents in lieu of delivering them.

Issa told Fox News that Holder didn't provide "anything in writing," and said the family of murdered Border Patrol agent Brian Terry wants the documents as much as he does.

"We want the documents. Brian Terry's family would like the documents that are responsive to how in fact their son was gunned down with weapons that came from lawful dealers but at the ... behest of the Justice Department," Issa told Fox News. Weapons from the Fast and Furious anti-gunrunning operation were found at Terry's murder scene.

Issa further said during the committee meeting Wednesday that the purpose of the probe "has never been to hold the attorney general in contempt." He said the committee had an aide on Capitol Hill all night in the hope that the Justice Department might send over documents to the panel.

The failed Fast and Furious operation attempted selling thousands of guns to arms dealers along the U.S.-Mexico border to trace them to leaders of drug cartels. However, many of them showed up in crime scenes.

Congressional investigators have been trying to determine if and when high-level Justice officials knew about problems with the operation.

Holder said Issa rejected what he thought was "an extraordinary offer." Holder called for the Capitol Hill meeting late Monday in a possible attempt to make a deal with Issa and avoid the contempt vote.

"We offered the documents that we thought would resolve the subpoenas," he said. "The ball is in their court."

The contempt vote in the oversight committee will likely pass considering Republicans outnumber Democrats 22 to 16.

GOP House leadership has given Issa the green light to proceed how he sees fit, sources told Fox News, which suggests the vote would reach the House floor.

Issa had demanded to see a trove of documents on the controversial Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operation. He also wants to know who prepared a now-retracted letter from Feb. 4, 2011, in which the department claimed the U.S. did not knowingly help smuggle guns to Mexico, including those found where Terry was killed.

Issa wrote back to Holder later Monday requesting he deliver roughly 1,300 documents pertaining to the Feb. 4 letter.

The letter also stated Holder needed to deliver a description of all the documents he will not produce. Issa said the log is "essential for the committee to determine whether the department has substantially met its obligations" -- a statement he repeated Tuesday after the meeting.

Fox News' William LaJeunesse and Chad Pergram contributed to this report.
Print Close

URL

http://www.foxnews.comhttp://www.fox...gainst-holder/

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1yLbRhpFQ

[smokin]

Two things come to mind. When people feel they have nothing to lose, they lose it.
If there is no rule of law, why obey the laws.

They are pushing this country close to something they may not be able to contain once unleashed. A pandora's box so to say.

[bethshaya]

Well, the media has already turned on him, so this will be fun. Not that they really have turned, but they were given to go ahead to switch to their new "fearless leader" that they are "instructed" to promote.

[TXKajun]

Um, one thing to keep in mind. Even if Holder receives the contempt of Congress ruling, nothing will happen to him. Yep, NOTHING! He may get a little embarressed about it, but that's all. Remember in the Bush admin, the Atty General got the contemp of Congress ruling over firing all those federal judges. But nothing, zero, zip, nada ever really came of it.

Sheesh, a waste of executive priviledge. Or a showing of true colors??

Kajun

[Captbill]

This buys time. If they take it to Federal court--and then to the supreme court no decision will come before the November elections...

As others have said I do expect a false flag event now--gotta get the media reporting and diverted to something else.

[Rabbit]

WHERE ARE THE IRATE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS?????

Many of them complain, but who gets up to give the firey Patrick Henry speech???? OMG, do we ever need a real patriot to step up!

They give their "I'm upset about it" speeches to a camera in an empty house and post it on their web pages to pretend they are actually doing something.

[Warthog]

This buys time. If they take it to Federal court--and then to the supreme court no decision will come before the November elections...

We're talking 2 years before this happens.

[L.A.B.]

Oh my. Does anyone else suddenly have flashes of a "wag the dog" moment coming in the wind?

minkykat- wouldn't a series of 'multiple mall shootings' fit the script.

[mzkitty]

Just something you ought to read before we all get too crazy over this. As posted elsewhere this morning:

History of presidential use of executive privilege

President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege for the first time Wednesday. He applied the presidential power to withhold documents a House committee is seeking in an investigation of a flawed gun-smuggling probe called Operation Fast and Furious.

Presidents have the right to invoke executive privilege to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative inquiries. The White House says presidents have asserted that privilege 25 times since 1980.

Here's a look at how many times each president since Ronald Reagan have asserted executive privilege:

President Barack Obama: 1
President George W. Bush: 6
President Bill Clinton: 14
President George H.W. Bush: 1
President Ronald Reagan: 3

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1693725.story

And if you think we're crazy in this country, look at this:

Chinese artist Ai Weiwei warned not to attend his own court case - @NBCNews

Submitted 3 mins ago from behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com by editor

[mt4design]

Amazingly arrogant or ignorant move.

Not only is this scandal now blowing up but so is Leakgate and both those scandals can bring federal charges against members of the administration and imprisonment.

This may be proven the most corrupt administration in history.

Mike

[willdo]

No way I am going anywhere near a mall, or letting my kids anywhere near a mall or an amusement park. Don't like those places anyway, rather enjoy the great outdoors minus tourist traps.

[Dennis Olson]

Kitty, the raw statistics really aren't applicable to this. Why? Because IN THIS CASE the investigation is about an issue that is PLAINLY CRIMINAL, that RESULTED IN THE DEATH OF A FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, and those involved have PERJURED THEMSELVES about the activities and participants. Most of the previous Exec Priv declarations were for minor things that would embarrass the president. Not this time. And IF the president was in on all this, and IF the actual motive was to build a case upon which to attempt to ban firearms in this country in direct violation of the Constitution, this is a very, very big deal. Makes Watergate look like a paperwork SNAFU by comparison....

[Shacknasty Shagrat]

There are a lot of good comments and questions on this thread.
If Mr. Holder is held in Contempt of Congress, will he be able to keep his membership in the bar or be disbarred?
The claim of executive privilege is a qualified privilege for the President, what he knew and when he knew it, so Mr. Obama is specifically involved.
Looking back at the precedents set in the Nixon controversy, the Supreme Court can move quickly. Even the slobbering old Justice Douglas got sober enough to issue a timely decision, even though he couldn't tell the proper time of day.
With a Contempt of Congress charge against Mr. Holder going around, a movement for a Special Prosecutor or so, and a pre impeachment plan being proposed, this will be a busy few months.
SS

[Publius]

There are a lot of good comments and questions on this thread.
If Mr. Holder is held in Contempt of Congress, will he be able to keep his membership in the bar or be disbarred?
The claim of executive privilege is a qualified privilege for the President, what he knew and when he knew it, so Mr. Obama is specifically involved.
Looking back at the precedents set in the Nixon controversy, the Supreme Court can move quickly. Even the slobbering old Justice Douglas got sober enough to issue a timely decision, even though he couldn't tell the proper time of day.
With a Contempt of Congress charge against Mr. Holder going around, a movement for a Special Prosecutor or so, and a pre impeachment plan being proposed, this will be a busy few months.
SS

If charged with Contempt of Congress holder will likely get a fine and or, no more than 6 months in jail.

[Dennis Olson]

If convicted, the HNIC would instantly pardon him.

[Shacknasty Shagrat]

And, I might add, in consideration of the weak and vague assertions in the latimes article,
'The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
SS

[Countrymouse]

No smokin, what this is is the usurpation of the United States government by an outside entity. One that is bent on the destruction of the Republic, and which has employed the chocolate messiah as their "tool" to make it happen. And this "tool" has now openly declared that the Constitution is no longer the law of the land in the United States. All the while those elected to the other branches watch this happen without taking the slightest action.


If ever I saw "the time" for the Second American Revolution, this is that time.

Word.

[mzkitty]

Kitty, the raw statistics really aren't applicable to this. Why? Because IN THIS CASE the investigation is about an issue that is PLAINLY CRIMINAL, that RESULTED IN THE DEATH OF A FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, and those involved have PERJURED THEMSELVES about the activities and participants. Most of the previous Exec Priv declarations were for minor things that would embarrass the president. Not this time. And IF the president was in on all this, and IF the actual motive was to build a case upon which to attempt to ban firearms in this country in direct violation of the Constitution, this is a very, very big deal. Makes Watergate look like a paperwork SNAFU by comparison....

I understand, Dennis. But what ya gonna do now that he HAS invoked Exec Privilege?

The snakes always manage to slither away....

[Countrymouse]

Just something you ought to read before we all get too crazy over this. As posted elsewhere this morning:

History of presidential use of executive privilege

President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege for the first time Wednesday. He applied the presidential power to withhold documents a House committee is seeking in an investigation of a flawed gun-smuggling probe called Operation Fast and Furious.

Presidents have the right to invoke executive privilege to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative inquiries. The White House says presidents have asserted that privilege 25 times since 1980.

Here's a look at how many times each president since Ronald Reagan have asserted executive privilege:

President Barack Obama: 1
President George W. Bush: 6
President Bill Clinton: 14
President George H.W. Bush: 1
President Ronald Reagan: 3

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1693725.story

And if you think we're crazy in this country, look at this:

Chinese artist Ai Weiwei warned not to attend his own court case - @NBCNews

Submitted 3 mins ago from behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com by editor

But were these invocations of Executive Priviledge made during an ongoing CRIMINAL investigation?

fROM PJMEDIA.COM


Update: In the landmark case that spells out presidential executive privilege, United States vs Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court found that executive privilege pertains to communications directly with the president, and otherwise limited the scope of executive privilege. Today’s move by the White House implies either that Fast and Furious reaches directly into the Oval Office, or that the White House is challenging the Nixon ruling. Either way, today’s assertion is a major escalation of the scandal.

Given that we ALREADY have a Supreme Court ruling, from 1974, that spells out when a President can invoke Executive Privilege and when he can't, does this really need a whole new "going to the Supreme Court" process?

Can't Congress simply invoke the earlier SCOTUS ruling from the Watergate years and use that to proceed?

In other words, by this action, Obama is either:

1. Using EP to protect a NON-Executive official, in which case it doesn't apply
2. Using it to protect HIMSELF, in which case he's as good as saying he's guilty
3. Saying to H with all rule of law and the other two branches of govt., and using this as a smokescreen to do whatever His Highness pleases.

[Shacknasty Shagrat]

There is one report of todays hearings that says that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was, by law, to be informed of the gun running scheme. Ms. Clinton claims she was never informed of, nor approved of this scam.
If anyone can post a site or link to a transcript of the hearing, I would appreciate it.
Or is Mr. Obama setting up Ms. Clinton?
SS

[mzkitty]

But were these invocations of Executive Priviledge made during an ongoing CRIMINAL investigation?

Given that we ALREADY have a Supreme Court ruling, from 1974, that spells out when a President can invoke Executive Privilege and when he can't, does this really need a whole new "going to the Supreme Court" process?

Can't Congress simply invoke the earlier SCOTUS ruling from the Watergate years and use that to proceed?

In other words, by this action, Obama is either:

1. Using EP to protect a NON-Executive official, in which case it doesn't apply
2. Using it to protect HIMSELF, in which case he's as good as saying he's guilty
3. Saying to H with all rule of law and the other two branches of govt., and using this as a smokescreen to do whatever His Highness pleases.

Examples of EP use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

[jesner]

Cowards; just cowards that cannot stand and face the consequences of their actions. so incredibly shameful.

[fairbanksb]

The crowd breathlessly await the unveiling of Obama's statue.

[Sleeping Cobra]

Front page news all across this country including Seattle: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/home/index.html

[Terriannie]

According to libs, Obama has rarely used Executive Privilege compared to Bush. (Of course.) While 1st time Senator, Obama even denounced him for doing so:

Flashback:

CNN’S LARRY KING: “Do you favor executive privilege or should Karl Rove and others in that like position be forced to testify before the House or Senate?

OBAMA: “Well, you know, I think we'll -- we'll determine over the next several weeks how this administration responds to the very appropriate call by Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to have these individuals come in and testify. You know, there's been a tendency on the part of this administration to -- to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place. And I think, you know, the administration would be best served by coming clean on this. There doesn't seem to be any national security issues involved with the U.S. attorney question. There doesn't seem to be any justification for not offering up some clear, plausible rationale for why these -- these U.S. attorneys were targeted when, by all assessments, they were doing an outstanding job. I think the American people deserve to know what was going on there.”

(CNN: 3/20/07)

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-...ege?intcmp=fly
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-...#ixzz1yLye57pm

[Sleeping Cobra]

Live Meeting to Consider Attorney General Holder Contempt Citation: http://www.c-span.org/Events/Meeting...10737431716-1/

[Jonas Parker]

SSDD!

[Publius]

The papers in question have nothing to do with national security so I think they can continue putting pressure him and obama to hand over the documents.


EDIT ADD: In a way it does have much to do with our national security and its at risk because of the criminal acts that were hatched out and then carried out and also involves death or murder of a united states citizen.

[Doat]

Democrats, can’t trust them. They will do anything to get in office. Than they turn around and
Fudge everything up.

[MDINMT]

Would this disqualify the two SC justices appointed by O if this were to go to the supreme court? Setting up a 5-2 or 4-3 decision?

[Dennis Olson]

Probably yes.

[mzkitty]

@frankthorpNBC tweeted:

Rep Labrador (R-ID) calls for AG Eric Holder's resignation during the hearing on holding him in contempt of Congress

Submitted 11 mins ago from twitter.com by editor

[Dennis Olson]

White House Reaction on Fast and Furious Executive Privilege

by Ed Henry | June 20, 2012

Print
Email
Share
60 Comments

A senior administration official tells Fox News that Attorney General Holder asked the president Tuesday to invoke executive privilege and the president completely agreed that it was warranted in this case.

"The reason is the president believes the documents in question are "not anything material to [the] Fast and Furious [investigation]." Instead these documents are "internal deliberations within the Justice Dept" about how the administration planned to respond to congressional investigators and media inquiries about Fast and Furious - not the actual Fast and Furious investigation itself, per the same senior administration official.

"The president feels strongly this is a protected group of documents" because it falls under the principle of internal deliberations and advice within administration, noted the senior administration official. Presidents in both parties have asserted this same privilege.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, though, questioned whether Obama's assertion means White House officials may have been involved in Fast and Furious discussions.

"Until now, everyone believed that the decisions regarding 'Fast and Furious' were confined to the Department of Justice. The White House decision to invoke executive privilege implies that White House officials were either involved in the 'Fast and Furious' operation or the cover-up that followed. The Administration has always insisted that wasn't the case. Were they lying, or are they now bending the law to hide the truth?" Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said.

But the assertion does not necessarily mean that President Obama himself was involved in the internal deliberations. Remember that during the U.S. attorney scandal the Bush administration was asserting executive privilege for Karl Rove's conversations with Justice Department officials - this did not mean that then-President George W. Bush was involved in the conversations themselves.

Obama administration officials also point out that Bush asserted executive privilege six times and Clinton 14 times - both of whom protected the same category of documents being protected today. Dating back to President Reagan, presidents have asserted executive privilege 24 times.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...#ixzz1yM6BPaDF

[West]

Such a hypocrit.... And what was Gonzales' body count?