No evidence White House involved in ‘Fast and Furious’

[christiefan915]

Another rabid rightie conspiracy theory shot to hell.

"There is no evidence that White House officials were involved in withholding information related to a congressional inquiry into the botched gun-trafficking operation known as Operation “Fast and Furious,” the Republican lawmaker leading the investigation said Sunday.

Several Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), charged last week that President Obama’s decision to invoke executive privilege over documents related to the probe suggested that top administration officials were involved in withholding information.

“The decision to invoke executive privilege is an admission that White House officials were involved in decision that misled the Congress and have covered up the truth,” Boehner told reporters last week.

But asked Sunday whether he had any evidence to back up those claims, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said “No we don’t.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-and-furious/2012/06/24/gJQAhs1kzV_blog.html

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Another rabid rightie conspiracy theory shot to hell.

"There is no evidence that White House officials were involved in withholding information related to a congressional inquiry into the botched gun-trafficking operation known as Operation “Fast and Furious,” the Republican lawmaker leading the investigation said Sunday.

Several Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), charged last week that President Obama’s decision to invoke executive privilege over documents related to the probe suggested that top administration officials were involved in withholding information.

“The decision to invoke executive privilege is an admission that White House officials were involved in decision that misled the Congress and have covered up the truth,” Boehner told reporters last week.

But asked Sunday whether he had any evidence to back up those claims, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said “No we don’t.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-and-furious/2012/06/24/gJQAhs1kzV_blog.html

Tell us Christie... if the White House was not involved and did not know... then how could they evoke executive privilege?

Either the use of executive privilege was bogus or the admin knew about it ahead of time. It cannot be both.

 

[Bonestorm]

Tell us Christie... if the White House was not involved and did not know... then how could they evoke executive privilege?

Either the use of executive privilege was bogus or the admin knew about it ahead of time. It cannot be both.

I already explained that to you, SF. In response you posted some nonsensical shit about the DOJ and Holder not being part of the Executive branch.

Stop being stupid.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I already explained that to you, SF. In response you posted some nonsensical shit about the DOJ and Holder not being part of the Executive branch.

Stop being stupid.

Stop being stupid Dung. Your explanation was nonsensical. You an idiot. You pathetic. Blah blah blah blah.

Holder's communications could be a part of the executive privilege if he was advising the WH on its positions. Or are you claiming that no matter who he is communicating with, he can be covered?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Should have known Dung the hack would support a cover up for a Dem administration.

 

[Bonestorm]

Should have known Dung the hack would support a cover up for a Dem administration.

I haven't really stated my position on the propriety of Obama's claim of Executive Privilege. I have simply commented on your dumbass argument that the White House must be involved for the privilege to be invoked (not true) which was compounded by the dumbasser argument that the DOJ and Holder aren't part of the Executive branck (also not true).

Even lower level deliberative processes that do not reach the President are covered by the Executive Privilege, at least according to pretty much every president since Eisenhower. See the link below at pp.. 11 - 13 (of the document, not the pdf):

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL30319.pdf

 

[Bonestorm]

Stop being stupid Dung. Your explanation was nonsensical. You an idiot. You pathetic. Blah blah blah blah.

Holder's communications could be a part of the executive privilege if he was advising the WH on its positions. Or are you claiming that no matter who he is communicating with, he can be covered?

Also, too, below was my explanation as to why Executive Privilege can be invoked even if the President is not involved:

Actually, the answer is yes, he can. The deliberative process of Executive branch personnel is protected by the Executive Privilege (at least as asserted by the Executive branch over time). The president need not be involved.

I don't see anything nonsensical about it. Nor do I see "you an idiot" or "you pathetic" (or "blah blah blah" for that matter). You responded by saying that Holder isn't part of the Executive Branch, which, contrary to my post, was indeed nonsensical.

 

[Jarod]

Where were these Republicas who are outraged when the Bush administration claimed Executive Privldege 6 times?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I already explained that to you, SF. In response you posted some nonsensical shit about the DOJ and Holder not being part of the Executive branch.

Stop being stupid.

I don't think he can.

 

[Damocles]

Where were these Republicas who are outraged when the Bush administration claimed Executive Privldege 6 times?

"They do it too" is a confession, not a defense.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

"They do it too" is a confession, not a defense.

Really? Please explain to me how pointing out the hypocrisy of such a politically based attack, with no evidence to back it up, is a confession?

 

[Jarod]

"They do it too" is a confession, not a defense.

I did not say, they do it too.... I asked where those who are attacking were then?

Personally I belive there is a time for executive privledge but that it is WAY over used and often for self protection. I dont know if this instance is valid or not, we cant know, thats the nature of it. I do know that this administration has used it only once, while other recient administrations have used it excessivly.

I just find the hypocracy coming from this Congress and the media entertaining.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Also, too, below was my explanation as to why Executive Privilege can be invoked even if the President is not involved:

Again... I never said it couldn't if the President is not involved. You just inserted that. I stated the White House. The communications of the DOJ are covered under executive privilege when it involves communication with the WH.

The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III." Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Where were these Republicas who are outraged when the Bush administration claimed Executive Privldege 6 times?

Clinton did it 16 times. It is not the use of executive privilege that is the issue Jarod. It is HOW is it being used.

 

[Damocles]

Really? Please explain to me how pointing out the hypocrisy of such a politically based attack, with no evidence to back it up, is a confession?

Let me explain slowly. Saying, "But mooooom! Bobby was jumping off the roof too!" is not a way to get out of punishment for being stupid, you've confessed.

Let's play the "hypocrisy" game back forever... Where were the Democrats who complained about Bush doing it for waaaaaaay less important matters than acts of war on friendly nations when Clinton did it 14 times...

We can probably go back generations. But the reality is: This is significant, weapons were provided for very bad people who used them to kill Mexican citizens and cops as well as our own border agents... Mexico, rightly, calls this an act of war.

And if the WH was not involved a claim of Executive Privilege is invalid.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Really? Please explain to me how pointing out the hypocrisy of such a politically based attack, with no evidence to back it up, is a confession?

A politically based attack? ROFLMAO... yeah... tell that to Brian Terry's family.

I suppose Iran Contra was just a politically based attack too?

 

[Bonestorm]

Again... I never said it couldn't if the President is not involved. You just inserted that. I stated the White House. The communications of the DOJ are covered under executive privilege when it involves communication with the WH.

Really?

Tell us... can the executive proclaim executive privilege when Obama is not involved? The answer is no... he cannot. I thought that Obama knew nothing about this... so why the exec privilege? hmmmm?

And the White House does not have to be involved. Read the fucking link. And, by the way, U.S. v. Nixon is not relevant (nor is Wikipedia a good source, particularly when you have a perfectly good Congressional Research Service piece on the subject). Here is what the Court said in U.S> v. Nixon:

We are not here concerned with the balance between the President's generalized interest in confidentiality and the need for relevant evidence in civil litigation, nor with that between the confidentiality interest and congressional demands for information, nor with the President's interest in preserving state secrets. We address only the conflict between the President's assertion of a generalized privilege of confidentiality and the constitutional need for relevant evidence in criminal trials.

U.S. v. Nixon applies with respect to the assertion of Executive Privilege in a criminal trial, not with respect to Executive Privilege in response to congressional demands for information.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Really?

I stand corrected. I thought I had stated the Obama admin.

And the White House does not have to be involved. Read the fucking link. And, by the way, U.S. v. Nixon is not relevant (nor is Wikipedia a good source, particularly when you have a perfectly good Congressional Research Service piece on the subject). Here is what the Court said in U.S> v. Nixon:

U.S. v. Nixon applies with respect to the assertion of Executive Privilege in a criminal trial, not with respect to Executive Privilege in response to congressional demands for information.

So we should wait for the Terry family to get an AG to file criminal charges against the Obama admin/Holder? That the act of war should be ignored? That the Obama admin was using the gun running to try and justify stricter gun laws here?

 

[Granule]

Another rabid rightie conspiracy theory shot to hell.

What a relief for the comlibs! The president can't afford another black eye, can he?

 

[Jarod]

Clinton did it 16 times. It is not the use of executive privilege that is the issue Jarod. It is HOW is it being used.

How is it being used? We dont know... thats the point, the reason its being used is kept from us. I dont know if the President is using it approperatly or not, neither do you. I do know that the same people who were not upset when Bush did it 6 times, are screaming now. Its silly politics. I belive that 16 times for Clinton was excessive, but I dont know why they did it, and maybe it was acceptable.