Jump to content


House Panel Recommends Contempt Case Against HolderPlease Put all F&F/Contempt posts here...thanks

* * * * - 2 votes
  • You cannot reply to this topic

#21 Draggingtree

  • Members
  • 9,434 posts
  • Texas

Posted 22 June 2012 - 04:09 PM

A Note on ‘Fast and Furious,’ Executive Privilege, and the End of the Obama Administration

June 22, 2012 - 4:51 am - by Roger Kimball
Posted Image


Calm down. The end hasn’t come yet, not quite. But you can feel it coming, a dull, oppressive presence like the heaviness of the air before a storm, or the quickly widening fissures that consumed the House of Usher. Future historians, looking back on the wreck of the Obama administration, will mark with wonder the president’s darkly frivolous assertion of executive privilege this week. It was then, they will say, that his administration, that the president himself, officially entered the Period of Panic and Flailing.
It’s not going to be pretty. Expect a season of recriminations, grandiosities, and sudden reversals. The usual narrative holds that Obama asserted executive privilege, denying Congress the documents it requested in the murderous case of gunwalking called “Fast and Furious” in order to save his Attorney General Eric Holder. Perhaps. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, at the end of the day, this spectacular piece of recklessness wasn’t regarded as the beginning of the end for Eric Holder, who will likely face a Contempt of Congress citation next week. Already, various outlets are preparing the ground by quietly inserting into the discussion the name of Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general under President George W. Bush who was hounded out of office by Democratic zealots after he fired some U.S. attorneys. The idea, I suspect, is to upholster the ground so that when (as I predict) Holder is forced out Obama cheerleaders like the New York Times can resort to the tu quoque strategy: “Well, Bush’s attorney general had to resign, too, and some of his staffers were held in contempt.”
Will the upholstery work? Will it successfully insulate public opinion from the damaging facts of the case? I doubt it. For one thing, the two incidents are screamingly different. As usual, Andy McCarthy outlined the issue with superlative clarity.
[T]he Bush situation involved (a) a non-crime (presidents do not need a reason to fire U.S. attorneys), (B) a non-scandal manufactured into a scandal (Bush 43 fired 8 U.S. attorneys; Clinton had fired 92 of the 93, and for no better reason than partisan patronage after he defeated Bush 41), and © patently improper subpoenas to the president’s personal staffers who are not subject to Senate confirmation and assist him in his constitutional duties. The Obama/Holder situation, to the contrary, involves outrageous government malfeasance in firearms transfers that led to murders, including the killing of a federal agent, and a patently proper subpoena for Posted Image Read More
http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/06/22/a-note-on-fast-and-furious-executive-privilege-and-the-end-of-the-obama-administration/

#22 Draggingtree

  • Members
  • 9,434 posts
  • Texas

Posted 22 June 2012 - 04:41 PM

When Leaders Lie

June 22, 2012 - 12:08 am - by Roger L Simon

How many lies does a man have to tell before we can call him a liar?
The Ancient Romans said only one, when they gave us the legal dictum Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
That was a pretty stringent requirement. Most of us are not George Washington and one wonders if even George was perfect in his honesty, the cherry tree fable notwithstanding.
Barack Obama is another matter. According to Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith (normally a loyal member of the administration’s media claque), no less than thirty-eight documented falsehoods in the president’s memoir Dreams from My Father were revealed by David Maraniss’s new book Barack Obama: The Story.
What’s interesting about those falsehoods (can we call them lies?) is that they were unprovoked. We are used to presidential lies, most notably from Nixon and Clinton, but we know full well why those men were lying. In fact, in their cases it was obvious. In Obama’s, we do not.
Why was he lying? Self-aggrandizement? To sell books? For political purposes? Dreams from My Father was written before Obama supposedly had presidential ambitions. Or was there a hint, dare I say it, of pathology?
Maraniss almost farcically excuses him by saying the young author’s motivation was to make literature. The historian differentiates between memoirs, in which he says untruths are permissible, and autobiography. As a recent author of a memoir, permit me to say that is utter nonsense. Whether you are writing a memoir or an autobiography (not that there is much difference in their dictionary definitions other than length), you are well aware that others who know the real story could be reading and judging it. You lie at your peril. Obama did so anyway.
Despite being a professional historian, Maraniss is evidently unable to free himself from membership in that same administration claque. (For the view of another professional historian, see my colleague Ron Radosh.) Maraniss may have delivered the facts, or some of them, but he has tried to explain them away in a manner that is both tendentious and ridiculous. You don’t have to be an Ancient Roman to believe there are a lot more lies where those 38 came from. You don’t even have to think, as some do, that Obama didn’t even write the original book by himself, although that accusation is becoming suddenly more credible. Recent events have made them so. (Maraniss should be embarrassed – future historians beware.)
When I speak of “recent events,” I am of course referring to the sudden invocation of executive privilege in the matter of the Fast & Furious scandal in which the president has associated himself with that other documented liar, Posted Image Read More
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/06/22/when-leaders-lie/


#23 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 37,876 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 22 June 2012 - 07:41 PM

Contribute to the Brian Terry Foundation

Thank you for supporting the Brian Terry Foundation. Your donation will make possible the ability to honor the memory of slain United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and to create a living legacy in his name.

The foundation will seek to honor Brian by providing college scholarships; providing emotional and financial assistance to families of injured and slain Border Patrol agents; raising public awareness of the Fast and Furious investigation; promoting a message of justice, responsibility and accountability within the federal government; recognizing Border Patrol agents for excellence and bravery; and hosting public events that honor Brian Terry's life.

If you prefer to contribute by mail, please make checks out to:

The Brian Terry Foundation, 2575 E Camelback Road, Dept#3, Phoenix, AZ 85016

#24 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 37,876 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 23 June 2012 - 08:16 AM

W.H.: Ex-staffer can't be questioned on Fast and Furious
Sharyl Attkisson
6/22/12

(CBS News) The White House said a former National Security staffer who communicated with ATF's Special Agent in charge of "Fast and Furious" cannot be interviewed by Congressional investigators.

The ATF Special Agent, Bill Newell, testified to Congress in July 2011 that he's a longtime friend with then-White House National Security Staffer Kevin O'Reilly. The two emailed and talked on the phone during the controversial Fast and Furious gunwalking operation, according to documents and Newell's testimony to Congress.

In one email exchange about Fast and Furious on Feb. 11, 2011 O'Reilly asked Newell, "Would ATF be willing to put you or others in front of US media that gets pickup in Mexico (CNN en Espanol, perhaps) to tell this story?"

(Snip)

#25 pollyannaish

  • Board Member
  • 19,686 posts
  • Washington

Posted 23 June 2012 - 11:28 AM

What the.....? It's almost like they are saying "we don't want you to talk to anyone who had anything to do with this." :rolleyes:

#26 cudjo

  • Members
  • 6,376 posts
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 June 2012 - 11:57 AM

What the.....? It's almost like they are saying "we don't want you to talk to anyone who had anything to do with this." Posted Image


That is what they are saying

#27 pollyannaish

  • Board Member
  • 19,686 posts
  • Washington

Posted 23 June 2012 - 12:12 PM

And you know... When my kids used to do that, I believed there was nothing to worry about. Ha! :lol:


What the.....? It's almost like they are saying "we don't want you to talk to anyone who had anything to do with this." Posted Image


That is what they are saying



#28 Draggingtree

  • Members
  • 9,434 posts
  • Texas

Posted 23 June 2012 - 12:20 PM

June 22, 2012 12:00 A.M.
May Obama Claim Executive Privilege?
In any case, justice requires answers about Fast and Furious.
By Fred Thompson

The investigation into Operation Fast and Furious by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has resulted in President Obama’s invoking executive privilege for the first time. Attorney General Eric Holder has been waltzing the committee around, producing only selected documents about the botched Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) gun-running operation, and (you guessed it) blaming the Bush administration for having knowledge of similar activities. This charge was so clearly erroneous that Holder later withdrew it. The showdown between Holder and the committee culminated on Wednesday in a vote to hold Holder in contempt. Shortly before the vote, Obama claimed executive privilege in order to prevent the production of the subpoenaed documents.
Issues as to the proper use of presidential executive privilege have arisen many times, since almost every modern president has used it at one time or another. Interestingly, no mention of executive privilege is found in the Constitution, and neither is any of the right of Congress to investigate. But the Supreme Court has recognized both as implied powers, inherent in the powers that are given to both branches by the Constitution.
With regard to executive privilege, the courts have recognized a qualified privilege to protect communications between the president and executive officials, as well as deliberations that go into advice given to the president. George W. Bush successfully claimed the privilege with regard to matters pertaining to presidential adviser Karl Rove, White House counsel Harriet Miers, and Vice President Dick Cheney. Presidents have, on occasion, cast an even wider net over executive-branch action, but I am not aware of any court case that has upheld the right to treat communications between people who work in a department, such as Justice, as privileged. In fact, recently the D.C. Court of Appeals held just the opposite.
Nevertheless, I believe these intra-department communications arePosted Image Read More
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/303695/may-obama-claim-executive-privilege-fred-thompson

#29 Draggingtree

  • Members
  • 9,434 posts
  • Texas

Posted 23 June 2012 - 12:51 PM

June 23, 2012
Masked and Spurious

D.L. Hammack

Within what used to the hallowed and respected halls of Congress...there amongst the current representatives of the people, are housed the memories of past leaders - the ghosts of the founders of our great country.
While it is certain that none of them could call themselves "angels" or "100% pure," it's a safe bet that if any one of them had partaken in events, let alone even contemplated them, similar to those now being perpetrated by the Department of Justice and the ideologically motivated Attorney General, either a firing squad would have been convened or the gallows would have been set up and a pine box would be under construction.
Isn't it bad enough that he has chosen which laws to enforce and which to overlook? If justice is blind, then why is it that this man sees crime in two colors: black and white? The murder of an American citizen was committed using a weapon that was supplied - to members of one of the most notorious drug cartels - by this government...OUR government and yet we're being told that there's nothing here to see...just keep moving!
As his testimony would have you believe; He didn't know anything about F &F (for the benefit of the AG and to clarify; F & F refers to Fast And Furious) until he heard about it on the news. He would have us believe that subordinates of his, far down the chain of command, acted on their own volition and created a program that traversed the borders of a neighboring country...without so much as a nod from their superiors or a phone call to Mexican officials? And, to top it all off, after all of these acts of what could be construed as treason (providing either intelligence or the means to kill a uniformed American officer), nobody has been fired or brought up on charges? Mr. Holder, this is America-not Venezuela!
Since the House subcommittee hearings won't be persuaded to go away with the specious stories told by this cabinet member, he now has called in his hole card: The President of the United States. We are now being sold on this bill of goods: The AG didn't know anything about this operation, nor did the President. Yet, it has been deemed necessary and the call has been harkened for these documents to be protected from prying eyes due to Executive Privilege.
Let me get this straight: 1) Neither of these (snip)


Read more: http://www.americant...l#ixzz1ydyDPFBY

#30 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 37,876 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 23 June 2012 - 01:02 PM

June 22, 2012 12:00 A.M.
May Obama Claim Executive Privilege?
In any case, justice requires answers about Fast and Furious.
By Fred Thompson


Nevertheless, I believe these intra-department communications are precisely the kind of documents that Obama is claiming are privileged. If in fact the documents, or some of them, were sent to the president or his White House aides, then the president’s claim would be stronger. But it would also mean he or his staff was much more involved in Fast and Furious than anyone knew.
The money quote

#31 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 37,876 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 23 June 2012 - 01:24 PM



#32 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 37,876 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 23 June 2012 - 02:07 PM

Bill Maher explains it all to you...or something like that
Maher on GOP’s Fast and Furious crusade: ‘Republicans don’t care about dead Mexicans’
Jeff Poor
6/22/12

On Friday’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, panelists debated the relevance of the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal and the competence of Attorney General Eric Holder.

Maher assumed much of his audience was unaware of the details about the scandal, so he gave them a refresher before unloading his own opinion.

“[House oversight committee Chairman] Darrell Issa says this is a giant scandal,” Maher said. “I’ve heard on Fox News this week it’s worse than Watergate because 200 Mexicans have died. First of all, let me just say Republicans don’t care about dead Mexicans, A. And B — I think those 200 dead Mexicans would be dead even if we hadn’t sold them guns. They would have gotten the guns somewhere else. So is it really a scandal?”

(Snip)
(Video at link)

Then Rachel 'the smirk queen' Maddow gives we the great unwashed the benefit of her incredibly deeply informed take on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eugYzlzFycs

#33 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 37,876 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 24 June 2012 - 05:58 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFIpoL3jrfo



Another view....
Power Line: Was Fast and Furious intended to promote gun control?
Paul Mirengoff
6/23/12

As John notes here, Bill Whittle is arguing that the Fast and Furious program was an effort by the Obama administration to increase bloodshed in Mexico and thereby lead to tougher gun control regulation in the U.S. This theory has been around for a while, and may receive a wider hearing now that Obama has asserted a weak privilege claim to prevent the disclosure of some Fast and Furious documents.

The theory cannot be ruled out. However, I don’t find it persuasive.

(Snip)

But what about the cover-up, including the assertion of a weak executive privilege claim? Bill Whittle says that to understand it, we should follow the ideology. In reality, cover-ups typically stem from a quintessentially non-ideological motive – the desire to escape blame and stay out of trouble.

(Snip)

(As always the comments are enlightening)
So Plot or Screw Up..or a combination of the two?

#34 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 37,876 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 24 June 2012 - 06:04 AM



#35 Draggingtree

  • Members
  • 9,434 posts
  • Texas

Posted 24 June 2012 - 09:02 AM

Saturday Night Card Game (MSNBC Swarm attack in effect)


Posted by William A. Jacobson Saturday, June 23, 2012 at 6:10pm


Whenever military operations are non-linear, dispersed, and decentralized, swarming is an effective tactic….Swarming occurs when several units conduct a convergent attack on a target from multiple axes. Attacks can be either long range fires or close range fire and hit-and-run attacks. Swarming can be pre-planned or opportunistic. Swarming usually involves pulsing where units converge rapidly on a target, attack and then re-disperse.”
When a predator strikes a school of fish, the group is capable of scattering in patterns that make it almost impossible to track any individual. It might explode in a flash, create a kind of moving bubble around the predator, or fracture into multiple blobs, before coming back together and swimming away.” (snip) See The Six Videos at link below http://legalinsurrec...tack-in-effect/

#36 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 37,876 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:33 AM

Issa: No evidence of White House coverup

WASHINGTON, June 25 (UPI) -- The House has no evidence the White House was involved in a coverup of a botched U.S. gun-trafficking operation, a Republican lawmaker leading the probe said.

The acknowledgment by House oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., differed from a statement by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who alleged Thursday President Barack Obama's decision to invoke executive privilege over documents related to the committee's probe of the gun-tracking operation, known as "Operation Fast and Furious," indicated top administration officials were involved in withholding information.

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

When Issa was asked on "Fox News Sunday" if the committee had evidence White House officials knowingly misled Congress or were involved in a coverup, he said, "No, we don't."

(Snip)

I guess this is supposed to mean something...what that is I'm not sure.
Also the question is still to be answered...Why did Obama do this?


#37 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 37,876 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:35 AM

Draggingtree

Good thing there's no coordination or anything. Posted Image

#38 NCTexan

  • Members
  • 7,950 posts
  • North Carolina

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:32 AM

Both statements can be factual and not in conflict....

The House has no evidence the White House was involved in a coverup of a botched U.S. gun-trafficking operation, a Republican lawmaker leading the probe said.


May be true that they currently have no evidence that the WH was involved in the ongoing coverup that was being investigated.

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


An admission of guilt by actions in not necessarily evidence in the legal sense of the word... but probably a good indication that can be inferred from Barry's actions. This may be an action to prevent the committee from actually obtaining evidence.

#39 nickydog

  • Members
  • 12,823 posts
  • Colorado

Posted 25 June 2012 - 11:27 AM

Both statements can be factual and not in conflict....

The House has no evidence the White House was involved in a coverup of a botched U.S. gun-trafficking operation, a Republican lawmaker leading the probe said.


May be true that they currently have no evidence that the WH was involved in the ongoing coverup that was being investigated.

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


An admission of guilt by actions in not necessarily evidence in the legal sense of the word... but probably a good indication that can be inferred from Barry's actions. This may be an action to prevent the committee from actually obtaining evidence.


My thoughts as well, but far better expressed than what my pea brain was able to put together.

#40 Valin

  • Board Member
  • 37,876 posts
  • Minnesota

Posted 25 June 2012 - 11:27 AM

NCTexan

I have no doubt that Rachel Maddow is even as we speak gathering her facts and applying the awesome power of her intellect and her devastating smirk to crush your argument!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users