Let's all not overlook the obvious here... if Holder released all 80,000 documents that Issa wants, then Issa would merely turn around and subpoena another 80,000. The game being played here is clear... even to those playing it.
It's the same of many 'debates' here at DP... a claim is made, a source is demanded, a source is provided, the source is dismissed on superficial grounds and another source is demanded. Ad nauseum.
Fine. It hasn't been asserted. No evidence exists. All the media reports are wrong. The letter written by the Deputy AG ro Rep. Issa asserting the president's EP is a fake (or a hoax) (or the product of total incompetence or delusion on the Deputy AG's part). You win, because what has been provided does not meet your criteria :lamoThat would be wonderful, because then they'd have that excuse. As it is, they don't. And Adam, you still haven't shown where the POTUS has asserted EP. You've got the Atty General saying the president is going to do so. You maybe even have the Atty General requesting that the president assert EP (I say maybe because that doc isn't included in the PDF). But you don't have the POTUS, the only one who has the power to assert EP, claiming it.
I'm not saying he hasn't, just that thus far, it's nowhere to be seen.
From the previously posted http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...2011Letter.pdf
I see where the Atty General is advising the POTUS to claim EP (in the not included letter), and the reasons he thinks it's okay to do so, but that isn't how a declaration of EP works. Where's the president's letter to congress asserting the privilege and explaining the legal reasons for doing so?
Regardless of who is President, I always get annoyed when they invoke executive privilege. I believe in the separation of powers, within reason. I don’t think the executive branch should be allowed to ignore a Congressional subpoena. The Congress represents the People and the Executive Branch is accountable to the People. I don’t give a flip about political party.
If this were like just some transcript of a meeting with a lobbyist or something, I would agree. But this is documents pertaining to our campaign against the drug cartels that are essentially in military control of our immediate neighbor. Protecting that kind of documents is absolutely, squarely, in the center of the kinds of things where the president should legitimately assert privilege. Odds are a guy like Issa would just forward them on to Fox News, but even if he didn't, the cartel would kidnap the little sister of some 19 year old unpaid intern that works for Issa like 5 minutes after they found out Issa got his hands on the documents and they'd have the documents by sundown and Issa wouldn't even know they had been copied. Who knows how many undercovers and informants would be killed that night or how many years our operations against the cartel would be set back.
Your argument seems to presume that Congress has the right to view any Executive branch document that it wishes. Congress does not have that right, as has been argued -- successfully -- by the Executive many times in the past. Security does not necessarily have anything to do with it.There are committees within Congress that have access to classified information on a daily basis. Starting with the 104th Congress, all House members were required to take a secrecy oath. There are methods in place to allow the committee members to view the information without releasing it to the public. If they violate their oath and responsibilities then hold them accountable. As it currently stands it too easy to hide misdoings under the veil of operational secrecy.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Bigger article coming as this just happened.
i find it amazing how this administration is avoiding the government process to investigate the fast and furious debacle. Given this move, I am curious as to the opinions of others on this matter.
If this were like just some transcript of a meeting with a lobbyist or something, I would agree. But this is documents pertaining to our campaign against the drug cartels that are essentially in military control of our immediate neighbor. Protecting that kind of documents is absolutely, squarely, in the center of the kinds of things where the president should legitimately assert privilege. Odds are a guy like Issa would just forward them on to Fox News, but even if he didn't, the cartel would kidnap the little sister of some 19 year old unpaid intern that works for Issa like 5 minutes after they found out Issa got his hands on the documents and they'd have the documents by sundown and Issa wouldn't even know they had been copied. Who knows how many undercovers and informants would be killed that night or how many years our operations against the cartel would be set back.
Your argument seems to presume that Congress has the right to view any Executive branch document that it wishes. Congress does not have that right, as has been argued -- successfully -- by the Executive many times in the past. Security does not necessarily have anything to do with it.
Your argument seems to presume that Congress has the right to view any Executive branch document that it wishes. Congress does not have that right, as has been argued -- successfully -- by the Executive many times in the past. Security does not necessarily have anything to do with it.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Bigger article coming as this just happened.
i find it amazing how this administration is avoiding the government process to investigate the fast and furious debacle. Given this move, I am curious as to the opinions of others on this matter.
Your argument seems to presume that Congress has the right to view any Executive branch document that it wishes. Congress does not have that right, as has been argued -- successfully -- by the Executive many times in the past. Security does not necessarily have anything to do with it.
Rep. Issa is the Joe McCarty of the modern era!!!! He has proven time & again that he isn't interested in gathering facts. An all male hearing on Womans Health for example.(oh sure he rounded up a couple of dryed up old coochies for the 2nd session, after the media complained)
This hearing isn't about the ATF's program, it is about discrediting AG Holder & through him President Obama. Holder closed down the program, yet they (Issa) haven't suppenaed the Bush officals who started the program. They (Issa) have censered their own witnesses when they offered facts that were favorable to the AG. The whole thing is right out of Kaffka & we are tettering on the brink of full blown Fascism.eace
Rep. Issa is the Joe McCarty of the modern era!!!! He has proven time & again that he isn't interested in gathering facts. An all male hearing on Womans Health for example.(oh sure he rounded up a couple of dryed up old coochies for the 2nd session, after the media complained)
This hearing isn't about the ATF's program, it is about discrediting AG Holder & through him President Obama. Holder closed down the program, yet they (Issa) haven't suppenaed the Bush officals who started the program. They (Issa) have censered their own witnesses when they offered facts that were favorable to the AG. The whole thing is right out of Kaffka & we are tettering on the brink of full blown Fascism.eace
It all looks like an assertion of executive privilige to avoid revealing documents that would show lying to congressional oversight. Which is not a proper assertion of E.P.
...dryed up old coochies...
Why dont you take your special little snowflake font and get some new talking points, yours are false.
Wide reciever and F&F were separate programs with different operational knowledge (the Mexican government knew about WR, WR was shut down when the first weapon crossed the Mexican border and could not be tracked). F&F was done without Mexican Government knowledge and even some US agencies had no knowledge of the activities. Anyone parroting the false WR/FF parity talking point is going to get a lot of hostility; even Holder had to back off that point before Congress when he was under oath, he knew it was false.
Why dont you take your special little snowflake font and get some new talking points, yours are false.
Wide reciever and F&F were separate programs with different operational knowledge (the Mexican government knew about WR, WR was shut down when the first weapon crossed the Mexican border and could not be tracked). F&F was done without Mexican Government knowledge and even some US agencies had no knowledge of the activities. Anyone parroting the false WR/FF parity talking point is going to get a lot of hostility; even Holder had to back off that point before Congress when he was under oath, he knew it was false.
Actually, a bunch of weapons were lost in Mexico as a result of Wide Receiver, and they did NOT coordinate the operation with Mexico. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
Emails Rebuff Republican Suggestion That Bush-Era ‘Gun Walking’ Was Always Coordinated With Mexico | TPMMuckraker
Why dont you take your special little snowflake font and get some new talking points, yours are false.
Wide reciever and F&F were separate programs with different operational knowledge (the Mexican government knew about WR, WR was shut down when the first weapon crossed the Mexican border and could not be tracked). F&F was done without Mexican Government knowledge and even some US agencies had no knowledge of the activities. Anyone parroting the false WR/FF parity talking point is going to get a lot of hostility; even Holder had to back off that point before Congress when he was under oath, he knew it was false.
Since we dont have ALL the memos regarding how things have gone down, all we have to go on are the words of Dems playing CYA to blame BOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHH. Seems legit.
Since we dont have ALL the memos regarding how things have gone down, all we have to go on are the words of Dems playing CYA to blame BOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHH. Seems legit.
:lamoBush didn't "start this program". This is an entirely different one. During bush the guns were supposed to be stopped by authorities at the border itself. [...]
The first known ATF "gunwalking" operation to Mexican drug cartels, named Operation Wide Receiver, began in early 2006 and ran into late 2007. Licensed dealer Mike Detty informed the ATF of a suspicious gun purchase that took place in February 2006 in Tucson, Arizona. In March he was hired as a confidential informant working with the ATF's Tucson office, part of their Phoenix, Arizona field division.[23] With the use of surveillance equipment, ATF agents monitored additional sales by Detty to straw purchasers. With assurance from ATF "that Mexican officials would be conducting surveillance or interdictions when guns got to the other side of the border",[24] Detty would sell a total of about 450 guns during the operation.[22] These included AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-pattern rifles, and Colt .38s. The vast majority of the guns were eventually lost as they moved into Mexico.[7][23][25]
ATF gunwalking scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why dont you take your special little snowflake font and get some new talking points, yours are false.
Wide reciever and F&F were separate programs with different operational knowledge (the Mexican government knew about WR, WR was shut down when the first weapon crossed the Mexican border and could not be tracked). F&F was done without Mexican Government knowledge and even some US agencies had no knowledge of the activities. Anyone parroting the false WR/FF parity talking point is going to get a lot of hostility; even Holder had to back off that point before Congress when he was under oath, he knew it was false.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?