teamosil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,623
- Reaction score
- 2,226
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The things you are talking about cross two different types of classified information. You are talking about Law Enforcement Use only information but trying to describe (poorly) controls given to national security information.
Who cares what I think? I can assure you that I don't care what anyone else thinks. I'm here to see and participate a rational, fact-based debate (yes, I know -- folly). As I told you before, read the Holder-to-Obama letter; it lays out his reasons without any need to fantasize (which would surely involve partisan conspiracy theories).
Barring any evidence to the contrary, we can only assume that what Holder wrote is the truth. It certainly makes sense -- privileged executive communications, are, well, privileged, and each administration has a duty to defend that privilege. If you think his claim is false, or it should not apply in this case, then your remedy is the court system. If you don't like the concept of Executive Privilege, then your remedy is to lobby your legislators to introduce a constitutional amendment banning it.
If your remedy is to create partisan conspiracy theories, please be advised that I have no interest in them and will not address them.
And how did you think that was relevant kiddo? Go ahead, lay out your argument.
It's relevant because you are misrepresenting how the information is routinely handled, youngster.
As I noted above, because it involves an opinion. Trust me, you would not want to know my opinion of other peoples' opinions, for the most part anyway.No, no. The date of the piece of paper is irrelevant. What they contain is likely to describe who knew what and when they knew it. Why else invoke the EP?
Why do you keep avoiding that last question?
As I noted above, because it involves an opinion. Trust me, you would not want to know my opinion of other peoples' opinions, for the most part anyway.
"Who knew what and when" is a red herring. It means nothing unless it contradicts sworn testimony, or if the "what" is illegal. If, in a discussion with Obama, Holder contradicts his sworn testimony then you are out of luck -- you'll never get that piece of paper because of executive privilege (regardless of why it was invoked). Otherwise, "knowing" about F and F is not a crime. Indeed, I have not seen it argued that F and F itself was a crime (I may have seen some wild claims, but no real argument).
Kiddo. If you have an argument, present it. Don't play games trying to get people to guess what argument you think you have.
If you'll source your claim with a particular quote (which shouldn't be difficult) I'll address it. Otherwise, the non-specific nature of generalities preclude any relevant response.You've had no troubles offering opinions about the motives of "the right". why stop now?
But you're never going to get it, for the reasons I've already stated (if Holder made such an admission in a conversation with Obama, it would be privileged). Furthermore, I do wonder why you claim the documents would prove anything.Who knew what and when is not a red herring, it's exceptionally relevant. It would prove that Holder lied to the Congressional oversight committee (which is bad for a number of reasons).
Now you're way out in the Conspiracy Theory End Zone, but you're never going to get that either. Executive privilege would apply.It could also prove that the operation was conceived by the WH (which the Republicans would love) and the American people should know that the Obama administration (if it were true) was behind it.
Listen sweet-cheeks, the point is made. You're trying to pass yourself off as knowledgeable on a subject you clearly are not knowledgeable on. End of story.
Why? Are you asserting it was illegal? If so, in what way?[...] the American people should know that the Obama administration (if it were true) was behind it.
If you'll source your claim with a particular quote (which shouldn't be difficult) I'll address it. Otherwise, the non-specific nature of generalities preclude any relevant response.
Issa is not looking for documents about F and F, or about the death of Agent Terry (again, shame on the right for using his death, and his family, as a political soapbox), he is looking for documents that might indicate a cover up, an intent to punish whistleblowers, or some other admission of knowledge that has not been made public. In other words, he doesn't give a **** about F and F, he's just trying to find some way to damage the administration after the fact.
But you're never going to get it, for the reasons I've already stated (if Holder made such an admission in a conversation with Obama, it would be privileged). Furthermore, I do wonder why you claim the documents would prove anything.
Now you're way out in the Conspiracy Theory End Zone, but you're never going to get that either. Executive privilege would apply.
To sum up, the right (Issa) wants something they know that they'll never get, which gives them the immoral premise to claim that what they can't get -- for perfectly constititutional reasons -- must therefore contain what they implausibly claim it does. It's a nicely constructed paradox, but it is also transparent to any intelligent analysis (which neatly excludes their base and theirpropagandamedia outlets).
Well, obviously you don't have an argument... Sure, national security classified information and law enforcement classified information are different things... No idea how you think that pertains to anything we're talking about though. This is arguably both. Everything I said is equally true of both anyways.
Why? Are you asserting it was illegal? If so, in what way?
No, it isn't equally true of both. For instance, age has nothing to do with clearance just for starters....The point is made, you don't know much beyond Hollywood about classified information.
Well, obviously you don't have an argument.
Just insulting me at random doesn't hide that somehow... You are correct, there is a distinction between national security classified info and law enforcement classified info, but it isn't relevant to anything we're talking about. I get the sense that you just blurted that out and now you've realized it wasn't relevant, but you're just awkward about admitting stuff like that
#1 is a reasonable conclusion based upon the facts presented in the first paragraph. #2 is simply a restatement of #1 in harsher terms while also relying on other public behavior and statements by Issa that are not listed. #3 is clearly an admonition for callous public misbehavior. That Issa is a member of the "right" has no bearing on the facts or my interpretation of them, although many on the "right" are acting in concert with him (or vice versa). However, it is their actions that are analysed here, not their political lean.Well, that's easy:
I only had to go back a few posts to see you offering an opinion...you're right, not difficult.Given that the documents subpoenaed encompass only the time period after 2/4/11, after which the F and F 'scandal' had already broken, and given that Holder assigned an Inspector General to the case sometime in 2/11, and given that Obama spoke publicly about F and F on 3/23/11, then it would be reasonable to assume that the subpoenaed documents would include the actions and communications of the president himself (I would presume he had also been informed of the IG investigation launched in February).
[1] Issa is not looking for documents about F and F, or about the death of Agent Terry ([3] again, shame on the right for using his death, and his family, as a political soapbox), he is looking for documents that might indicate a cover up, an intent to punish whistleblowers, or some other admission of knowledge that has not been made public. [2] In other words, he doesn't give a **** about F and F, he's just trying to find some way to damage the administration after the fact.
Your previous requests were along the lines of why did Obama invoke it. That, of course, is unanswerable by anyone other than Obama.So, what's you're opinion of the use of Executive Privilege?
Unfortunately, you're wrong again. LEUO information is not protected from court cases, nor does it have the strict controls you implied it has. That is a point, not an argument. Basing your argument on your less than perfect understanding of classified material is your problem.
I thought it was common knowledge that all private discussions between the president and his advisors were privileged.:shock: Exactly. It would be privileged "if Holder made such an admission in a conversation with Obama" among others. So, if this is not the case, why is it privileged?
The plan, only minimally different, was "came up with" in 2006. I'm sure you know who the Boss was then. He's already gone. Yes, I know these facts will make you howlWhether or not it was illegal is irrelevant (sorta). That it was an extremely flawed plan is important. If the Boss came up with that plan, it's time for a new boss. [...]
Listen sweet-cheeks, the point is made. You're trying to pass yourself off as knowledgeable on a subject you clearly are not knowledgeable on. End of story.
Moderator's Warning: |
I thought it was common knowledge that all private discussions between the president and his advisors were privileged.
You seem to be arguing that the only such private communications that are privileged are those that show some type of guilt. Rather bizzare, but in line with -- I hate to say it -- typical right wing claims that perfectly constitutional acts, such as invoking the 5th amendment, or simply declining to testify in one's defense, are evidence of guilt. That's not a very patriotic, constitution-supporting view, is it?
Moderator's Warning: Knock off the snarkiness, mac.
Eh, I should knock off the snarkiness too. I was calling him "kiddo" first I think
I thought that all constitutional rights should be protected.Whether or not they are privileged in general is also irrelevant. Why they are being redacted under executive privilege is the issue. We're talking about a law enforcement issue, not a national security issue...why the need to protect it?
Yet wide receiver and F&F were both operated out of the same ATF office.Kinda odd don't you think?:roll:
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?