No deal: After meeting, Issa says contempt vote on Holder is still on

posted at 8:01 pm on June 19, 2012 by Allahpundit

Issa wants extensive documents, Holder’s offering a few documents plus, er, a briefing. If he doesn’t change his tune by 10 a.m. tomorrow, the contempt vote is happening.

This is some game of chicken they’re playing here.

The announcement Tuesday night by committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., followed a closed-door meeting at the Capitol between Issa and other Republican and Democratic lawmakers with Holder at the U.S. Capitol. Issa described himself as disappointed and still hoping for a breakthrough…

Holder, speaking in the Capitol Rotunda to reporters, said he had come “in good faith” and that he had made a number of documents, specifically those from February to December of 2011, available.

Asked if he thought he and his department could avoid the contempt vote, Holder said, “The ball’s in their court.”

But Issa said, “Today, the Attorney General informed us that the Department would not be producing those documents. The only offer they made involved us ending our investigation.”

Remember, Boehner’s reportedly not thrilled with the idea of F&F hearings sucking up lots of political oxygen during the campaign. That’s what Holder’s counting on, I assume — that Issa will either find some excuse at the last minute to avert the contempt vote at the committee level or that, if the committee does vote, Boehner will somehow bury the contempt recommendation before it comes before the full House for a vote. (Follow the last link and you’ll see that even if the House votes to hold Holder in contempt, there’s always a chance that they’ll reach a deal on the documents with the DOJ before the inevitable court battle occurs.)

Remind me again why Boehner’s worried about this investigation blowing up. The media covers it sparingly and with the greatest reluctance for obvious partisan reasons, so it’s not as if Romney’s daily stump speeches about the economy will be bumped off cable news. At best, it’s a signal to voters about serious transparency problems at the DOJ over a deadly serious scandal. At worst, it’s something that the media continues to ignoring because it’s potentially too damaging to their boyfriend. It’s not as if the House is busy with other matters right now either. I don’t quite get it.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Holder’s position that all of these documents are covered by executive privilege as “internal deliberations” takes that idea to the extreme whereby all internal communications at an executive agency are privileged from congressional oversight, which is absurd.

Monkeytoe on June 20, 2012 at 7:44 AM

That’s his story and he’s sticking to it.

Drudge says Holder is asking Obama for executive privilege on the F&F documents. Let’s see, what are the odds that Obama will decline that request? Anyone?

totherightofthem on June 20, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Obama will grant it and then what happens?

Fallon on June 20, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Drudge says Holder is asking Obama for executive privilege on the F&F documents. Let’s see, what are the odds that Obama will decline that request? Anyone?

totherightofthem on June 20, 2012 at 9:58 AM

What happens if Obama says yes? Can the House GOP do anything about that?

Doughboy on June 20, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Holy s**t.

RT @RyanRuggiero: President Obamas has asserted executive privilege over the documents sought by a House committee -NBC

Stack the DREAM Act on top of this constitutional crisis, and fill the sandwich with whatever reaction Obama will have to a potential ObamaCare destruction by SCOTUS…and you have Nixon II, The Revenge.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM

@DarrellIssa #FastAndFurious Contempt starting soon at http://t.co/3XfUts68 TUNE IN

Flora Duh on June 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Holder is asking Obama for executive privilege. This pretty much proves that F&F goes all the way to the White House.

The Rogue Tomato on June 20, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Most transparent administration in the history of administrations.

hoosiermama on June 20, 2012 at 10:11 AM

This pretty much proves that F&F goes all the way to the White House.

The Rogue Tomato on June 20, 2012 at 10:09 AM

And, away we go… Obama invoked EP.

Fallon on June 20, 2012 at 10:13 AM

The process is not fast but the dithering by Boehner and the stonewalling by Holder certainly has made me furious.

Happy Nomad on June 20, 2012 at 7:10 AM

What evidence do you have that Boehner has been dithering on F&F?

Also, Andrew Napolitano just said on Fox News that 0bamessiah doesn’t have the authority to declare executive privilege on the F&F docs…

Bizarro No. 1 on June 20, 2012 at 10:16 AM

where is Kevin O’Reilly?

ted c on June 20, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Arbitrary use of executive privilege? Dubya’s legacy. Now the fun comes in seeing the right twist and turn to criticize Bush’s favorite phrase. What’s good for the goose…

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Maybe Holder imagined that the power of his commanding Howard Sprague presence would sway Issa. Har. Or he tried for a Tom Hagen, either-your-signature-or-your-brains-on-this-agreement thing and Issa told him to take a hike. Either way, these people, I swear. What planet are they from? How much time did this little gambit run off the clock? A day?

curved space on June 20, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Cheney, energy meetings, executive privilege….even Fox news just brought it up.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Flora Duh on June 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Thanks for the link. Maybe they should file contempt against B.O.

bluefox on June 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

..despite what idiots like Verbulace say…
Monkeytoe on June 20, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Though I find name-calling juvenile, I appreciate that I’ve struck a chord.
But in your post here…you somewhat support what I’ve been saying.
To simplify my position here – yes, I see it as a politically motivated with hunt. I think it’s just one spoke in the wheel of an agenda to ‘get Obama’ via Holder. It’s almost become prerequisite in the right blogosphere world that you must be convinced of at least 5 things Holder is criminally guilty of (I think Michelle Malkin might see that as a very low number.).
But yes…indeed probable cause is not needed, and politically motivated ‘investigations’ are allowed and run of the mill cliches for both parties. But that doesn’t insulate them from being called out for it.
So sure…bring contempt charges, call witnesses, demand documents.
And by all means, stay fully silent on any specific charges or accusations. Suggest personal culpability in the tragic death or a border control agent, unfettered by decency. Express (selective) outrage about the ‘deaths of Mexican citizens’…in a drug war…that your party fully supports and advocates for.
Remain blind to the irony and hypocrisy of such ‘concern’.
And If saner minds in the GOP shut down the ‘witch hunt’, come up with a fresher even more sinister conspiracy theory as to why they would do such a thing.
And while purporting to report on this without bias, drop lines like ‘..it’s something that the media continues to ignore because it’s potentially too damaging to their boyfriend… ‘

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Arbitrary use of executive privilege? Dubya’s legacy. Now the fun comes in seeing the right twist and turn to criticize Bush’s favorite phrase. What’s good for the goose…

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day…

This, and the anti-’terrorist’ ‘laws’ that are now being used by liberal thugs against conservatives. I tried to warn people this would eventually happen when the political pendulum swung the other way…but everyone was too mad to think.

MelonCollie on June 20, 2012 at 10:22 AM

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Are you saying that Obama has arbitrarily invoked EP?

Fallon on June 20, 2012 at 10:23 AM

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

You’re really doing a fantastic job of assuring the community that you’re not conservative. From uttering phrases like “gun fanboy” to “witch hunt” to describe a scandal where ATF Agents sold firearms to Mexican drug cartels, those weapons were used in multiple murders including a US Border Patrol agent, and the administration is covering up the evidence with executive privilege, nobody will mistake you as having any respect or interest in the Constitution.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Cheney, energy meetings, executive privilege….even Fox news just brought it up.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM

They also brought up the outrage that came from the left when that happened, didn’t they?

Where’s your outrage now, or are you going to prove what all of us already know, you’re a sanctimonious liberal hypocrite?

Flora Duh on June 20, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Are you saying that Obama has arbitrarily invoked EP?

Fallon on June 20, 2012 at 10:23 AM

I’m saying that the Obama Administration’s actions are the inevitable consequence of the massive expansion of executive power under the Bush Administration that conservatives cheerleaded. Any criticisms of Obama on this from the right are massively hypocritical.

I don’t approve of Obama’s use of EP in this case, but I also don’t approve of Issa’s investigation. Fast and Furious was a “sting” operation, its been part of police tactics for a very long time. Its a program that began under the previous administration. And, can we add, Darrel Issa is a complete crook himself.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:27 AM

They also brought up the outrage that came from the left when that happened, didn’t they?

Which is hilarious. Are they arguing that the left was right to be outraged? Even though their position at the time was to defend the Administration?

Where’s your outrage now, or are you going to prove what all of us already know, you’re a sanctimonious liberal hypocrite?

Flora Duh on June 20, 2012 at 10:27 AM

My outrage is reserved for issues that actually matter, this issue could not be less important to me. I would be interested in a real debate about the immorality of “sting” operations within law enforcement. I’d be interested in a discussion on how F&F indicates the War on Drugs is a failure. Instead, we have an incredibly dumb set of hearings about wrangling between White House and Congress.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:31 AM

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Who do you believe your ramblings are benefitting? It’s just not possible here that Holder’s been stonewalling because he’s guilty of unethical behavior, is it, because Democrats never play politics, do they? ROFL

You continue to be a babbling, projecting, hypocritical, intellectually dishonest partisan hack who doesn’t want to know why those guns were allowed to walk w/o being allowed to be tracked, or why 0bamessiah’s administration has felt the need to retaliate against ATF agents who tried to get those guns to be tracked.

The truth is, you don’t care that 0bamessiah and Holder are liars like you are…

Bizarro No. 1 on June 20, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Why didn’t Holder/Obama invoke EP right off the bat? Something to hide. This corruption is worse than Watergate IMO.

ArtVandelay on June 20, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Where’s your outrage now, or are you going to prove what all of us already know, you’re a sanctimonious liberal hypocrite?

Flora Duh on June 20, 2012 at 10:27 AM

But Flora,
Does that not make you ‘sanctimonious right-wing hypocrite’?
Therein lies the rub…y’know?

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM

My outrage is reserved for issues that actually matter

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Tell that to the family of the slain Border Patrol agent…

PatriotRider on June 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM

but everyone was too mad to think.

MelonCollie on June 20, 2012 at 10:22 AM

An honest evaluation of the right taken advantage of American emotional trauma after 9/11 to expand governmental power? What is this, opposite day?

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Arbitrary use of executive privilege? Dubya’s legacy. Now the fun comes in seeing the right twist and turn to criticize Bush’s favorite phrase. What’s good for the goose…

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Dumbest thing you’ve ever posted here.

A+

Del Dolemonte on June 20, 2012 at 10:35 AM

An honest evaluation of the right taken advantage of American emotional trauma after 9/11 to expand governmental power? What is this, opposite day?

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM

It must be, since you’re actually making sense.

MelonCollie on June 20, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Holder’s request to Obama for Executive Privilege is tantamount to an admission that the President of the United States is a co-conspirator to the murder of Agent Terry and more than 300 Mexican Citizens.

When does #ImpeachObama #InditeObama reach the top of twitter?

CiLH1 on June 20, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Cheney, energy meetings, executive privilege….even Fox news just brought it up.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM
</blockquote
And the international crime,resulting murder, and attempt to dismantle the second amendment, with those energy meetings was??????

Don L on June 20, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Does that not make you ‘sanctimonious right-wing hypocrite’?
Therein lies the rub…y’know?

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Only if you can prove that Bush did, indeed, abuse his executive privilege to the extent that Obama is abusing it, and that Flora knew about it and excused it.

Not that such niggling details matter much to someone like you, I’m sure.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 10:37 AM

this issue could not be less important to me.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Tell that to the family of Brian Terry.

But Flora,
Does that not make you ‘sanctimonious right-wing hypocrite’?
Therein lies the rub…y’know?

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Really? You know what my reaction was to Cheney’s declaration of executive privilege?

Wow, I guess you really are as smart as you think you are.

Flora Duh on June 20, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Tell that to the family of the slain Border Patrol agent…

PatriotRider on June 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Remind me, how have the right treated family members of troops slain in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cindy Sheehan anyone?

Seriously Judge Napolitano? You’re going to cite the Nixon case? Even *after* Dick Cheney (who wasn’t the President) used it to conceal energy hearings. Come on man? No one but the most brainwashed rightwing hack could buy this crap.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:37 AM

My outrage is reserved for issues that actually matter, this issue could not be less important to me.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Government agents knowingly supplied weapons to Mexican drug cartels, and those weapons ended up killing people, including American law enforcement…and that could not be less important to you.

I’d call you a worm, but it doesn’t even begin to cover it.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Its a program that began under the previous administration.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Please get your facts straight:

Fast & Furious did not begin until 2009, months after the end of the Bush administration.

(The Bush administration’s) Wide Receiver’s notion of tracing was night-and-day different from the tracing involved in the reckless gun-walking approach employed by Fast & Furious.

Fast & Furious involved uncontrolled deliveries — of thousands of weapons.

By the time Cornyn was done drawing this stark contrast between Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious, Holder was reduced to conceding, “I’m not trying to equate the two.” That is big of him given that the two cannot be equated. But the attorney general seemed fine with the effort to equate them — to make them one and the same — when it was Schumer asking the questions.

Expect the effort to continue. “Bush did it” may be a tired defense, and in this instance a preposterous one, but it’s the one the Democratic base loves to hear.

Fallon on June 20, 2012 at 10:39 AM

nobody will mistake you as having any respect or interest in the Constitution.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 10:25 AM

You know, MC…
I’m not gonna worry too much about your perception of me.
(And apologies if the ‘gun fanboy’ line upset you. I don’t use ‘gun nut’ because that might understandably offend. I meant ‘fanboy’ rather innocuously…in that you had many guns and knew a lot about firearms, etc. That’s all.)

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:40 AM

I’m saying that the Obama Administration’s actions are the inevitable consequence of the massive expansion of executive power under the Bush Administration that conservatives cheerleaded. Any criticisms of Obama on this from the right are massively hypocritical.

I don’t approve of Obama’s use of EP in this case, but I also don’t approve of Issa’s investigation. Fast and Furious was a “sting” operation, its been part of police tactics for a very long time. Its a program that began under the previous administration. And, can we add, Darrel Issa is a complete crook himself.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:27 AM

You are another intellectually dishonest partisan hack who can’t make a defense of 0bamessiah’s administration’s behavior regarding F&F w/o making personal attacks against those who look at the timeline/all of the facts, and come to a different conclusion than you. What do you believe your commission of that logical fallacy says about you?

If I’m wrong, I challenge you to make your case w/o any personal attacks. Are you up to this challenge? Puhleeeeeease! LOL

Bizarro No. 1 on June 20, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Can anyone who defended Dick Cheney’s use of EP for energy meetings please explain how you’re going to claim that only the President is allowed to claim executive privilege. I’d be really curious to see that. Or is everyone here going to claim, like Flora Duh, that they were outraged at the misuse of executive privilege by the previous Administration.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:41 AM

You know what my reaction was to Cheney’s declaration of executive privilege?

Flora Duh on June 20, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I do not.

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Remind me, how have the right treated family members of troops slain in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cindy Sheehan anyone?

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Oh, okay. So Bush authorized federal agents to give guns to Iraqi insurgents, and one of those guns ended up killing Casey Sheehan?

Oh, that’s right. That’s not how it happened. Your comparison is sickening in its attempt to whitewash what has happened in Fast and Furious. Between this and your nauseating comment about the Texas father who was not charged for killing the child molester who he caught raping his four-year-old daughter, it’s really becoming evident just how twisted a person you are.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Odd, I thought W. only did what Clinton had done. The only difference was the left screamed and thought that W. had stepped on someone’s toes. I mean, it IS the president’s perogative to fire a few judges. When the liberal Congress went after W’s administration, THAT’S when he used EP. It made Congress look like a bunch of whiney kids.

In Obama’s case, there is clear evidence of a cover-up. Holder’s actions (or lack thereof) is in contempt of Congress. After all, what’s there to hide if he acted appropriately? One could argue that he has an ongoing investigation in the works that the Congressional investigation could compromise… but I’m not seeing that here. I see an administration that is desperately trying to cover (and condone) an illegal act by Holder’s office, with knowledge of the entire operation threatening to unfold all the way to the Executive Office.

Now the flash is in the pan, and Obama just shot the musket into the bottom of his rowboat. There’s only one way this will turn out.

Turtle317 on June 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Fallon on June 20, 2012 at 10:39 AM

They know that, yet continue to spout the same BS that Elijah Cummings, Sheila Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters do during the hearings.

Flora Duh on June 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I don’t use ‘gun nut’ because that might understandably offend.

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:40 AM

So you wanted to use “gun nut”, but realized that would make your leftist outlook too obvious. Understood.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM

You are another intellectually dishonest partisan hack who can’t make a defense of 0bamessiah’s administration’s behavior regarding F&F w/o making personal attacks against those who look at the timeline/all of the facts, and come to a different conclusion than you.

I tried to highlight this quote to demonstrate your own hypocrisy, but there was no point. The ENTIRE quote does just that. You make a personal attack and then accuse other people of being unable to make an argument without personal attacks. Seriously?

Also accusing someone of hypocrisy is not a “personal attack.” Hypocrisy is a form of intellectual dishonesty, it suggests that you have different sets of standards for those who you politically agree with and those you politically disagree with. Its an indictment of your any claims that constitutional issues need to be “respected” or “adhered to.” Since you don’t believe that absolutely.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM

…You are another intellectually dishonest partisan hack who can’t make a defense of 0bamessiah’s administration’s behavior…

Bizarro No. 1 on June 20, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Bizarro –
You can’t be that incapable of seeing the irony in that statement.
’0bamessiah’?
Aim away from your foot next time :)

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM

From the University of Chicago School of Law:

In order for executive privilege to be lawfully invoked, “Direct decisionmaking by the President is required. If the President himself is not directly involved, there is no privilege. See In Re Sealed Case. (Cf. Cheney v. USDC, extending the privilege to the Vice President, at least in the context of communications designed to culminate in advice to the President.) Thus the court of appeals has said that the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General cannot ‘be equated with the close presidential advisers’ protected by the privilege. See Judicial Watch.”

“According to the court of appeals in 1974, Congress’ ability to obtain information from the President should be analyzed under the US v. Nixon framework. See Senate Select Committee v. Nixon (1974). This means that a generalized request from Congress, unaccompanied by ‘particularized showings’ of need, will run into trouble. Id.”

“What, in particular, does US v. Nixon mean by a demonstrated, specific need, sufficient to overcome the privilege? The court of appeals has said that a party seeking to overcome the privilege must demonstrate 1) ‘that each discrete group of the subpoenaed material likely contains important evidence’ and 2) ‘that this evidence is not available with due diligence elsewhere.’ In Re Sealed Case.”

It is not enough for a Senate committee to overcome the privilege by saying that it needs materials ‘in order to resolve particular conflicts in the voluminous testimony it has heard, conflicts relating to ‘the extent of malfeasance in the executive branch,’ and, most importantly, the possible involvement of the President himself.’ Id. At least this is so when another committee had the relevant materials, id., and when thse materials could not be shown to be ‘critical to the performance of . . . legislative functions.’ Id. But this is a very narrow ruling in light of presidential release of many materials and the ‘subsequent and on-going investigation of the House Judiciary Committee’ with respect to impeachment.”

Recognizing that we’re dealing with the House Oversight Committee, I’d be interested to see just what happens with this e.p. declaration. I guess the next step is litigation.

totherightofthem on June 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I’m saying that the Obama Administration’s actions are the inevitable consequence of the massive expansion of executive power under the Bush Administration that conservatives cheerleaded.

Bush’s Fault

Any criticisms of Obama on this from the right are massively hypocritical.

Not hypocritcal of the left and Obama though. I mean it isn’t like they were against it before they were for it.

Wrong is wrong. Past bad behavior does not condone future bad behavior.

Holder said he was willing to turn over the documents earlier this week. Now they obviously aren’t willing to. Trying to get to the bottom of F&F is like trying to negotiate with Iran on nukes.

weaselyone on June 20, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Remind me, how have the right treated family members of troops slain in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cindy Sheehan anyone?

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I take it back. THIS is the dumbest thing you’ve ever posted here.

Cindy Sheehan? Your side used her as a Useful Idiot, then tossed her under the bus when her “usefulness” to your Party was exhausted.

Now, if you can give us some credible, multi-sourced examples of the Right “mistreating” family members of those killed in action, we’ll talk. But you can’t, and you know it.

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 20, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Recognizing that we’re dealing with the House Oversight Committee, I’d be interested to see just what happens with this e.p. declaration. I guess the next step is litigation.

totherightofthem on June 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM

I agree.

Turtle317 on June 20, 2012 at 10:48 AM

So you wanted to use “gun nut”, but realized that would make your leftist outlook too obvious. Understood.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM

No.
But whatever.

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Can anyone who defended Dick Cheney’s use of EP for energy meetings please explain how you’re going to claim that only the President is allowed to claim executive privilege. I’d be really curious to see that. Or is everyone here going to claim, like Flora Duh, that they were outraged at the misuse of executive privilege by the previous Administration.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Sure. I can. In fact, I already did. Read what the University of Chicago School of Law had to say on the subject. That issue was litigated and the outcome of the litigation was that executive privilege extends to Veeps when the information sought was used or obtained by the Veep for use in advising the President. In other words, presidential decision-making had to be involved for the information to be considered privileged. So, unless Obama wants to admit he was involved in decision-making vis a vis F&F, the privilege was unlawfully asserted, IMO.

totherightofthem on June 20, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Remind me, how have the right treated family members of troops slain in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cindy Sheehan anyone?

Seriously Judge Napolitano? You’re going to cite the Nixon case? Even *after* Dick Cheney (who wasn’t the President) used it to conceal energy hearings. Come on man? No one but the most brainwashed rightwing hack could buy this crap.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:37 AM

How liberal of you to conveniently change the subject…and while you are explaining yourself to Brian Terry’s family maybe you could also put in your speed dial the 300 dead Mexicans and their families that were killed by this despicable AG…

PatriotRider on June 20, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Oh, okay. So Bush authorized federal agents to give guns to Iraqi insurgents, and one of those guns ended up killing Casey Sheehan?

Seriously? So its wrong for a grieving parent to criticize a President who sent their child into a war on false pretenses, but its totally OK for a grieving parent to criticize a President who was killed by a gun sold in a sting operation started under a previous Administration? Yeah, that’s intellectual consistent /sarc

Oh, that’s right. That’s not how it happened. Your comparison is sickening in its attempt to whitewash what has happened in Fast and Furious.

What’s sickening is that you don’t blink an eye at the tens of thousands of American troops whose lives were either cut short or immeasurably damaged due to a senseless war. But you are *up in arms* at one death using weapons from a U.S. sting operation. I might add that mexican cartels *had access to weapons before Fast and Furious* The point of the program was to discover HOW they gained access to weapons. It did not begin or end their supply. At best it is coincidental that a Fast and Furious tagged gun was the one used by the Mexican cartel when they murdered the border control agent.

Between this and your nauseating comment about the Texas father who was not charged for killing the child molester who he caught raping his four-year-old daughter, it’s really becoming evident just how twisted a person you are.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Oh sorry, I guess I due process is nauseating now.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Oh, and fyi, what I posted from the U of C School of Law was a primer on executive privilege for faculty members, contained in the faculty blog. In fact, what they were doing was debating privilege asserted by Bush on behalf of Rove and Maiers.

totherightofthem on June 20, 2012 at 10:53 AM

The leftist moby’s should really be ignored.

Mr. Arrogant on June 20, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Del Dolemonte on June 20, 2012 at 10:46 AM

In general troops received concern and support all around.
Let’s not distract with false pride and one-upmanship over who supported them more.

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:55 AM

started under a previous Administration

This. I am unaware that F&F was operated under the Bush Administration. I believe that was Wide Receiver, which is an entirely different program.

Even if we ignore that they are separate programs and it is another “Bush Program”, why did the Obama Administration expand the program? Why is Obama claiming EP over a program started by Bush?

For all the hate for Bush and the blaming, Obama certainly fails when it comes to ending Bush’s programs.

It seems like everything that has failed in the Obama Presidency somehow traces back to being a Bush program. I thought you guys elected him because he was going to change the direction

weaselyone on June 20, 2012 at 10:59 AM

That issue was litigated and the outcome of the litigation was that executive privilege extends to Veeps when the information sought was used or obtained by the Veep for use in advising the President.

So the “national security” part of executive privilege was then officially done away with in that litigation? Sweet, good to know the ways the Bush Admin enormously expanded the power of the executive with conservative cheerleading and support. Has Eric Holder claimed the President didn’t know that Fast and Furious existed? Advising the President does not mean the President knew all of the details of the program. Not sure, exactly, what the right hopes to get out of this.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Seriously? So its wrong for a grieving parent to criticize a President who…

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Now you’re deflecting. You’re going off on a tangent about a war that was approved by Congress, and we’re discussing an internal ATF operation that Congress is investigating. You’re deflecting, and you have no shame.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 10:59 AM

The point of the program was to discover HOW they gained access to weapons.

Really? The point of giving guns to drug cartels was to find out where they get guns from?

weaselyone on June 20, 2012 at 11:00 AM

What’s sickening is that you don’t blink an eye at the tens of thousands of American troops whose lives were either cut short or immeasurably damaged due to a senseless war.

A legal war.

But you are *up in arms* at one death using weapons from a U.S. sting operation.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM

An operation that could not possibly be legal.

Say, how about I quote you?

This is what happens to a culture raised on Law and Order.

libfreeordie on June 19, 2012 at 9:59 PM

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 11:01 AM

I’m sorry, Libfreeordie, but I don’t see the relevance of your argument here. The current president could have put a complete halt to all military operations overseas if he had wanted. Of course, Congress could have turned around and declared war right? Uh huh…

But then again, this isn’t the issue now is it? It is a deflection. The initial argument was that Holder failed to cooperate, and the president has invoked EP. Now the president has to show HOW IT IS HIS OFFICE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE OPERATION TO EVEN INVOKE EP, or turn over the documents, which will like REVEAL THE PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT THE WHOLE OPERATION.

For the president, it is like he walked into check-mate. A wise president, IF UNINVOLVED wouldn’t even CONSIDER using EP in a situation like this.

Turtle317 on June 20, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Has Eric Holder claimed the President didn’t know that Fast and Furious existed?

Eric Holder claimed that Eric Holder didn’t know that the program existed, which in turn would mean the President was unaware.

Are you now saying that the President was aware of the program despite previous claims to the contrary? That would certainly be worthy of investigation.

weaselyone on June 20, 2012 at 11:02 AM

When the offense is to announce your next step and then delay moving, this is what you get. Mr. Boehner – you suck.

democratsarefools on June 20, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Not sure, exactly, what the right hopes to get out of this.

Truth.

weaselyone on June 20, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I tried to highlight this quote to demonstrate your own hypocrisy, but there was no point. The ENTIRE quote does just that. You make a personal attack and then accuse other people of being unable to make an argument without personal attacks. Seriously?

Also accusing someone of hypocrisy is not a “personal attack.” Hypocrisy is a form of intellectual dishonesty, it suggests that you have different sets of standards for those who you politically agree with and those you politically disagree with. Its an indictment of your any claims that constitutional issues need to be “respected” or “adhered to.” Since you don’t believe that absolutely.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM

lol you have this backwards – by attacking a group of people as hypocrites, you are attacking them by going after their presumed motives, which is personal i.e. you’re asserting they are not credible somehow.

Even if someone on the Right were being hypocritical about this, does it necessarily follow that their charges against 0bamessiah’s administration are false? Not only that, accusing someone of hypocrisy does not make it so, and, how can do you deny that your gratituous attack against Issa had anything to do with the charges he’s making?

You are an abusive liar who wants to change the subject…

Bizarro No. 1 on June 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Not sure, exactly, what the right hopes to get out of this.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Uh, getting rid of our corrupt lying scumbag of an Attorney General? Getting some justice for the federal agent who was killed by guns our Justice Department provided to the dirtballs who murdered him? Probably something like that.

eyedoc on June 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Anyone notice how libfreeordie doesn’t remember Casey Sheehan, only his hard-left mother, the activist?

We remember Brian Terry, the man who was actually killed…not some activist that turned the death into her own political stardom.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Now you’re deflecting. You’re going off on a tangent about a war that was approved by Congress, and we’re discussing an internal ATF operation that Congress is investigating. You’re deflecting, and you have no shame.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Not deflecting. If you recall the “grieving parents” issue wasn’t raised by me. I said this particular issue truly doesn’t matter to me. And someone said “yeah tell that to the border patrol agent’s grieving parents.” Why was that the response to my disinterest in the story? It was attempt to shame me, to make it seem as if I didn’t care about this lost life and that this loss of life was reason enough to investigate potential malfeasance in Fast and Furious. And yet, when the left pointed to people like Cindy Sheehan (thousands of other grieving parents) as reason enough to challenge the efficacy of the war the right responded, as dear Del already has, by calling them ugly names like “useful idiot.” No doubt if I called these parents similar names you’d go back on your shtick about how I’m a despicable human being. In other words, your attempt to make this about who’s more sympathetic to grieving parents more is confounded by the very recent history of the right being horrible to grieving parents who chose to speak out against those wars. Sort of like how your howls about executive privilege misuse are confounded by the right’s full throated support of *every* invocation of EP by W and his cronies.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM

So its wrong for a grieving parent to criticize a President who sent their child into a war on false pretenses

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Ever read the 2002 Iraq Authorization, Kid? Obviously not.

That document, signed off on by Congress (including the idiot the Democrats ran for President in 2004, as well as our current Democrat Secretary of State) listed 12 reasons to go into Iraq. Not just WMDs.

Were those other 11 reasons “false pretenses” as well?

PS: Bush didn’t hold a gun to Sheehan’s son and force him to join the military. He did so of his own volition.

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Nooooooo. . .. Read the primer I posted. You might learn something. Cheney’s case was litigated, meaning a court of law made the decision regarding the extent of the privilege in that case. Besides, national security has never been the sole basis for invoking executive privilege. See, Clinton, William J. His assertion of privilege hardly invoked national security. Come up with something new.

totherightofthem on June 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM

But then again, this isn’t the issue now is it? It is a deflection. The initial argument was that Holder failed to cooperate, and the president has invoked EP. Now the president has to show HOW IT IS HIS OFFICE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE OPERATION TO EVEN INVOKE EP, or turn over the documents, which will like REVEAL THE PRESIDENT KNEW ABOUT THE WHOLE OPERATION.

For the president, it is like he walked into check-mate. A wise president, IF UNINVOLVED wouldn’t even CONSIDER using EP in a situation like this.

Turtle317 on June 20, 2012 at 11:02 AM

A persuasive argument, I started the morning thinking that the political side of this was Obama’s to win. Let the right pull a full-out Clinton impeachment self destruct bomb that may give their base the jollies but will read like petty foolishness to the middle. Now my partner, who is pretty oblivious to politics, just e-mailed me asking “what’s this Fast and Furious thing all about” so the next few weeks of media coverage is going to be pretty critical. I still think that Issa et al look pretty lame for pushing this while claiming that jobs matter, and I doubt it actually moves the needle. But it would’ve potentially moved the needle more for Obama had they simply let Issa run his kangaroo court.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 11:12 AM

And yet, when the left pointed to people like Cindy Sheehan (thousands of other grieving parents) as reason enough to challenge the efficacy of the war the right responded, as dear Del already has, by calling them ugly names like “useful idiot.” *every* invocation of EP by W and his cronies.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Tell us again why your side threw Cindy under the bus after her usefulness had ended.

By the way, you have been bleating on and on here about how Bush used EP. Were you upset at him for using EP to protect former Democrat Attorney General Janet Reno as well? That was one of his very first uses of EP.

And how about when Bush used EP to protect former Democrat President Bill Clinton? Was that a “bad” use of EP by Bush?

Don’t forget, Kid, some of the other uses by Bush of EP were forced by your Democrats. They spent 8 years litigating against him.

And what about Democrat President Bill Clinton? His use of EP was legendary, especially when he and his high priced lawyers dreamed up an imaginary EP for his Secret Service agents to prevent them from spilling the beans on him. That claim was laughed out of court.

Del Dolemonte on June 20, 2012 at 11:13 AM

It was attempt to shame me, to make it seem as if I didn’t care about this lost life and that this loss of life was reason enough to investigate potential malfeasance in Fast and Furious.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM

How many people need to die before we can investigate ATF members selling thousands of guns to drug cartels with no controls or ability to prevent them being used in a crime?

I’m surprised you haven’t dropped the “it started under Bush” canard. Perhaps you are smart enough to know that Operation Wide Receiver involved tight, controlled conditions where the ATF did NOT supply anything to cartels, but merely allowed illegal exchanges, without their interference, to take place. Once they happened, conditions were tight enough that the criminals could be quickly arrested and no crimes would occur as a result of the exchange.

Fast and Furious is exactly the opposite. There were no controls. The guns were owned by the US government, transferred into the hands of drug cartels, and no controls were in place to prevent those guns from being used in crimes. Instead, they simply waited for the guns to be used in crimes. Then, when the guns were found by law enforcement, they traced the path back to the original purchase.

Once again:

ATF agents gave guns to drug cartels and waited for them to be used in crimes.

How you can define that as anything other than complicity in murder and other crimes is utterly astonishing.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM

We remember Brian Terry, the man who was actually killed…not some activist that turned the death into her own political stardom.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I have to say. You are *truly* the most sanctimonious person I’ve ever (digitally) encountered. It is *amazing* the level to which you pat yourself on the back after you ascend the heights of your own personally tailored moral standards. Like seriously, bravo.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Del Dolemonte on June 20, 2012 at 11:13 AM

If you already know that both congressional investigations and uses of EP are purely political then why do you expect anything to come out of this other than further confirmation that our political system has serious flaws? My argument was never that Obama’s use of EP in this case is justified. My argument is that the right was thrilled about EP in any instance…until they weren’t. Look at the serious *nuance* you’re having to engage in to distinguish between these uses of EP, it doesn’t fly politically.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 11:18 AM

But it would’ve potentially moved the needle more for Obama had they simply let Issa run his kangaroo court.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I don’t think Issa and the Republicans want to get into this right now. The trouble is, now they have to because of the stonewalling and the president (foolishly IMO) invoking EP. I honestly don’t think the needle is going to move in favor or against anyone at this point – it just brings up a very bad taste in everyone’s mouth at the prospect of another Watergate-like scandal. Nobody likes this thing. It is ugly, messy, and has yucky written all over it that nobody wants to touch.

But Issa, TO HIS CREDIT, knows he is OBLIGATED to follow through this pile of ick, and follow through with it NO MATTER WHAT THE POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS ARE – even in an election year, no less.

You simply don’t find many politicians that will stick their necks out like that.

Turtle317 on June 20, 2012 at 11:20 AM

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Translated: “I can’t answer Del’s question”.

Once again. Why did your side discard Cindy Sheehan after her usefulness had expired?

Del Dolemonte on June 20, 2012 at 11:20 AM

I have to say. You are *truly* the most sanctimonious person I’ve ever (digitally) encountered. It is *amazing* the level to which you pat yourself on the back after you ascend the heights of your own personally tailored moral standards. Like seriously, bravo.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM

One does not require sanctimony to recognize that Cindy Sheehan’s fame was built on boosting her name, not making people remember who Casey was. She’s a press slut, nothing more, and if she could have found any other flashpoint for her political career, she’d have snapped it up.

Again, we’re remembering the victim. Most libs I’ve met, including you, do not mention Casey…the victim. You remember only the activist mother because you agree with her. You have no intellectual integrity on this matter, because of your clear and distinct hypocrisy.

And just remember…calling you a hypocrite isn’t a “personal attack”, according to you(you’re wrong).

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 11:24 AM

libfreeordie, I ask you, what objective standard, free from your ego or of those you are assailing, can you point to which is reflected in your posts here? I say, you are a terrible debater!

I’ll rephrase what I said to you so that you can’t avoid the topic w/o proving yourself to be a hack. True, or false: calling people hypocrites, instead of deconstructing their arguments impersonally, is itself a diversionary, personal attack.

If you answer that, “false”, then explain to us how calling people hypocrites is an impersonal deconstruction of their arguments.

This isn’t difficult – stick to facts and keep people’s “motives” from being your focus, or show yourself to be the partisan, intellectually dishonest hack I accused you of being…

Bizarro No. 1 on June 20, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Most Transparent administration evah,
beclowning, er, ah, like I said, er, ah,like I’ve always said, becoming more transparent everyday!

ConcealedKerry on June 20, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Well i guess its too late for mitt to give that speech in san Deigo and El Paso asking Obama to tell Holder to cooperate now huh?

I guess he will have to change it slightly to:

“well, folks, you remember we have to pass it to find out whats in it? Now I guess we will have to vote them out of office to find out who did it!”

Nothing good happens in the dark, but this administration sure looks like they prefer to keep us there!”

ConcealedKerry on June 20, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Stack the DREAM Act on top of this constitutional crisis, and fill the sandwich with whatever reaction Obama will have to a potential ObamaCare destruction by SCOTUS…and you have Nixon II, The Revenge.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM

More like …

Zombie Nixon – The Full Monty

With all due respect, a suggestion with regard verbaluce and libreeeordie …

… these trolls (and who knows, maybe it is their full time job) have zero interest on a discussion of the merits of how executive privilege applies or does not apply in this case.

They have just been given their wet dream moment where they see this SCOAMF finally dismissing Congress, the Supreme Court and the Constitution as extraneous to achieving their Worker’s Paradise. You and others are only helping them to live out their icky little fantasies by engaging them in dialogue.

Do any of you really want to help them to achieve their goal in that light?

PolAgnostic on June 20, 2012 at 11:42 AM

We remember Brian Terry, the man who was actually killed…not some activist that turned the death into her own political stardom.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Man oh man…the irony.

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Man oh man…the irony.

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Man oh man…I love idiots like you who never actually point out irony/hypocrisy/intellectual dishonesty, but simply remark that it’s occurred. It’s so easy to snipe without having to back up your stupid remarks.

MadisonConservative on June 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM

And by all means, stay fully silent on any specific charges or accusations. Suggest personal culpability in the tragic death or a border control agent, unfettered by decency. Express (selective) outrage about the ‘deaths of Mexican citizens’…in a drug war…that your party fully supports and advocates for.
Remain blind to the irony and hypocrisy of such ‘concern’.
And If saner minds in the GOP shut down the ‘witch hunt’, come up with a fresher even more sinister conspiracy theory as to why they would do such a thing.
And while purporting to report on this without bias, drop lines like ‘..it’s something that the media continues to ignore because it’s potentially too damaging to their boyfriend… ‘

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

You truly are an idiot. Congress is investigating what happened – there are no charges and no charges need be brought. You are putting the cart before the horse and doing so not out of any honest reasoning, but because you simply don’t want an investigation to go forward.

You are asking congress to prove a case before it has investigated. it is you who are being the blind partisan with no ability to abide by the rule of law.

I call you names because your positions are so damn stupid and juvenile “congress can’t investigate until it proves Holder did something wrong” that you deserve nothing better.

You have yet to make a single, rational, honest argument as to why Holder should not have to supply the documents.

Your arguments are all “naaa, naaa, naaa you are republicans and don’t like Obama so nobody has to obey the law”!!!!! Eleventy!!

That is it. You are asserting an even greater executive privilege than even Nixon ever dreamed of.

it is pathetic and irrational and has no basis in rule of law, ethics or logic.

Monkeytoe on June 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM

verbaluce on June 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

And, you do strike a nerve to the extent I know there are a lot of idiots like you out there who can’t think rationally, hate the idea of rule of law, and have no principals or ethics whatsoever.

It is sad for America to know people like you exist. So yes, that much bothers me.

Monkeytoe on June 20, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Cheney, energy meetings, executive privilege….even Fox news just brought it up.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Ahh, so Bush was right is what you are saying?

Nobody denies there is such a thing as executive privilege – but that privilege usually goes discussions in formulating policy, not communications regarding conducting actual agency operations.

The information sought here isn’t who was involved in meetings to come up with a policy, but who knew about an ongoing operation, who OK’d the operation, what the purpose of the operation was.

Are all of those things secret now too? can congress no longer investigate the day-to-day operation of executive agencies? Those are the documents that are being withheld, not some high level communications regarding coming up with a new policy.

It may be that Cheney and Bush’s assertion of executive privilege went to far in that case. Does that make Obama/Holder’s assertion right here?

Monkeytoe on June 20, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Monkeytoe on June 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM

By the way, it is an outright lie to claim Holder does not know what is being investigated and why – but that is par for the course with you Verbalace.

Monkeytoe on June 20, 2012 at 12:34 PM

If you already know that both congressional investigations and uses of EP are purely political then why do you expect anything to come out of this other than further confirmation that our political system has serious flaws? My argument was never that Obama’s use of EP in this case is justified. My argument is that the right was thrilled about EP in any instance…until they weren’t. Look at the serious *nuance* you’re having to engage in to distinguish between these uses of EP, it doesn’t fly politically.

libfreeordie on June 20, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Well, if true, it is exactly true in opposite. Remember how outraged the left was over EP, and now they fully support EP no matter what.

So, what you are arguing is that neither side has a principled position with respect to Executive Privilege and instead only cares who asserts it.

Which is true to a lot of partisans on both sides. Just like the left hated, protested and claimed war criminal status for the president for the war/gitmo/rendition etc. before Obama and are completely silent on those issue now.

Or how partisans on either side love the filibuster when in the minority and hate it while in the majority.

But there are some people who actually have principled positions with regard to a lot of these things (but in the grey areas will largely default to support their side).

Part of it is not paying attention and simply poo-pooing the other side’s claims. I will admit I could have cared less about Cheney’s energy committee or whatever it was. And did not pay attention to all of the various claims and investigations into it. So, the left is reacting largely the same way here, poo-pooing the investigation, ignoring it mostly, and now climbing aboard EP arguments. In the Cheney matter, I believe congress and the WH eventually reached an agreement obviating any need for contempt proceedings, but certainly that avenue was open to congress.

But ultimately, your argument boils down to each side will ignore the rule of law when convenient to itself. While somewhat true, it is hardly an argument I would want to stand behind.

Monkeytoe on June 20, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I think, frankly, we need some kind of final ruling on what falls under Executive Privilege for documents.

I think both parties agree that such a privilege exists. But, to me, it should only apply to a) communications to/from high level officials and b) communications involving formulation of broad policy.

Thus, excluded would be any communications dealing with day-to-day agency operations, etc.

I fail to see what “broad policy discussions” could possibly have been involved with the who, what, when and where of F&F that require an executive privilege here.

Monkeytoe on June 20, 2012 at 12:50 PM

committee finally voted, party line, 23-17 Yeas have it, cite for contempt, forward the matter to the full House for consideration. It’s Boehner’s ball to fumble now.

rayra on June 20, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3