Obama still holding out on those subpoenaed Fast & Furious documents

posted at 2:01 pm on April 25, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Congress is still steadily pursuing the investigation on the very dark spot on the Obama administration’s record that is Operation Fast and Furious — and when I say “dark spot,” I do mean that literally, because so much of the evidence was so thoroughly redacted. The administration is continuing to fight Congressional attempts to uncover all of the details into the deadly gun-walking operation, and the dispute has moved into district-court territory. In front of a federal judge on Wednesday, the Department of Justice argued that the court should really just decline to decide on the case and leave the executive and legislative branches to duke it out on their own:

A U.S. Justice Department lawyer said on Wednesday that if a judge agreed to consider a Republican bid to get administration documents related to a botched operation against gun-trafficking it would prompt a flood of requests for courts to referee Washington political disputes.

President Barack Obama is resisting a congressional subpoena for documents related to how the administration responded to the revelation of the failed operation known as “Fast and Furious” on the U.S.- Mexican border. It has already turned over thousands of pages of documents about the operation itself.

Justice Department lawyer Ian Gershengorn told a hearing the matter was best left to the give-and-take of the U.S. government’s two elected branches, the president and Congress, and should not be a matter for the courts.

“That is how it has worked for 225 years,” said Gershengorn, referring to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788.

Mm hmm. “Best left to the give-and-take” of the legislative and executive branches, and not involve the checks-and-balances role of the judiciary? To me, that translation sounds an awful lot like “anything The Executive Branch doesn’t want to give, you’re not getting, ’cause we do what we want” — and it sounds like the judge wasn’t having it either, positing, “If you could have worked this out yourselves, wouldn’t you have worked this out yourselves?”

 U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson spent most of an hour-and-a-half hearing Wednesday sharply questioning Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ian Gershengorn about the administration’s assertion that a lawsuit the House panel filed last year should be dismissed and the legislative and executive branches of government left to work out their differences by themselves. …

Jackson, an Obama appointee, repeatedly suggested that Gershengorn was giving the judiciary short shrift.

“You keep talking about the two [branches] as if the third one isn’t there,” she said.

The judge called the fight over whether the documents are subject to legal privilege — in this case executive privilege — the kind of “classic legal dispute that this court has to [resolve] all the time.” …

House General Counsel Kerry Kircher complained that Holder was seeking “absolute and judicially un-reviewable authority to determine what executive branch documents are privileged as against Congress.”

Yeah, sorry, but there is definitely such a thing as abusing executive privilege, and how. The Obama administration is very clearly doing their best to thwart Congress’ oversight role on this one and would no doubt like to add this to the list of debacles about which they’d really prefer everybody just forgive and forget.


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

Picture in your mind’s eye…Barry in bright gold parachute pants…

“It’s Obama Time. You can’t touch this.”

coldwarrior on April 25, 2013 at 2:03 PM

That is how it has worked for 225 years,” said Gershengorn, referring to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788.

Yes, my first thought is that the American Bolsheviks have them some love for the Constitution.

Yup, my first thought.

Hate, doesn’t describe my feelings, enough.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 25, 2013 at 2:03 PM

According to our trolls, we shouldn’t object to universal background checks for guns if we have nothing to hide.

In that vein, what is Obama trying to hide?

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Oh give it up already. They know you have no real power and are just toying with you.

there is definitely such a thing as abusing executive privilege, and how.

Barry is upset that CONgress is abusing him by questioning and protesting his rightful use of executive privilege.

After all, he’s the Executive, and he has privilege….self granted, mind you, but privilege, never the less. And not to be challenged!

hawkeye54 on April 25, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Impeach.

Midas on April 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM

In that vein, what is Obama trying to hide?

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Holder forgot to do background checks on the Sinaloa cartel?

coldwarrior on April 25, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Oh great, another ________ hearing. Didn’t we have one before Obama became a 2 term president?
 
HotAirLib on April 24, 2013 at 3:52 PM

 

Insert appropriate “Modern Voter” topic here. Suggestions include:
 
Terrorism
 
Benghazi
 
Fast and Furious
 
Budget
 
Employment
 
Annual nationwide gun death toll of urban black children vs. rare and isolated mass-shootings of whites
 
etc.

rogerb on April 25, 2013 at 2:10 PM

rogerb on April 25, 2013 at 2:11 PM

bho and his whole administration does NOT give a flying flit about the law/constitution/congress/courts! The whole lying anti-American bunch will do as they dang well please and NOT one person will do a thing about it, as it seems so far? How many times has bho/team just ignored the judges/court orders?

I detest with all my heart them.
L

letget on April 25, 2013 at 2:17 PM

The Department of Justice argued that the court should really just decline to decide on the case because it might give a hint to the low info crowd.

docflash on April 25, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Yeah, I saw this report on Good Morning America this morning. /

crrr6 on April 25, 2013 at 2:19 PM

In that vein, what is Obama trying to hide?

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM

When it comes to transparency, O’ invokes the “Me/Thee” amendment of the constitution.

antipc on April 25, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Since it isn’t an election year I guess Rinsed Preebus won’t be begging us for big contributions so the GOP, Boner, McConnell and their investigators posture, angrily condemn and then can totally wimp out on the betrayed dead like they did last time ’round.

Please, give generously to Beltway, as usual.

viking01 on April 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM

When it comes to transparency, O’ invokes the “Me/Thee” amendment of the constitution.

antipc on April 25, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Ah — the “I’m a lying asshole” clause found by emanating penumbras!

Good catch!

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:22 PM

When it comes to transparency, O’ invokes the “Me/Thee” amendment of the constitution.

antipc on April 25, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Ah — the “I’m a lying a$$hole” clause found by emanating penumbras!

Good catch!

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:23 PM

“That is how it has worked for 225 years,” said Gershengorn, referring to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788.

Don’t worry, Nanny Scumberg will just “reinterpret” the Constitution.

rbj on April 25, 2013 at 2:25 PM

This whole affair has really made me wonder if Congress is just inept or impotent when it comes to fighting Obama.

Earlier Presidential scandals never drug out this long once they attracted the attention of Congress. Is Obama just a better stonewaller than past Presidents, or is our GOP just that weak?

I understand that this is yet another story that the press doesn’t want to investigate, so Issa et al aren’t benefiting from a media tailwind, but still seems like this should be moving faster.

Chris of Rights on April 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM

According to our trolls, we shouldn’t object to universal background checks for guns if we have nothing to hide.

In that vein, what is Obama trying to hide?

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:05 PM

What would Obama have to hide about his Guns for Gangsters Operation?

Galt2009 on April 25, 2013 at 2:29 PM

If Obama does not give up the requested documents, start impeachment proceedings. What the hell, start them anyways.

DAT60A3 on April 25, 2013 at 2:30 PM

If I’m not mistaken, lil barry said, unequivocally, that he knew nothing about F&F or the attempted coverup.

If that’s true – and we know that lil barry wouldn’t lie about it (/s/) – then how is it that HE is the one claiming executive privilege? If he wasn’t part of the “deliberative process” then the papers covered by the subpoena aren’t covered by his “privilege” at all.

Cough’em up, barry!

Solaratov on April 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM

If Obama does not give up the requested documents, start impeachment proceedings. What the hell, start them anyways.

DAT60A3 on April 25, 2013 at 2:30 PM

With all due respect, what good would it do? Even if the House impeached Obama, there aren’t 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove him.

Resist We Much on April 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM

You gotta luv it.

We have the most transparent administration in history.
(I think I just threw up in my mouth even writing that for sarcasm.)

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Congress is still steadily pursuing the investigation on the very dark spot on the Obama administration’s record that is Operation Fast and Furious

Yeah … sure they are. Maybe they’ll get something by March, 2143. Congress is a joke. The GOP controlled House has done exactly squat in the face of the most unbelievably anti-American criminal administration in American history (by miles – Watergate wasn’t even up to kids’ play compared to the constant trampling of the Constitution and our law that Barky and his junta have engaged in ever since the Indonesian Dog-Eating Imbecile first slimed into an office he isn’t even eligible for and is certainly not qualified for in any way, whatsoever).

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 25, 2013 at 2:35 PM

I know it’s off-topic, but I don’t care – it’s well worth a listen:

US Army Chorus Performs At Bush Center Dedication
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SMgvOBjYoJU

Galt2009 on April 25, 2013 at 2:38 PM

the Department of Justice argued that the court should really just decline to decide on the case and leave the executive and legislative branches to duke it out on their own:

Great. How about the House blocks all funds for White House entertainment, presidential vacations, and cuts his kitchen staff in half if he doesn’t turn over the documents?

Socratease on April 25, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Resist We Much on April 25, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Well, there’s always hope for a Republican Senate in 2014.

How Republicans could take control of the Senate in 2014
http://theweek.com/article/index/239306/how-republicans-could-take-control-of-the-senate-in-2014

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 2:42 PM

the Department of Justice argued that the court should really just decline to decide on the case

Yeah! Just like that Nixon ‘tape case’.

Once again, the liberal mind is highly selective.

GarandFan on April 25, 2013 at 2:43 PM

I guess this generation of Dems wouldn’t have gone to SCOTUS to demand the Nixon Tapes, for which there was a lot more executive privilege that there is here.

xkaydet65 on April 25, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Opaque transparency

rjoco1 on April 25, 2013 at 2:47 PM

I’d bet a Speaker Newt would have more than one trick up his sleeve to make the president pay for not handing over the documents.

bflat879 on April 25, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Once again, the liberal mind is highly selective.

GarandFan on April 25, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Actually, it’s not. There are no ‘choices’ other than the liberal one, so true selection is not possible. Anything other than liberalism is to be smashed; it doesn’t count as a possible selection. Therefor, it doesn’t exist. Or, well, it shouldn’t. And there are doing their best to make sure of that.

Liam on April 25, 2013 at 2:58 PM

“With all due respect, the fact is, we had hundreds of dead Mexicans! What difference at this point does it make?”

-Hillary Clinton

PatMac on April 25, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Brian Terry is dead.

A Fast and Furious gun run by the ATF into Mexico killed him.

A DEA informant was at the kill site.

Many other guns run by the ATF at the direction of Obama, Ms Clinton, Eric Holder and their hirelings/appointees are sill missing and it is even possible one of those guns will be or is in the hands of a Mexican drug cartel controled coyote who will sell it to a islamic terrorist as the coyote guided the islamic terrorist into the U.S.A. in the time honored illegal way.

Facts are what they are, Obama smiling and talking about healtcare notwithstanding.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Brian Terry is dead, but for the grace of God, it could have been or may well be any one of U.S..

It was not an error, it was not a mis-step, it was a plan, the plan was executed, Brian Terry’s death was a direct result.

No different than a bank rob deal, a car chase and one of the robbers shoots someone not in the deal.

All those in on the planning or bank robbery are assesory to the fact that Brian Terry is dead.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 25, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Of some note:

The ATF when they allowed, planed, executed this gun running,,, they used “felons” as the mules to carry out the gun buying and gun running.

“felons” who would not have been able to buy any gun in any gun store except for the direct orders of the ATF to the gun store owners.

High Crimes.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM

MOST TRANSPAR-

Ah, fuggedaboudit…

MOST TRANSGENDER ADMINISTRATION EVER!

Marcola on April 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

The unspoken caveat:
“If it saves just one child’s life!”
(Unless they’re Mexican, of course)

questionmark on April 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Obama final solution to all his crimes.

“Well George Bush did this same thing.”

Our trouble is, Obama is correct.

Therefor the real problem is ours and what to do about the two party evil money cult operating outside the constitution in Washington D.C..

Selfgoverment is a harsh taskmaster.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Hmmm…

Holder committed 3 counts of Perjury before Congress for him over it…

He refuses to hand over the documents…..

(So much for the most transparent administration in US History…)

This week it was also announced that Congress has a document in-hand signed by Hillary denying Ambassador Stevens’ request for additional security in Benghazi, proving SHE committed the crime of Perjury before Congress as well….

And Congress announced they also have evidence to prove Obama lied under oath (another criminal count of Perjury for him/his administration) regarding Benghazi….

Amazing no one has mentioned Impeachment considering Nixon was forced out of office for helping hide several minutes of audio-tape…

easyt65 on April 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM

The only real privilege that applies here is the Fifth Amendment.

flataffect on April 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM

An inconvenient truth.

South of the U.S. border, only 6 percent of all homicides produce a trial and judgment. As such, killing trafficking enemies to take over their territory, and potentially increase illegal earnings, is profitable. In short, war pays in Mexico.

Do you think someone could inform the Mexican government about this?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-12/opinions/38492205_1_cartels-drug-violence-trafficking

When you really want to get depressed, I have immigration reform facts and figures from good sources. What are the eight thinking?

Et tu, senex?

IlikedAUH2O on April 25, 2013 at 4:00 PM

There is a possibility, remote though it may be, that if the scandal ensuing from Obama’s refusal to surrender those documents got bad enough, and spread persistently, dragging down those complicit with him and those whom he’s trying to shelter with his ‘executive privilege’, that even the senate might move to impeach.

It happened with Watergate.

Events continued to snowball, the scandal dragged on and spread, and eventually, even those senators closest to Nixon had to acknowledge that the damage was too great and the breach to wide to protect him.

thatsafactjack on April 25, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Let’s look at his more illogical claim: He invoked Executive Privilege over an operation he claimed he had no knowledge of–HOW DOES THAT WORK BARRY?

hillsoftx on April 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM

The incest between the commie msm and the commie Democrats is a great evil.

This outlaw coupling has brought fourth stilborn death to many in Mexico and now it springs up more of deaths doors here within the U.S.A..

An evil thing and it grows.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 25, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Well, there’s always hope for a Republican Senate in 2014.

How Republicans could take control of the Senate in 2014
http://theweek.com/article/index/239306/how-republicans-could-take-control-of-the-senate-in-2014

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 2:42 PM

There will not be 67 votes even if the Republicans win the Senate in 2014. Recall, the Republican-controlled Senate didn’t even vote to convict and remove the impeached Bill Clinton. Only 45 Senators voted to convict Clinton of perjury and the Senate split 50-50 on the obstruction of justice charge.

Resist We Much on April 25, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Great. How about the House blocks all funds for White House entertainment, presidential vacations, and cuts his kitchen staff in half if he doesn’t turn over the documents?

Socratease on April 25, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Better — I wanna see what Moochelle can whip up in the kitchen…

affenhauer on April 25, 2013 at 5:00 PM

that even the senate might move to impeach.

It happened with Watergate.

Events continued to snowball, the scandal dragged on and spread, and eventually, even those senators closest to Nixon had to acknowledge that the damage was too great and the breach to wide to protect him.

thatsafactjack on April 25, 2013 at 4:20 PM

The Senate doesn’t impeach. The House does. The Senate only votes to convict and remove.

Nixon resigned because REPUBLICANS went to him and told him ‘resign or be impeached.’ Democrats will NEVER do that to the ‘first African-American President of the United States.’

Short of slicing Michelle’s throat live on national television, I don’t see Democrats EVER demanding his resignation or voting to impeach/convict/remove. They love that 95% African-American voting bloc too much.

Resist We Much on April 25, 2013 at 5:00 PM

There is a possibility, remote though it may be, that if the scandal ensuing from Obama’s refusal to surrender those documents got bad enough, and spread persistently, dragging down those complicit with him and those whom he’s trying to shelter with his ‘executive privilege’, that even the senate might move to impeach.

It happened with Watergate.

Events continued to snowball, the scandal dragged on and spread, and eventually, even those senators closest to Nixon had to acknowledge that the damage was too great and the breach to wide to protect him.

thatsafactjack on April 25, 2013 at 4:20 PM

Never happen. Republicans will vote to impeach a Republican president in the right circumstances because they put the Constitution and rule of law before politics.

Democratics don’t. They would never impeach a democratic president, especially a black one. If affirmative action can’t keep you from being impeached, what good is it?

slickwillie2001 on April 25, 2013 at 5:39 PM

The House could probably get an impeachment approved. Of course, the Senate would probably not convict but it would at least both spotlight some of O’s excesses and maybe wake up the low information voters.

duff65 on April 25, 2013 at 5:41 PM

The House could probably get an impeachment approved. Of course, the Senate would probably not convict but it would at least both spotlight some of O’s excesses and maybe wake up the low information voters.

duff65 on April 25, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Wake them up? No, it would enrage them, and they would steal even more votes next time around.

Most low-information voters are that way because they are stupid, and you can’t fix stupid.

slickwillie2001 on April 25, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Is Obama just a better stonewaller than past Presidents, or is our GOP just that weak?

Yes.

ghostwalker1 on April 25, 2013 at 7:08 PM

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 2:42 PM

There will not be 67 votes even if the Republicans win the Senate in 2014. Recall, the Republican-controlled Senate didn’t even vote to convict and remove the impeached Bill Clinton. Only 45 Senators voted to convict Clinton of perjury and the Senate split 50-50 on the obstruction of justice charge.

Resist We Much on April 25, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Yes, you might be correct, but that was in 1998. The landscape is different today.

Look at it this way, in order to convict (not impeach, which is what the House does)…. the present Senate makeup is: 54D/45R + 1 Ind……(if the 6 R’s are elected) could end up as 48D/51R +1 Ind.

Then, there is Max Baucus’s seat (in a conservative state)up for grabs, which could make it 47D/52R + 1 Ind.

Then, 67(votes needed to impeach) – 52R = 15 crossovers needed.

In Clinton’s (a much more popular President than O) trial in the Senate, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans crossed over voted he was not guilty. Here’s the breakdown. I haven’t chased down who was what then (conservatives vs Liberal) vs now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

Here’s the present breakdown in present day Senate:
http://www.senateconservatives.com/site/senators

Well, as I look at the current lineup….you could be correct. Don’t know if there are 15 that would crossover.

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 8:09 PM

This site says 9 Senate seats are up in the air:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Jackson, an Obama appointee, repeatedly suggested that Gershengorn was giving the judiciary short shrift.

“You keep talking about the two [branches] as if the third one isn’t there,” she said.

I just love the smell of Communist Red-on-Communist Red violence in the evening.

Steve Eggleston on April 25, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Obama still holding out on those subpoenaed Fast & Furious documents

Impeach.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM

In Clinton’s (a much more popular President than O) trial in the Senate, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans crossed over voted he was not guilty. Here’s the breakdown. I haven’t chased down who was what then (conservatives vs Liberal) vs now….

avagreen on April 25, 2013 at 8:09 PM

The 5 “Pubbies” who voted not guilty on both charges (John Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords) were/are all liberal. 3 of the 5 who thought Clinton didn’t perjure himself but did obstruct justice (Richard Shelby, Ted Stevens and John Warner) were also liberal. Dunno where Fred Thompson’s and Slade Gorton’s heads were.

Steve Eggleston on April 25, 2013 at 8:31 PM