Obama invokes executive privilege on F&F do ents

[boutons_deux]

During a phone call last week with a senior Justice official, Issa's chief investigative counsel, Stephen Castor, broached a possible settlement. As the conversation began, according to two sources familiar with the conversation, Castor asked the official where things stood on "accountability." By that, Castor meant would any heads roll at Justice. Castor mentioned Lanny Breuer, the head of the department's Criminal Division, whom Republicans had been gunning for because of his knowledge of gun-walking techniques that had been used during the Bush administration. (Their theory was that Breuer should have taken aggressive steps to ensure that such measures were not repeated in future operations.) According to these sources, Castor said that if Breuer resigned, they could head off the looming cons utional clash.

But the Justice official, Steven Reich, an associate deputy attorney general involved in the Fast and Furious negotiations with Congress, rejected the offer, calling it a "non-starter."

Still, Castor’s gambit was seen by DOJ officials as evidence that Issa was more interested in drawing blood than getting to the truth.

"The reason that this contempt motion happened is that Issa didn't come up with any evidence and didn't get a scalp," says Matthew Miller, a close associate of Holder's and his former communications director. "When you set expectations that high and you don't deliver, you have to explain why."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...d%20Exclusives

[boutons_deux]

IRONY ALERT: Karl Rove Complains To Fox News About Obama's Assertion Of Executive Privilege

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: It's one thing to exert executive privilege over the actions of the President, and his aides, and the White House. It's another thing to exercise executive privilege with regard to aCabinet official, seemingly in a matter that according to the President up until now, had no connections with, no contact with, no communications with the White House. So I'm a little bit concerned about it. I think it's an overreach.

[...]

ROVE: This is a very long reach. I mean basically if the President is allowed to take the privilege that goes to the Executive Office of the President and extend it to a Cabinet department, then he can extend it to any branch of the government for any matter, even if there was no presidential or White House involvement. And I'm not certain that that's what the Founders thought about when they talked about executive privilege.


President Bush invoked executive privilege today for the first time in his administration to block a Congressional committee trying to review do ents about a decades-long scandal involving F.B.I. misuse of mob informants in Boston. His order also denied the committee access to internal Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fund-raising tactics.


As noted by law professor Peter Shane, an expert on the separation of powers, executive privilege routinely encompasses "do ents generated anywhere in the executive branch":

Executive privilege is really an umbrella concept that encompasses a variety of privileges. History's most famous claim of executive privilege -- President Richard Nixon's unsuccessful attempt to withhold the "Watergate tapes" -- was an example of "presidential privacy" privilege. That privilege covers executive communications when the president is involved.

The executive branch, however, historically claims a much broader privilege, the so-called "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect do ents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions. The current dispute involves "deliberative privilege."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206210007

[Wild Cobra]

IRONY ALERT: Karl Rove Complains To Fox News About Obama's Assertion Of Executive Privilege

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: It's one thing to exert executive privilege over the actions of the President, and his aides, and the White House. It's another thing to exercise executive privilege with regard to aCabinet official, seemingly in a matter that according to the President up until now, had no connections with, no contact with, no communications with the White House. So I'm a little bit concerned about it. I think it's an overreach.

[...]

ROVE: This is a very long reach. I mean basically if the President is allowed to take the privilege that goes to the Executive Office of the President and extend it to a Cabinet department, then he can extend it to any branch of the government for any matter, even if there was no presidential or White House involvement. And I'm not certain that that's what the Founders thought about when they talked about executive privilege.


President Bush invoked executive privilege today for the first time in his administration to block a Congressional committee trying to review do ents about a decades-long scandal involving F.B.I. misuse of mob informants in Boston. His order also denied the committee access to internal Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fund-raising tactics.


As noted by law professor Peter Shane, an expert on the separation of powers, executive privilege routinely encompasses "do ents generated anywhere in the executive branch":

Executive privilege is really an umbrella concept that encompasses a variety of privileges. History's most famous claim of executive privilege -- President Richard Nixon's unsuccessful attempt to withhold the "Watergate tapes" -- was an example of "presidential privacy" privilege. That privilege covers executive communications when the president is involved.

The executive branch, however, historically claims a much broader privilege, the so-called "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect do ents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions. The current dispute involves "deliberative privilege."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206210007

Did you listen to the part starting at 2:08?

[Yonivore]

Once again, Bill Whittle...

[Th'Pusher]

Lol @ yoni clinging to his guns and his religion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

*stuff*

The Washington Times

The Washington Times is an obviously right wing newspaper. If you are just trying to have a circle jerk with other GOP partisan types then by all means post them, the National Review or other similar papers.

OTOH, if you want to make a compelling case to the other partisans or to independents then perhaps you could try to find a objective source or even better a liberal source that makes these claims. Citing WT is just going to be ignored as partisan by most whereas something like the CSM or the Washington Post will not be ignored.

If you cannot find anything other than a partisan publication making such claims, it speaks for itself.

It the difference between citing the National Academy of Sciences and Watts Up With That.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Obama's executive order makes it more likely, in my view, that Obama approved the operation.

You saying that its 'in your view' makes it more likely that its going to be based off of confirmation bias and lack actual intelligent thought.

Look up non-sequitor.

[spursncowboys]

The Washington Times is an obviously right wing newspaper. If you are just trying to have a circle jerk with other GOP partisan types then by all means post them, the National Review or other similar papers.

OTOH, if you want to make a compelling case to the other partisans or to independents then perhaps you could try to find a objective source or even better a liberal source that makes these claims. Citing WT is just going to be ignored as partisan by most whereas something like the CSM or the Washington Post will not be ignored.

If you cannot find anything other than a partisan publication making such claims, it speaks for itself.

It the difference between citing the National Academy of Sciences and Watts Up With That.

So instead of the actual statements, you are trying to discredit the source? gotcha.

You probably said that about monica lewinsky too huh, since it broke from drudge.

[clambake]

spursncowboys afraid of oval office blowjobs.

i can see that. lol

[boutons_deux]

NRA/Repugs: (white peoples') Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

(except when Dems are involved, Dems' guns kill people)

[boutons_deux]

GOP Oversight Chair Admits There Is No Evidence Of White House Involvement In Fast And Furious

WALLACE: Do you have any evidence that White House officials were involved in these decisions, that they knowingly misled Congress, and are involved in a cover-up?

ISSA: No, we don’t. And what we are seeking are do ents that we know to exist, February 4 to December [2011] that are in fact about [murdered Border Patrol agent] Brian Terry’s murder, who knew, and why people were lying about it…

WALLACE: I want to be clear, because we’ve got to get out, no evidence that the White House is involved in the cover up?

ISSA: And I hope they don’t get involved.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...=200175&page=7

Issa izza still fishing FURIOUSLY

[DMX7]

lol, he's used executive privilege one time.

[Wild Cobra]

GOP Oversight Chair Admits There Is No Evidence Of White House Involvement In Fast And Furious

Obama is the proof, else executive privilege does not apply.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama is the proof, else executive privilege does not apply.

Utterly false statement.

[Wild Cobra]

Doesn't executive privilege only apply to something with an executive office connection?

Who is he protecting in the White House?

[mavs>spurs]

holder needs to be held accountable for his crimes, release the do ents already

IF it's proven he was arming the cartels as a false flag operation to help obama with his plan for an assault weapons ban, then the death penalty should suffice.

[ElNono]

Doesn't executive privilege only apply to something with an executive office connection?

No and the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch. While I don't particularly like the fact that the privilege was invoked, there's no doubt about the Executive branch connection.

[boutons_deux]

not only org connection, but any communications with ANYBODY and the Exec are subject to Exec privilege.

and remember head went back decades and reclassified millions of Pres papers that had been in the public domain. gotdam, Repugs are assholes.

[Wild Cobra]

No and the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch. While I don't particularly like the fact that the privilege was invoked, there's no doubt about the Executive branch connection.

Yes, you are correct. Still, there is no question of right and wrong here. This was flat out illegal. For Obama to invoke executive privilege rather than get to the truth, I would think, should be an impeachable action.

[Wild Cobra]

not only org connection, but any communications with ANYBODY and the Exec are subject to Exec privilege.

and remember head went back decades and reclassified millions of Pres papers that had been in the public domain. gotdam, Repugs are assholes.

I have to wonder. What percentage of your posts does not have the word "repug?"

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, you are correct. Still, there is no question of right and wrong here. This was flat out illegal. For Obama to invoke executive privilege rather than get to the truth, I would think, should be an impeachable action.

How many times did you think Bush should have been impeached for claiming executive privilege?

[ElNono]

Yes, you are correct. Still, there is no question of right and wrong here. This was flat out illegal. For Obama to invoke executive privilege rather than get to the truth, I would think, should be an impeachable action.

What was illegal about it, counselor?

[ElNono]

[boutons_deux]

"For Obama to invoke executive privilege rather than get to the truth"

Since when does truth have ANYTHING to do with politics, (or with lawyers?) ? The guvmint and UCA are LYING to us EVERY time they open their mouths.

[TeyshaBlue]

How many times did you think Bush should have been impeached for claiming executive privilege?

Dunno. bout 40 times?