Executive Privilege for Fast and Furious docs

[57Coastie]

Just for the record, as the Executive Privilege gets battered and bruised on this forum, this is apparently the first and only time President Obama has, reluctantly, I really believe, advanced the privilege. George W. Bush exerted the privilege 6 times during his 8 years in office. Another president named George, Washington, that is, was the first to exert such a privilege had by the president to avoid publishing to the world his advisor's private advice, bound to restrain and affect that advice if not privileged.

To do their duties as they and the new president saw them, the new administration's lawyers were stuck with defending at least one of W's exertions when they entered office.

This is not intended as a comment on the whys and wherefores, rightness or wrongness, of Fast and Furious. I simply want to observe the almost unanimous bias or lack of understanding of the real issue, by the members, who I personally do not remember calling our our prior presidents to task for similar cases -- one of which led to the resignation of a president to avoid impeachment.

Jim
Just the messenger

And just for the sake of bi-partizenship, Clinton exerted the privilege 14 times in his 8 years, and was the first to lose since Nixon when the Federal judge ruled that his aids could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.

Absolutely the truth. Factual. Exactly as was the case in my post. You have my sincere compliments for adding meaningful content to the discussion.

I honestly, really, honestly, cannot understand why I got a response of the ilk of the first commentator after my post. Did I say anything untrue? Is anything I said not factual?

Cue the stock phrase..."when one cannot add something useful to a discussion, he should change the subject"...

Jim

[57Coastie]

And just for the sake of bi-partizenship, Clinton exerted the privilege 14 times in his 8 years, and was the first to lose since Nixon when the Federal judge ruled that his aids could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.

From what I understand, both Clinton and Bush exerted executive privilege a number of times, but many of those were either retracted or overturned by a court.[/quote]

This issue of Executive Privilege is of course usually settled to the satisfaction, or equal dissatisfaction, of both parties before they get into litigation, and I suspect the same will prove to be the case here. Usually neiher party is anxious for the issue to be decided by the judiciary, thereby limiting the flexibility of both parties. There is a serious as yet unanswered question as to whether the judiciary is empowered to rule on such a political question. Of course, as it stands the judiciary itself decides whether or not it is so empowered, at least initially, and political squabbles like this lead to both parties looking closely at the frame of mind of current members of SCOTUS, and often a game of bluff and counter-bluff ensues.

We will perhaps have a better idea about how this one may turn out when the whole House takes up the committee's action probably next week. Hard to guess, with the Senate waiting in the wings.

Jim

[Oldgringo]

Bush and Clinton were then, this is now.

[Heartland Patriot]

Just for the record, as the Executive Privilege gets battered and bruised on this forum, this is apparently the first and only time President Obama has, reluctantly, I really believe, advanced the privilege. George W. Bush exerted the privilege 6 times during his 8 years in office. Another president named George, Washington, that is, was the first to exert such a privilege had by the president to avoid publishing to the world his advisor's private advice, bound to restrain and affect that advice if not privileged.

To do their duties as they and the new president saw them, the new administration's lawyers were stuck with defending at least one of W's exertions when they entered office.

This is not intended as a comment on the whys and wherefores, rightness or wrongness, of Fast and Furious. I simply want to observe the almost unanimous bias or lack of understanding of the real issue, by the members, who I personally do not remember calling our our prior presidents to task for similar cases -- one of which led to the resignation of a president to avoid impeachment.

Jim
Just the messenger

And just for the sake of bi-partizenship, Clinton exerted the privilege 14 times in his 8 years, and was the first to lose since Nixon when the Federal judge ruled that his aids could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.

Absolutely the truth. Factual. Exactly as was the case in my post. You have my sincere compliments for adding meaningful content to the discussion.

I honestly, really, honestly, cannot understand why I got a response of the ilk of the first commentator after my post. Did I say anything untrue? Is anything I said not factual?

Cue the stock phrase..."when one cannot add something useful to a discussion, he should change the subject"...

Jim

Oh, I wasn't changing the subject...I felt that you were attempting to go into deflect mode with the Bush comment; a large percentage of the press and media seem to do that whenever Obama has an issue on something and I felt it might be of that nature. If you meant it some other way, I apologize for misconstruing that. However, its not that Obama has invoked executive privilege, in and of itself...its what he's invoked it ABOUT that matters. I'll be right up front with you...I don't like him, and I don't like Eric Holder, either. I don't like the way they do business and I don't like their politics. If Bush or Clinton misused executive privilege, and they got smacked for it, so be it. That doesn't make a difference as to whether Obama should have used it in THIS SITUATION or not, though.

[sjfcontrol]

My crystal ball only averages about 50%, but it's telling me that this was not a smart move for Obama. Only time will tell.

[jimlongley]

How can Holder claim "Executive Privilege" on behalf of Obama for an operation both claim they knew nothing about?

EXACTLY!!!

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... aspx#page1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[57Coastie]

How can Holder claim "Executive Privilege" on behalf of Obama for an operation both claim they knew nothing about?

EXACTLY!!!

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... aspx#page1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The attorney general cannot claim executive privilege, nor did he. Only the chief executive -- the president -- can claim this privilege, and that he did.

To question claiming the privilege for something they claim to have known nothing about misses the point of the privilege. The point of the privilege is the constitutional separation of powers and to avoid the release of the internal, in this case written, advices given by members of the executive staff, since being compelled to do so would discourage these staffers from giving their advice freely and fruitfully. Whether or not the president or the attorney general personally knew anything about Fast and Furious has nothing to do with the privilege, except (and perhaps) if a crime has been committed.

If there is reason to believe Holder lied to a congressional committee while under oath than there is reason to believe that he perjured himself before a congressional committee. If so he would certainly be open to criminal charges, and while perhaps arguable, contempt of congress is itself generally considered a viable criminal conviction, and may well by itself support impeachment.

I must suggest that a straw man has been created here as our national election nears, it has political appeal in certain quarters, and it runs around unthinkingly in the "biased liberal media" and on the internet. Here right before our eyes we see a prime example of the latter.

Jim

[tbrown]

Holder's ops got cops killed. Watergate pales in comparison.

Cop, but possibly as many as 200+ citizens of another country. They are international arms smugglers.

I apologize. I forgot about Jaime Zapata. There were two LEOs killed as a result of this. Smoothoperator was correct.

It looks like Holder is complicit in the deaths of more innocent people than even Janet Reno, although many are foreign nationals so Reno may still hold the record for US Citizens.

[Heartland Patriot]

How can Holder claim "Executive Privilege" on behalf of Obama for an operation both claim they knew nothing about?

EXACTLY!!!

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... aspx#page1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The attorney general cannot claim executive privilege, nor did he. Only the chief executive -- the president -- can claim this privilege, and that he did.

To question claiming the privilege for something they claim to have known nothing about misses the point of the privilege. The point of the privilege is the constitutional separation of powers and to avoid the release of the internal, in this case written, advices given by members of the executive staff, since being compelled to do so would discourage these staffers from giving their advice freely and fruitfully. Whether or not the president or the attorney general personally knew anything about Fast and Furious has nothing to do with the privilege, except (and perhaps) if a crime has been committed.

If there is reason to believe Holder lied to a congressional committee while under oath than there is reason to believe that he perjured himself before a congressional committee. If so he would certainly be open to criminal charges, and while perhaps arguable, contempt of congress is itself generally considered a viable criminal conviction, and may well by itself support impeachment.

I must suggest that a straw man has been created here as our national election nears, it has political appeal in certain quarters, and it runs around unthinkingly in the "biased liberal media" and on the internet. Here right before our eyes we see a prime example of the latter.

Jim

So, you're saying they are only going after Obama because of the election...would that be anything like Obama giving hundreds of thousand of illegal aliens near-amnesty in an election year? BTW, this F&F thing has been going on for quite a while, in case you haven't heard...

[57Coastie]

...So, you're saying they are only going after Obama because of the election...would that be anything like Obama giving hundreds of thousand of illegal aliens near-amnesty in an election year? BTW, this F&F thing has been going on for quite a while, in case you haven't heard...

I will assure you that I realize this "F&F thing" has been going on for quite a while, as has the chatter here about executive privilege. They have particularly been going on for a long time on this forum. I have been silently watching it, expecting that someday someone will come forward to explain that there is more to the concept of executive privilege than executive wrongdoing.

The postings here, including the language quoted above, prove once again that three ancient adages remain viable. First, if an untruth is stated often enough it hardens into accepted fact. Secondly, when those untruths are repeated within a group, appealing to that group's common builtin beliefs, they soon become accepted by that group as being held by an overwhelming majority of persons, even those not in the group. Lastly, when a rational rebuttal is unavailable, change the subject.

Perhaps there is even another, as demonstrated by the language quoted above: if one is guilty of one wrongdoing, he must be guilty of yet another with which he is charged, even though the two are unrelated.

I would never say that there was no wrongdoing, or at least just old-fashioned stupidity, on the part of elements of the federal government where F&F is concerned. From what I have seen in the biased liberal mainstream media I am shocked by it. I do say that it is my opinion that the concept of executive immunity is neither weakened by executive wrongdoing nor does it imply executive wrongdoing.

It is a "privilege." Just like the privilege between an attorney and his client, which applies with equal strength whether or not the client admits his guilt to his attorney. It is like the privilege between the penitent and his priest or minister of a Christian church, which applies with equal strength whether or not the penitent admits a cardinal sin or a hideous criminal act. The executive privilege receives even greater strength from our Constitution, which is built around the concept of the separation of powers.

Jim

[jimlongley]

...So, you're saying they are only going after Obama because of the election...would that be anything like Obama giving hundreds of thousand of illegal aliens near-amnesty in an election year? BTW, this F&F thing has been going on for quite a while, in case you haven't heard...

I will assure you that I realize this "F&F thing" has been going on for quite a while, as has the chatter here about executive privilege. They have particularly been going on for a long time on this forum. I have been silently watching it, expecting that someday someone will come forward to explain that there is more to the concept of executive privilege than executive wrongdoing.

The postings here, including the language quoted above, prove once again that three ancient adages remain viable. First, if an untruth is stated often enough it hardens into accepted fact. Secondly, when those untruths are repeated within a group, appealing to that group's common builtin beliefs, they soon become accepted by that group as being held by an overwhelming majority of persons, even those not in the group. Lastly, when a rational rebuttal is unavailable, change the subject.

Perhaps there is even another, as demonstrated by the language quoted above: if one is guilty of one wrongdoing, he must be guilty of yet another with which he is charged, even though the two are unrelated.

I would never say that there was no wrongdoing, or at least just old-fashioned stupidity, on the part of elements of the federal government where F&F is concerned. From what I have seen in the biased liberal mainstream media I am shocked by it. I do say that it is my opinion that the concept of executive immunity is neither weakened by executive wrongdoing nor does it imply executive wrongdoing.

It is a "privilege." Just like the privilege between an attorney and his client, which applies with equal strength whether or not the client admits his guilt to his attorney. It is like the privilege between the penitent and his priest or minister of a Christian church, which applies with equal strength whether or not the penitent admits a cardinal sin or a hideous criminal act. The executive privilege receives even greater strength from our Constitution, which is built around the concept of the separation of powers.

Jim

Agree, EXCEPT.

IMHO the claim of executive privilege is being trotted out at an awfully convenient time for bambam and his minions.

These days it seems that "taking the fifth" is seen as a tacit admission of guilt, and an awful lot of people seem to be of a similar persuasion about executive privilege in general, probably due to the way it has been wielded in our recent history. The fifth is to protect against self-incrimination and can be taken for many reasons, none of which necessarily have to do with the guilt of the party taking it, only that by giving the testimony it would "tend to incriminate." The same applies to executive privilege, it's not

My issue is two pronged and has nothing to do with assigning assumed guilt, except for the timing and the fact that Holder and bambam have claimed no prior knowledge of the whole deal. If the White House and the Attorney General actually had no prior knowledge, then it is hard to imagine that any executive privilege would attach, making this seem like a last minute ploy to avoid having to turn over papers that the committee has subpoenaed. If that is really the case, which is yet to be determined, then someone at high levels is lying and trying to cover it up.

If executive privilege is being claimed due to advice and counsel given after the fact, then it is equally hard to imagine that it is legitimate because the committee is looking for evidence of prior knowledge and how could it attach unless somehow that aft6er the fact advice indicated that prior knowledge did indeed exist, which makes it a criminal act and thus not protected under executive privilege anyway.

[Purplehood]

I wonder if I can be charged with Contempt of Congress? I would have to plead Guilty, of course.

[74novaman]

The chatter about the constitutionality of executive privilege is a distraction.

Eric Holder and the white house press secretary Jay Carney have both claimed F&F was started under the Bush Administration. Why would Obama evoke his executive privilege to protect something he could blame on Bush?

It's the difference between the administrations actions and words on the matter that are interesting to me, not whether Obama can claim executive privilege or not.

[74novaman]

I wonder if I can be charged with Contempt of Congress? I would have to plead Guilty, of course.

[57Coastie]

...Eric Holder and the white house press secretary Jay Carney have both claimed F&F was started under the Bush Administration. Why would Obama evoke his executive privilege to protect something he could blame on Bush? ....

The reason for that is exactly the same reason that the Obama administration and its lawyers are defending the Bush administration, followed by reluctantly claiming the privilege in the F&F squabble with the House -- that is, his administration's rightly perceived duty to protect the office of the president against meddling by the congress, whoever the president might be. It is unaffected by a new administration's view of a prior administration's claim. At this moment the DoJ is actively involved in litigation originally brought against the Bush White House. Should they not have taken on the defense of the Bush litigation they would have set a precedent inflicting damage on future adminstrations as well as their own.

Closed minds are incapable of accepting this duty under our Constitution. They are happy, on the other hand, to accept partisan battles as the way to run our government.

Jim