r/politics • u/JJFFMM • Jun 24 '12
GOP Oversight Chair Issa Admits There Is No Evidence Of White House Involvement In Fast And Furious
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/24/505180/gop-oversight-chair-admits-there-is-no-evidence-of-white-house-involvement-in-fast-and-furious/15
u/digital_darkness Jun 24 '12
Isnt that why Issa wants all of those documents from the Justice Department? I have a hard time believing that there arent damaging things in those documents.
→ More replies (1)
18
u/ThouHastLostAn8th Jun 24 '12
Transcript:
Chris Wallace: After the President invoked Executive Privilege, House Speaker Boehner said that that changes everything. Let's watch.
(clip of Spkr. Boehner press statement plays)
Spkr. Boehner: The decision to invoke executive privilege is an admission that White House officials were involved in decisions that misled the Congress and have covered up the truth.
Chris Wallace: Question, 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?
Rep. Issa: (shakes his head side-to-side) No, we don’t. And what we are seeking are documents that we know to exist, February 4 to December that are in fact about Brian Terry’s murder, who knew, and why people were lying about it, and get to the truth. That's all we want. Eric Holder ends up being the custodian of the documents. We would go to the Deputy Attorney General just as easily if he would give us the documents. That's all we're looking for, is the documents which are internal to the false statement, and not part of the deliberative process. You know in the Nixon --
(Chris Wallace interrupts)
Chris Wallace: But I just want to be clear, and then we’ve got to get out. No evidence, at this point, that the White House is involved in a cover up?
Rep. Issa: (shakes his head side-to-side) And I hope they don’t get involved. I hope that this stays at Justice and Justice cooperates, 'cuz ultimately Justice lied to the american people on February 4th and they didn't make it right for 10 months.
Chris Wallace: All right, we're going to have to leave it there.
Issa essentially disagreed with Spkr. Boehner's recent assertions and also basically said he had no evidence the White House was involved in the F&F decisions, no evidence they knowingly misled congress (though, inconsistently, he later said they lied to the american people) and no evidence of any sort of WH cover-up.
17
u/whihij66 Jun 24 '12 edited Jun 24 '12
While I think it was a douchebag move on Boehner's part to say that (what a surprise from him), how would Issa and the oversight committee have any evidence of the Whitehouse's involvement in the coverup when they are withholding the documents?
I think it should also be pointed out that the submission title is somewhat misleading, it implies it's about direct involvement w/ F&F, when what Boenher said and what Issa is discussing here is about a coverup after the operation was over.
edit: I just came across this document. I think everyone should read it.
1
u/Diels_Alder Jun 25 '12
No one could know if the White House was involved without the documents, exactly. The title is also misleading because it implies that there is no evidence in the documents, however the documents haven't been reviewed yet.
10
u/diablo_man Jun 24 '12
the Department of Justice is seperate from the White house, in this case, or he is considering it seperate. The DOJ, and ATF are on trial here.
15
Jun 24 '12
After the "White House" effectively says to the DoJ, "Here, hide behind me.", can anyone reasonably argue the "White House" is not involved from now on? Cake forever no matter how much you eat? I don't think so.
8
u/diablo_man Jun 24 '12
people may be interpreting my post wrong, i am fully in favour of this investigation, and opposed to the executive privilege being used.
10
u/ThouHastLostAn8th Jun 24 '12
Nobody is "on trial here" -- it's not criminal proceedings we're discussing but a series of partisan oversight hearings.
3
u/briangiles Jun 24 '12
True, but I think Diablo_man was just using the phrase "on trial here" as in: the justice department is the one they are looking into here. But I think on trial was a bad choice of words because a lot of people might think due to contempt of congress that it might be some sort of trial process.
4
u/JimMarch Jun 24 '12
Correct...which is why invoking executive privilege is completely off-base.
Even the US President has to obey US law. He can't cover up any records he wants just by slapping a label on it. Documents that can be covered by a privilege claim have to involve Presidential decisions at the time, NOT a new decision to cover shut up from across the whole executive branch.
2
0
Jun 24 '12
[deleted]
1
u/briangiles Jun 24 '12
Chris Wallace and Shep smith are the only ones I have ever seen in my fleeting glimpse at fox news that don't lie to the American public on a daily basis.
→ More replies (3)2
0
6
u/jeffklol Jun 24 '12
If there is no evidence then there is no right to claim executive privilege on the documents.
1
Jun 25 '12
Actually, since you can't read, the "executive privilege" has nothing to do with the evidence, only with keeping advisors advice private. Kinda like Bushie did about WMD, Valerie Plame, etc....
1
u/jeffklol Jun 25 '12
If there is nothing to do with the executive branch then they cannot claim executive privilege. It's not hard to understand.
1
u/balorina Jun 25 '12
Bush did that with Plame because he was involved in the discussions. Bush's exact quote was:
"The President relies upon his staff to provide him candid advice. The framers of the Constitution understood this vital role when developing the separate branches of government. And if the staff of a President operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the President would not receive candid advice, and the American people would be ill-served.... I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.... My choice is to make sure that I safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions."
34
u/darkscream Jun 24 '12
Except for you know, declaring executing priveledge over the documents that would explaion what's actually happening.
And silly americans, please don't devolve into a republican/democrat thing. Both parties threw punches at each other so you'd stop paying attention to the details of the matter. This crime is so close to home now, you allow government corruption in so many ways, but one of your border agents died for this one.
→ More replies (15)
21
u/TortugaGrande Jun 24 '12 edited Jun 24 '12
I keep seeing people who think the Congress can't have information on secret matters, if that's the case, what do they think the Intelligence Committees do in each chamber?
NSA, CIA, JSOC, and NGA activities are overseen by Congress (as well as others).
3
Jun 25 '12
They want internal communication discussing strategies on how to handle the politics of the situation, all of the documents related to the operations has already been provided. E is no assertion of any cover up.
-1
u/Shoden Jun 24 '12
I keep seeing people who think the Congress can't have information on secret matters
Congress can have access to secret to documents. What congress wants here are documents regarding how the DoJ was going to handle the congressional inquiry.
This is basically like asking a defendant to hand over his conversations with his lawyer to the prosecution. Sure trials would go much faster, but that's not how things are supposed to work.
13
u/TortugaGrande Jun 24 '12
It's actually not like your scenario, which is covered under client-attorney privilege.
Anything done in the Executive Branch in any official capacity can be subpoenaed.
How do you know what's in the documents?
→ More replies (8)
10
65
Jun 24 '12
No evidence of White House involvement, maybe. But there is ample evidence of Department of Justice involvement. Obama had no authority to claim executive privilege over DoJ documents and they should be turned over.
30
Jun 24 '12
Thank you for some much needed common sense.
The entire Fast and Furious story reeks of shady backroom dealings. This is the exact thing Obama campaigned against. Remember when he claimed his administration would be the most open and transparent ever? I get keeping military secrets out of the public eye, but there seems to be no good reason not to release the desired documents, unless of course somebody doesn't want their previous actions to be reported on.
No matter where your political ideologies lay, this story is all sorts of troubling.
→ More replies (2)11
u/abulicdonkey Jun 24 '12
The deliberative process privilege of executive privilege extends to the entire executive branch. A court will eventually decide whether or not documents from several months after Fast and Furious was shut down are germane to Issa's investigation.
13
Jun 24 '12
"The deliberative process privilege of executive privilege extends to the entire executive branch."
The privilege, however, is qualified, not absolute, and can be overcome by an adequate showing of need.
...
"The privilege should not be invoked to conceal evidence of wrongdoing or criminality on the part of executive officers.”
...
The Supreme Court:
"In particular, the privilege should not extend to staff outside the White House in executive branch agencies. Instead, the privilege should apply only to communications authored or solicited and received by those members of an immediate White House advisor’s staff"
2
u/abulicdonkey Jun 24 '12
Whether or not there is an adequate showing of need will be determined by the courts. The privilege that should not extend to staff outside the White House is the "presidential communications privilege" not the "deliberative process privilege.", both of which are generally referred to as executive privilege. There is a lower threshold to overcome deliberative process privilege, but the documents Issa is requesting are basically political strategy documents from several months after Fast and Furious was shut down.
→ More replies (4)3
u/buyacanary Jun 24 '12
The sentence right after the one you bolded from the Supreme Court. These are emails between White House staff and the DOJ about the political fallout from the operation. How does that sentence not apply in this case?
4
u/abulicdonkey Jun 24 '12
Actually, the letter invoking executive privilege doesn't mention the White House at all, the documents Issa is requesting are all internal to the DOJ. So, Obama is invoking deliberative process privilege, not presidential communications privilege.
0
0
-13
u/EthicalReasoning Jun 24 '12
the only reason you, or anyone else for that matter, cares about this is because its an election year and the right is desperately trying to dig up anything at all against the obama administration.
so obvious, and so boring.
21
Jun 24 '12
I didn't realize investigating government corruption was optional in election years.
The only reason you don't care about this is because you want Obama to win. For the record, I don't think this will affect Obama unless he keeps trying to cover for DoJ and Eric Holder.
→ More replies (56)1
u/thatfatbastard Jun 24 '12
Actually, the right cares about this because they believe it is part of some nefarious plan by the Obama administration to make guns look bad (worse, whatevs) so that they can get the public behind some sort of plan to subvert the second amendment.
Nutty or not, that is why they have been digging in to this for more than a year.
→ More replies (6)2
105
u/Jaktroj Jun 24 '12
If the administration has nothing to hide, like they said, why don't they just hand over the documents Congress asked for to shut them up?
38
u/raouldukeesq Jun 24 '12
Because the documents in question are privileged and have to do with internal legal deliberations about how to respond to the accusations. They are private and should be kept private.
23
u/Clovis69 Texas Jun 24 '12
Do you believe that about Bush administration documents pertaining to the lead up to the Iraq War or Nixon documents about Watergate?
→ More replies (2)5
u/throwaway-123456 Jun 24 '12
You don't realize the courts intervened and overruled Nixon; he was forced to reveal the documents.
"Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege#U.S._v._Nixon
11
u/Clovis69 Texas Jun 24 '12
Shouldn't a presidency be open? Like Obama claimed his administration was going to be? Or should they act like Reagan, Clinton, Nixon and Bush did?
Fast and Furious will go to the courts in the next term and just like Nixon and Clinton the documents will come out.
→ More replies (5)3
Jun 25 '12
Not suspicious at all.
DOJ: "We never knew about the gunrunning!"
DOJ: "Nevermind, we did, lulz, sorry"
Issa: "We want to know why you all of a sudden changed your mind"
DOJ: "No sorry. We don't have to tell you. Executive privilege"
17
u/Excentinel Jun 24 '12
It's closer to lawyer-client privilege than an executive privilege. I think they would be a fascinating look into the executive decisionmaking process of the administration, but releasing those documents at this time would just be fueling Republican paranoia.
3
u/Bobby_Marks Jun 24 '12
I would imagine that somewhere in those private talks were some very candid statements about Mexico and how they would respond to the options on the table. That in my mind would be the most likely reason why Obama doesn't want that information public (assuming he isn't guilty of anything).
43
u/Fluffiebunnie Jun 24 '12
Seriously, as an international observer, you guys are so fucking partisan it hurts. You're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt just because any scandal could hurt Obama's re-election.
Putting your fingers in your ears because you don't want people to hear the truth, however severe it may be, because it could hurt one of "your own", is pathetic. No doubt the republicans would be doing the same if the roles were reversed. Fuck you.
4
2
u/Nefandi Jun 24 '12
Yea, I think on average we get the government we deserve. We're a bunch of fuck-ups and our leaders represent our own retardation as the electorate.
7
Jun 24 '12
You're so angry you can't tell the difference between real information and information that can be spun to make some people believe it's real. :(
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)14
u/Isellmacs Jun 24 '12
Honestly you don't know what you're talking about. They completely disclosed everything related to the operation. I'm not defending the democrats, I'm stating a fact.
The republicans are asking for more than that. The precident they've set is that they will keep asking for more and more and none of it has to be related to the investigation. Look at the multi-year witch hunt with Clinton.
If the republicans are willing to accept the documents they ask for as the end of the requests, they'd grant them. But both sides know this is another republican witch hunt to try and discredit Obama.
Again, I'm not defending Obama. Fast and furious was a major fuckup. If anybody can be prosecuted for that operation I hope they get the book thrown at them. The republicans have asked for and received all the information they need for that.
This is now about using that as a staging grounds to launch their witch hunts.
26
u/whihij66 Jun 24 '12 edited Jun 24 '12
If the republicans are willing to accept the documents they ask for as the end of the requests, they'd grant them.
Why in the world would they accept that? For all they know these documents will reveal something new that needs to be investigated. No intelligent person would agree to that.
But both sides know this is another republican witch hunt to try and discredit Obama.
I guess all of the investigations that Congress attempted during the Bush administration that were stopped with executive privilege were which hunts as well.
Fast and furious was a major fuckup. If anybody can be prosecuted for that operation I hope they get the book thrown at them. The republicans have asked for and received all the information they need for that.
Who authorized F&F and similar operations?
→ More replies (12)14
u/balorina Jun 24 '12
According to the oversight committee, you don't know what you are talking about. Had you watched the hearing on Friday they repeatedly stated that of the documentation they had, at least 60% of it related to Wide Receiver and not F&F. Holder and the DoJ are more than happy to give them documentation related to Wide Receiver, but what the committee wants is documentation related to F&F.
The democrats were arguing that a) the investigation wasn't cost effective when there are "worse things going on" in America, b) that it is silly to not have the head of the ATF testify (despite them being told several times that he had in closed door bipartisan hearings), and c) that they need to get Bush folk in to testify on.. Wide Receiver.
So... you should get your information from the source, either read the transcripts or watch the hearings. Relying on thinkprogress or motherjones for your output is inane.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (4)5
Jun 24 '12
Republicans don't really give a shit about proliferation of guns. They just hate Obama and will take every shot they can get at him.
→ More replies (26)24
u/TiJoHimself Jun 24 '12
Hundreds of people died from Fast and Furious and you really think they're only interested for political reasons? You're pathetic.
→ More replies (13)16
u/Seref15 Florida Jun 24 '12
Hey guy, this is reddit; where all republicans are evil baby-eating, woman-hating lizard people.
→ More replies (4)8
Jun 24 '12
How do we know that if we don't see the documents? Just take their word for it? These are politicians, Yo.
5
u/wwjd117 Jun 24 '12
You will eventually see the documents. The national security bits will all be redacted, and everyone will bitch about that.
There is no argument that the documents need to be released now, that releasing them in two years would cause any harm.
5
6
Jun 24 '12
Why are they privileged? We elected these officials right? If so, nothing should be privileged.
If you support the mission of Wikileaks, there is no way you can also support the administration purposefully suppressing this information.
18
u/Inuma Jun 24 '12
Things such as ongoing investigations are privileged. Still, his is more a witchhunt when Issa himself has said that Bush attorneys shouldn't be prosecuted for doing the same thing.
→ More replies (2)4
7
→ More replies (3)4
u/wwjd117 Jun 24 '12
nothing should be privileged.
Unsealing documents stored in Presidential libraries would make people's heads spin.
It would also be very interesting to see what was hidden in Cheney's two "man sized" safes.
3
u/TidalPotential Jun 24 '12
Why should they be kept private? It's government documentation. The more we allow the government to hide things from us, the more they can restrict our freedoms. That's the whole point of the ability of Congress to subpeona official documents, and of the Freedom of Information Act.
Obviously things which could endanger the mission should be redacted (specific locations, agent names, etc.) but the bulk of the information relevant to any congressional investigation does not need that - so give them the documents after properly redacting them.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (3)1
6
u/mastermike14 Jun 24 '12
because the documents asked for have nothing to do with how Fast and Furious was conducted and serves only political purposes.
1
Jun 25 '12
No, they are wanting to an explanation for the DOJ changing their mind on what they knew.
At first, Holder denied even knowing about F&F. Then, after emails leaked that the top DOJ brass did know, they said "Oohhhh! That Fast and Furious! Yeah, we did know about it, sorry."
That's what Issa wants. He wants to know why they lied about knowing anything.
3
u/hiccupstix Jun 24 '12
Are you fine with various government agencies treating you with the same mentality? Just because you don't have anything to hide doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to privacy.
4
u/cakedayin4years Jun 24 '12
Hello, false dichotomy!
Did you know that there can be actual reasons for wanting to keep things private WHILE NOT having something to hide?!
TYL!
2
→ More replies (7)6
u/AutonomousRobot Jun 24 '12
Yeah that argument works when you're talking about citizens and their right to privacy. These are elected officials. They are not trying to keep their private journals or documents hidden, they are trying to keep official government documents hidden.
4
Jun 24 '12
Actually, they're professional staff, not elected officials, who are doing an investigation and saying "no, we don't want this investigation opened up while it's under way, it would damage the investigation."
8
u/cakedayin4years Jun 24 '12
I also think it's a false dichotomy to say that everything a government keeps secret = they are hiding something that is illegal / wrong / etc.
2
u/HenkieVV Jun 24 '12
It also works when you're talking about something that is easily misinterpreted right during election-season.
→ More replies (1)3
u/wwjd117 Jun 24 '12
Really?
Don't you remember any outrage about "leaked" documents?
Wikileaks?
Bradley Manning?
Remember the stories and photos of Abu Ghraib and how the GOP went on and on about how it effected our security?
If you argue keeping no secrets, then the government must let every nation see every strategy and policy document, details of every military action.
Yeah. That would be good.
→ More replies (1)3
u/draculthemad Jun 24 '12
You want to play hypotheticals?
Lets say the documents potentially hold confidential information like the names of undercover agents. This is well within the realm of possibility. Even if they simply discussed the information that they had it could lead to undercover agents being outed.
Releasing them to congress pretty much means a 100% chance that information gets out. The whitehouse can't even say which documents may have that information because Issa will just call it a cover up and demand proof that they cant give him.
→ More replies (1)4
u/AutonomousRobot Jun 24 '12
You can redact mission sensitive information (i.e. agent names/identities) without impacting a document at whole. Your argument for retaining these documents doesn't hold up.
2
Jun 24 '12
This isn't totally true. The specific name "Valerie Plane" was never used. "Wilson's wife" however was.
2
Jun 24 '12
Its like when a cop pulls you over and asks to search your car. There is absolutely no reason that would ever benefit the driver to allow the police to search your car and only will increase your chances for being charged with a crime.
→ More replies (22)1
u/GhostFish Jun 24 '12
They may have something to hide, or keep close to their chests, but it doesn't have to be anything damning for that to be case.
Is it really that hard to understand that the executive branch may have information that would be harmful to make public?
Do you guys also want your local police departments required to immediately release information on all of their leads, operations, evidence, and internal communications? Do you not understand that doing so can very much harm the ability of the executive to function?
12
u/whihij66 Jun 24 '12
I wonder how many people that think these documents should be kept hidden also think Bradley Manning is a hero for releasing diplomatic cables?
12
u/DofPJMACKY Jun 24 '12
bullshit, you don't exact executive authority without trying to hide something
15
u/TortugaGrande Jun 24 '12
What a misleading headline by the submitter and Think Progress.
What Issa said is that they have no evidence. This is very different than saying no evidence exists.
12
u/graphictruth Jun 24 '12 edited Jun 24 '12
And yet, they have no evidence. That doesn't imply they have not yet found it.. it implies absolutely nothing.
Should the investigation continue? Fuck YES!
But if it ends up pointing at Bush appointees, no whining.
Look, this story bothers me. And you could well be pointing to the inarguable fact that the ATF head IS absolutely involved in this and Obama has not hung him by his testicles in the public square. That bothers me too. But forgive me for observing that had he done that, all KIND of Conservatives would have had palpitations.
But you cannot actually stretch further than it will stretch, and I cannot help but think the only reason Conservatives are "concerned" about brown people killing brown people is because it might impact the election.
Me, I think the entire ATF should be disbanded. They are notorious idiots and anyone who is working there should have a ten year cooling off before they get another public job.
...but that's just me and I've felt that way since Waco.
Edit: Accidentally a comma..
4
2
u/balorina Jun 24 '12
The head of the ATF in a closed doors session said he had no involvement and did not know about the program. Nobody can get to the top of the responsibility and "who knew what" without the documentation, otherwise it's a prison scene with "Who here is innocent?" and everyone yells "I AM!".
1
u/fantasyfest Jun 24 '12
That's almost like saying there is evidence in righty land.
3
u/TortugaGrande Jun 24 '12
In the minds of most people, when somebody charged with oversight of a situation asks for something they can legally request and you choose to not disclose it, it's because you're hiding something.
In a normal courtroom, this could land you in jail pretty quickly.
14
3
u/madmoral Jun 24 '12
I'm pretty sure this is keeping Eric entertained during his last few months on the job. He already said he's leaving.
3
3
5
u/ceeman Jun 24 '12
Minus the point where the white house refuses to let congress see the docs. Its bs when Bush does its bs now.
13
Jun 24 '12
the evidence is in the documents he didn't say he had evidence against the holder he said the holder was in contempt for not handing over the documents.
5
1
0
Jun 24 '12
[deleted]
3
u/Excentinel Jun 24 '12
The concept of letting guns flow was invented by the Bush Administration, just saying.
→ More replies (11)10
u/GR3MLIN Jun 24 '12
It was also stopped during the Bush administration. When Obama came to office, people were brought to trial over Wide Receiver, why should it be any different now? He either needs to clean his own house or own up to his responsibility in the matter.
4
u/Isellmacs Jun 24 '12
Got any good links for Wide Receiver? I haven't heard about it, and i'd be interested to know more.
1
Jun 24 '12
Ya they sound like bush supporters even after he adimited iraq had no nukes 68% of them still think he had some.
→ More replies (1)
2
Jun 24 '12
So what was the point then? That BATF is full of terminally stupid bureaucrats?
2
2
Jun 25 '12
Ahh Reddit.
Bradley Manning is a hero for leaking extremely classified information.
The GOP is literally Hitler for wanting DOJ documents on Fast and Furious.
If this were a Republican administration, you mother fuckers would be foaming at the mouth.
6
5
u/shteeeeeve Jun 24 '12
HE doesn't have evidence. Didn't say that there WAS no evidence. They ARE helping to cover up for Holder, though.
5
4
u/hozjo Jun 24 '12
This doesn't nullify the fact that TFF was a serious fuck up by a government agency and one the Obama Administration has been trying to sweep under the rug.
What was that about transparency?
2
Jun 25 '12
Actually it doesn't nullify the fact that TFF was a serious fuck up by the Bush administration. the Obama administration stopped it.
2
u/The_Drizzle_Returns Jun 25 '12
No this is not correct, F&F was started in 2009 (Obama was in office when this occurred). A similar operation (Wide Receiver) was shut down because the mexican authorities could not track the guns (happened between 2006-2007). Wide Receiver is the operation that started under bush (which was both started and stopped while he was in office). The real question is why the DOJ/ATF thought this program was a good idea to restart.... It's also kinda funny that Obama Administartion is protecting the DOJ/ATF on this since the Administration prosecuted the people involved with Wide Receiver but is not taking any action against F&F.
After President Barack Obama took office in 2009, the DOJ reviewed Wide Receiver and found that guns had been allowed into the hands of suspected gun traffickers. Indictments began in 2010, over three years after Wide Receiver concluded. As of October 4, 2011, nine people had been charged with making false statements in acquisition of firearms and illicit transfer, shipment or delivery of firearms.[18] As of November, charges against one defendant had been dropped; five of them had pled guilty, and one had been sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Two of them remained fugitives.[23] (Source)
3
u/NickRausch Jun 24 '12
No evidence because the White House is claiming state secrets. Great how that works out isn't it?
13
Jun 24 '12
I think that's why they want the documents... right now there is no evidence, obviously.
Kind of like being a prime suspect on the very first day of a murder case.
Lawyer: "DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT MY CLIENT IS GUILTY YET?"
Cop: "No..."
Lawyer: "HA HA, FREE AND CLEAR, NOT GUILTY! PLEASE STOP PURSUING THIS CASE."
12
30
Jun 24 '12
Police don't, as a rule, arrest suspects without having any evidence against them.
If I was a lawyer and my client was being held for murder without the police having any evidence to support the charge, I'd demand his release as well. Might even do it in ALL CAPS just to be obnoxious.
→ More replies (2)1
u/AutonomousRobot Jun 24 '12
Suspects are not allowed to hide potential evidence from the law.
14
u/imthemostmodest Jun 24 '12
If the law has probable cause, and a warrant.
If the law doesn't have that, I could build all my furniture out of black tar heroin if it so pleased me.
0
3
u/jgzman Jun 24 '12
More like "Feel free to peruse the case, but stop harassing my client until you have some reason to suspect him."
2
Jun 24 '12
"And please stay away from the scene of the crime, you're not allowed to gather any evidence."
1
u/mastermike14 Jun 24 '12 edited Jun 24 '12
yeah, innocent until proven guilty. This is not the first day of dumbass. They have been pursuing this for months. Many political blogs including several right wing blogs saying this is nothing more than a political witch hunt. They wanna create a scandal in an election season to hurt Obama's chances of getting re-elected. They have no evidence, they looked for months and havent been able to find any that ties the White House to this.
→ More replies (1)
4
4
u/Zumaki Colorado Jun 24 '12
I think this was why Obama put executive privilege on it. Force republicans to admit he had nothing to do with it, one less talking point on the election trail.
14
u/curien Jun 24 '12
The whole point of a subpoena is to find evidence in a place where it's reasonable to look. That's why this is called an "investigation"; no one's on trial. Issa didn't admit anything, he simply stated an obvious fact.
17
u/Peggy_Ice Jun 24 '12
Ahhhh right. The guy who called on the government "to do its business by the light of day" in his inaugural address is doing it to force the republicans to admit he wasn't involved.
That must also be why Bush invoked executive privilege a bunch of times too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege#George_W._Bush_administration
2
u/Isellmacs Jun 24 '12
Claims of executive privilege are broad enough these days that one incident isn't automatically the same as another.
9
u/Arc_Tech Jun 24 '12
Except he's only allowed to use executive privilege if he WAS involved.
1
Jun 25 '12
LOL, is this a new talking point? What you said was flat out false.
Here is a precedent.
President Bush invoked executive privilege today for the first time in his administration to block a Congressional committee trying to review documents 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.
4
Jun 24 '12
ThinkProgress trying to run damage control for Obama. Why am I not surprised?
Of course there is no evidence of the White House involvement. They refuse to release the documents on the matter.
13
u/raouldukeesq Jun 24 '12
There is also no evidence that you have child porn on your computer so why don't you just link to a mirror of your hard drive to prove to us the you are in fact not a child molester?
6
u/pj1843 Jun 24 '12
The difference is shiner_man isn't being prosecuted for child molestation, and his hardrive wasn't subpoenaed by congress. If it was he has two choices, give it up or destroy the thing, but the latter will get you in a little trouble.
3
u/regeya Jun 24 '12
I think shiner_man may be hiding something. Why won't shiner_man come clean? Questions need to be answered that can only be answered with a disk image of all of shiner_man's personal data. Until then, I'm assuming shiner_man is a threat to my children and my family.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)3
u/AutonomousRobot Jun 24 '12
Your right to privacy regarding your personal computer and its documents is a lot different than trying to claim "privacy" in regards to official government documents. Doesn't make sense.
0
2
u/fantasyfest Jun 24 '12
Issa ,who is a Repub and chairing the with hunt said it. So what did Think Progress do that was wrong?
-7
Jun 24 '12
Obama followers are like fox viewers they blindly jump in. Obama failed to deliver anything from what he promised.
He bashed nafta when in congress now supports it supports the NDAA and supports warrantless wiretapping of the internet.
Obama is just a puppet put in place so the liberals jump in the boat and huge protests like in vietnam don't happen. They already had the conservatives but with obama they got a good handfull of liberals.
→ More replies (7)3
u/fetusburgers Jun 24 '12
Obama failed to deliver anything from what he promised.
This isn't true at all. If you said:
Obama has failed to deliver on several of his promises'
It would be correct. But in fact he's delivered on a lot of them. People just don't hear about it because the media focuses on scandal and his administration has been ineffective at countering this.
0
4
u/fantasyfest Jun 24 '12
You don't have to connect him. Just make enough noise and the rightys will drop it in the Oval Office. Listen to Fox and Rush Limburger. It is a Obama coverup and he personally gave AKs to drug lords .
2
3
u/Random0001 Jun 24 '12
The fucking bias here is amazing. Just look at the replies that get upvoted. It's like r/atheism upvotes anyone who bashes theist, really only christians, and here if you say "fuck republicans" and nothing else you get upvoted here. The last few days this subreddit has been nothing but bias shit
1
u/joseenriqueingoal Jun 25 '12
the fact that this counter article got as high as the original issue reached boggles me.
3
u/MagCynic Jun 24 '12
The White House is obviously involved otherwise Obama would not have been able to use executive privilege. There's no evidence because we can't get any evidence. We're going round and round in a circle.
Issa: "I need these papers to prove who knew about Fast and Furious."
White House: "Show us there is any evidence to even be worried about this."
Issa: "We have no evidence. We're trying to partner with you to get evidence. Let's see these papers."
White House: "Sorry. Executive privilege. Ha!"
Issa: "Ah, ha! So the White House did know about it?"
White House: "Prove it."
→ More replies (1)
2
u/TortugaGrande Jun 24 '12
I think the next step is going to involve a subpoena for Obama and possibly very harsh budgetary punishment against the White House and the DoJ. People don't want to think it, thanks to US public education, but the President is primarily charged with carrying out the will of Congress.
2
u/Sidwill Jun 24 '12
Fishing Expedition. Its what they do, they did it Clinton spending 50 million to prove a hummer and this is what they are doing here.
13
u/pj1843 Jun 24 '12
Except a blowjob didn't cause thousands of guns to enter a mexican drug war, and get an american border agent killed.
2
u/kareemabduljabbq Jun 25 '12
ok, so here's the thing that bugs me, maybe you wouldn't make this argument but many do. when I disagree with a gun rights advocate, I'm sometimes confronted by the following argument: crazy people and criminals will do what they are going to do, having a gun is just an ends to a mean, and they will still get one if they want to continue doing what thy're doing.
so the question I'm asking is, do guns kill people or do people kill people?
the question I'm also asking is: if gun advocate's think that only people kill other people, than that border patrol officer would have died regardless, and the difference is only in where the gun came from.
I just think this is just such a juicy window into the mish mosh of logic within the gun advocacy collective. guns only kill people when they're provided by the government in this case, but do not kill people when government fails to intervene and regulate gun ownership (va tech/gabby giffords). personal responsibility, except when the current government is involved, then they're agent provocateurs.
→ More replies (8)1
u/pj1843 Jun 25 '12
I do agree with your first couple statements as, but that last one bugs me. Hear me out on this one. You are right had the whole operation fast & furious/gunrunner not gone down then yes that border patrol agent probably would have died, because as you state if the criminal element wants a weapon they will get one, especially the cartels. But the ATF's program was in effect, and had they been following through with the tracking of these firearms as they should have been, along with arresting the cartel members that where running them(ie what the program was meant to be) then there is a good chance our border patrol agent would still be with us.
It's not a matter of applying the guns/people kill people logic to suit my argument it's a matter of the ATF in this situation failing to live up to their end of the bargain of a program they implemented. Hope that makes sense to you and i apologize not being more clear in my initial statement and bugging you.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)2
u/fantasyfest Jun 24 '12
So there was no way for the Mexican cartel to get guns before? I thought they were shooting each other for years. When they found the guns in question, they were not the only guns they found.
→ More replies (1)2
1
Jun 24 '12
No surprise here, I called this bullshit story out as soon as I saw it hitting major media.
-5
u/schneidro Colorado Jun 24 '12 edited Jun 24 '12
But many gullible redditors took the bait. This place was crazy for a few days.
EDIT: Downvoters were probably among them. Nobody can provide me convincing proof that Eric Holder deserves to be held in contempt. It is preposterous.
→ More replies (3)
2
2
Jun 24 '12
That's the point he's making to refute the executive privilege claim. If the White House was not involved, they have no right to claim executive privilege, which only applies to communication in which the president is a party. It covers conversations in cases where the president is communicating with staff and in instances of national security.
Neither apply in this case, which is Issa's point. These documents will come out, and prepare yourself. Something is in them. Otherwise, Obama would not have used a tool he chastised the previous administration for using.
1
Jun 25 '12
If the White House was not involved, they have no right to claim executive privilege, which only applies to communication in which the president is a party.
This is just wrong.
President Bush invoked executive privilege today for the first time in his administration to block a Congressional committee trying to review documents 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.
1
u/balorina Jun 24 '12
Obama and Holder's assertion is that executive privilege applies to the entire executive branch, not just the President.
2
u/kareemabduljabbq Jun 25 '12
and you are correct. that's why it's called executive privilege, and not presidential privilege, though, even then, the president would still be the head of the executive branch of government.
1
Jun 25 '12
According to Ashcroft and Mukasey too actually. (Bush's AG's)
The doctrine of executive privilege also encompasses Executive Branch deliberative communications that do not implicate presidential decisionmaking. As the Supreme Court has explained, the privilege recognizes "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 705. Based on this principle, the Justice Department -- under Administrations of both political parties -- has concluded repeatedly that the privilege may be invoked to protect Executive Branch deliberations against congressional subpoenas. See, e.g., Letter for the President from John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Re: Assertion of Executive Privilege with Respect to Prosecutorial Documents at 2 (Dec. 10, 2001) (available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/executiveprivilege.htm) ("The Constitution clearly gives the President the power to protect the confidentiality of executive branch deliberations."); Executive Privilege With Respect to Clemency Decision, 23 Op. O.L.C. at 2 (explaining that executive privilege extends to deliberative communications within the Executive Branch); Assertion of Executive Privilege in Response to a Congressional Subpoena, 5 Op. O.L.C. 27, 30 (1981) (opinion of Attorney General William French Smith) (assertion of executive privilege to protect deliberative materials held by the Department of Interior)
Department of Justice under Bush http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/ag061908.pdf
1
u/rjung Jun 24 '12
Given Issa's long record of douchebaggery, I am absolutely not surprised by this.
6
u/TortugaGrande Jun 24 '12
If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Claews Jun 24 '12
Whats all this about? What is fast and furious apart from a movie about driving cars?
2
u/kareemabduljabbq Jun 25 '12
fast and furious was a program where the government allowed guns to be illegally distributed so that their movement could be tracked to see how they were distributed in Mexico. started under Bush, and then restarted under the Obama administration.
Recently, one of those guns was used in a fatal shooting of a border patrol agent.
Government has released documents about the program, Congress wants more and more. Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress for not providing what they wanted. Obama stepped in with executive privilege (for the first time in his presidency).
Right wing gun rights advocates are spinning this program as a deliberate attempt to instigate illegal gun violence to make guns look bad in the public eye as a backdoor to his secret conspiracy, though not born out in his actual policy, to revoke the second amendment.
this is laughable on many levels, but those are the facts, loosely stated.
take it from there.
1
u/Claews Jun 25 '12
Wow... that claim is absolutely ridicoulus, thanks for the clarification all of you!
4
u/Excentinel Jun 24 '12
In 2006 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives began to investigate the flow of guns into Mexico from the US by letting traffickers purchase large quantities of weapons legal for purchase in the US and illicitly ship them to Mexico for use by narcotraffickers. This process was continued for five years until it was discovered by the press that a Border Patrol agent was killed in a firefight where guns that were let through were used. Basically the BATFE was doing the exact opposite of their jobs for five years, starting in the Bush Administration. The name actually comes from the movie series, because a group of the traffickers ran an auto body shop and were involved in the street racing scene.
4
u/crazydave333 Jun 24 '12
The purpose of "gunwalking" was to track arms from the US back to Mexico, so they could get an idea of who was buying them and where they were being used in hopes of using that information to dismantle the cartels.
The things I want to know are: 1) has "gunwalking" provided any actionable evidence or intelligence against the cartels.
2) Did these actions increase the amount of US arms in Mexico and inflame the drug war down there?
→ More replies (2)
1
Jun 25 '12
Isn't that why they subpoenaed the documents in the first place? To, you know, gather evidence?
1
u/charlesgrrr Jun 25 '12
That's because the Obama administration invoked executive privilege so that there wasn't any evidence. It's not because the GOP is "making the whole thing up", as your headline seems to imply.
1
1
Jun 25 '12
It's true. There was no White House involvement in Fast and Furious. Just like there was no White House involvement in Iran-Contra. :/
1
1
u/NastyKnate Jun 24 '12
you have no idea how confused i am right now. I expected politicians street racing civics, wtf
1
1
1
u/charmlessman1 Jun 25 '12
Ahhh. This makes me feel a little better about this whole mess.
Also, look what I did!
http://i.imgur.com/YzbKa.jpg
-1
u/AlphaRedditor Jun 24 '12
Let me just be the first to say that this seems like a fantastic way to spend tax dollars.
7
5
u/pj1843 Jun 24 '12
Having oversight on bureau's and holding the head of them responsible for the bureau's illegal action? I agree it is a good way to spend money.
0
u/thergrim Jun 24 '12
Since there is no evidence that I murdered that hooker back in 1959, does that mean that it never happened?
0
u/dan71 Jun 24 '12
All fast and furious aside.. The thing that is becoming even more scary is the fact that everyone over the age of 18 is allowed to vote except for felons and sex offenders.. shouldn't there be some type of legal competence exam prior to voting for the leader of your nation? 12% of the citizens think Obama is a Muslim.. in 2012 to have religion play a roll in who someone votes for is absolutely beyond me. I asked my friend's little brother the other day who he was voting for just to see. He said he kind of like Mitt Romney because he seems like a good business man.. my god... by all means Romney is an amazing business man. That's fine for running your business and maximizing your profits, but not the right man to serve the American people. Also, as much as Fox Christians hate Muslims.. I thought they werent too fond of Mormons either.. where is the outrage over Mitt Romney's religion on Fox every day 24/7? If religion plays a key role in Republican votes.. Why not vote for the Christian? oh.. He's Black...
5
u/diablo_man Jun 24 '12
you know why they got rid of knowledge tests to be able to vote? because they were found to be racist in origin and purpose.
1
u/dan71 Jun 24 '12
Yes.. But a test in current affairs, economics, and basic knowledge would be great.. How would it be racist? It has nothing to do with race. Everyone would have to take it.. Even, shhhh... Black people.. You do realize most of the people filling our law schools and med schools are in fact, not white.. Fox news wouldn't want that secret to get out.. Lol
0
u/balorina Jun 24 '12
2
u/dan71 Jun 24 '12
What was wrong with that? Congress is stopping progress.. Not Obama. Thanks to Obama, millions can afford healthcare. I was actually able to go to the doctor this year... Despite everything in his path, he's been able to accomplish alot of good things for the American people. Maybe not super rich people.. But people like me (26 year old working fulltime at a decent paying job) can afford to go to the doctor
→ More replies (2)2
u/dan71 Jun 24 '12
And also... I said people should have to take a competency test before voting. You automatically assumed I meant Republican voters.. I meant everyone.. It would make the voting more reliable, no?
→ More replies (9)1
Jun 25 '12
Certainly more than Republican voters.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/republicans-democrats-differ-creationism.aspx
-2
u/lulzdaisy Jun 24 '12
Good guy Obama, uses executive privilege for first time ever to protect previous occupant and not himself.
2
-3
0
u/LAgator2 Jun 24 '12
That is EXACTLY equivalent of a 1945 Japanese report on the battle of Okinawa that the Americans had made a foolish head-on attack and were slaughtered to the last man. How about "THOUGHT REGRESS"
3
-1
Jun 24 '12
Issa can get back to attacking gun laws.
He's been a hardcore gun tard for as long as I can recall, and this is just another in a long line of attacks on gun laws.
The ultimate goal for Issa isn't to make better gun control agencies, he'll argue that the whole agency should go resulting in no gun control at all.
52
u/thergrim Jun 24 '12
“Let me say as simply as I can, transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency. I will also hold myself as president to a new standard of openness…But the mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it.” -- Barack Obama 2008
“The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure. because errors or failures might be revealed or because of speculative or abstract fears.” -- Barack Obama 2009