Senator tells Holder to resign.

[hndog609]

I think you and bham are wrong on this. The privilege is being asserted as to DOJ documents. Obama asserts executive privilege on Fast and Furious documents - CNN.com

Holder had already asserted it, but it took formal claim to assert it.

I base this in part on my experience as a lawyer in that you can't simply refuse a discovery request based on privilege. You have to affirmatively assert it, say why, and that is done so as to make the issue ripe for a court to decide.

It appears that is what has happened here. Although the headline is that Obama has asserted it, that is because it is his executive privilege to assert, on behalf of Holder and the DOJ. This is in anticipation of a contempt citation and, should the GOP wish to push it that far, an eventual court hearing.

It just sets the platform up for judicial review.

So you're saying this administration is clearly awash in transparency, right?

 

[utvolpj]

and on what basis is he claiming it? If there are docs that prove they knew this happened/could possibly happen and we can't see them because of "exec privilege" then why even bother investigating anything? If the murder of a US agent with guns supplied by the US govt can be swept under the rug by the most transparent admin in history then we're doomed

at the very least he should be impeached for lying to Congress. Gonzales got railroaded for much less

 

[volinbham]

I think you and bham are wrong on this. The privilege is being asserted as to DOJ documents. Obama asserts executive privilege on Fast and Furious documents - CNN.com

Holder had already asserted it, but it took formal claim to assert it.

I base this in part on my experience as a lawyer in that you can't simply refuse a discovery request based on privilege. You have to affirmatively assert it, say why, and that is done so as to make the issue ripe for a court to decide.

It appears that is what has happened here. Although the headline is that Obama has asserted it, that is because it is his executive privilege to assert, on behalf of Holder and the DOJ. This is in anticipation of a contempt citation and, should the GOP wish to push it that far, an eventual court hearing.

It just sets the platform up for judicial review.

When did Holder assert it? Link?

WH has claimed EP based on WH aides communicating with DoJ on how to handle fallout. Clearly that isn't something Holder would have asserted.

 

[lawgator1]

So you're saying this administration is clearly awash in transparency, right?

Asserting the same legal privilege that many administrations have, and will in the future, assert does not make you non-transparent. I realize that it will be spun that way by the far right, but that is simply an inaccurate characterization.

 

[utvolpj]

Asserting the same legal privilege that many administrations have, and will in the future, assert does not make you non-transparent. I realize that it will be spun that way by the far right, but that is simply an inaccurate characterization.

how does that jive (yeah, I said it) with his actual claims?

"Information will not be withheld just because I say so; it will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well-grounded in the Constitution. Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Barack Obama

what separate authority reviewed and agreed? Hint: the Attorney General's office is not an acceptable answer

 

[lawgator1]

and on what basis is he claiming it? If there are docs that prove they knew this happened/could possibly happen and we can't see them because of "exec privilege" then why even bother investigating anything? If the murder of a US agent with guns supplied by the US govt can be swept under the rug by the most transparent admin in history then we're doomed

at the very least he should be impeached for lying to Congress. Gonzales got railroaded for much less

I don't know, but one possible court resolution is for a judge to review them and determine whether they are privileged, or not. That is pretty common resolution in such cases. Wouldn't be surprised if that is what happened here.

I mean, you guys are openly speculating that the documents contain some damning revelation that Holder was a planner for this. I can openly speculate that they contain information that describes our plans for dealing with Mexican drug trafficking and we don't want to reveal that.

That is part of executive privilege and it will be examined.

My suspicion is that the GOP does not want to go that far because they will be worried that a judge will sustain the privilege. They'd rather go "A ha! You must be hiding something!" And just leave it at that because that achieves their real purpose here, which is to create feigned outrage, regardless of the actual facts.

 

[utvolpj]

I mean, you guys are openly speculating that the documents contain some damning revelation that Holder was a planner for this.

not at all since that is not the claim. Holder said he had no prior knowledge of the operation. Being caught in that lie is enough to end his employment and he knows it. We don't need the operational details just a when and how much

 

[volinbham]

I mean, you guys are openly speculating that the documents contain some damning revelation that Holder was a planner for this. I can openly speculate that they contain information that describes our plans for dealing with Mexican drug trafficking and we don't want to reveal that.

It's actually a very short window of time long after F&F. Holder has NEVER suggested that the documents have any security/classified information. In his letter to the WH making the request and in the statements from the WH they claim these are simply conversations about how to handle the situation in relation to Congressional requests. A revelation that Holder or someone else at DoJ had some knowledge/involvement is MUCH more likely than some national security issue with regard to Mexico. That said, I don't think Holder was behind it. I do think he knew about it well before he suggested and these documents show the CYA they went through after things blew up



That is part of executive privilege and it will be examined.

My suspicion is that the GOP does not want to go that far because they will be worried that a judge will sustain the privilege. They'd rather go "A ha! You must be hiding something!" And just leave it at that because that achieves their real purpose here, which is to create feigned outrage, regardless of the actual facts.

Don't forget that the WH could have made this all go away but providing the documents. They upped the ante.

Still waiting for evidence that Holder claimed EP months ago.

 

[hndog609]

Asserting the same legal privilege that many administrations have, and will in the future, assert does not make you non-transparent. I realize that it will be spun that way by the far right, but that is simply an inaccurate characterization.

When you set your administration up as "the most open and transparent in history"? Nope. Saying specifically that you'll be doing it differently opens the door to criticism, no spin required.

These guys are already hoist with their own petard on that issue. It only puts more teeth in the "If there's nothing to hide, show us." argument they'll be facing...and deservedly so.

 

[utvolpj]

and if the EP thing holds and everyone goes along their merry way then I hope Romney brings it up during every debate. If Holder's still the AG he should bring it up twice

 

[volinbham]

and if the EP thing holds and everyone goes along their merry way then I hope Romney brings it up during every debate. If Holder's still the AG he should bring it up twice

It will hold. Holder will likely get a contempt charge although I don't know how the EP impacts that.

Politically, the WH must feel that something more embarrassing is in the documents than the suspicion that the EP raises. Given how politically crafted all the WH moves are that tells me something right there about the contents.

 

[volinbham]

When you set your administration up as "the most open and transparent in history"? Nope. Saying specifically that you'll be doing it differently opens the door to criticism, no spin required.

These guys are already hoist with their own petard on that issue. It only puts more teeth in the "If there's nothing to hide, show us." argument they'll be facing...and deservedly so.

there's also the comments from Obama (Senator) suggesting that W's use of EP is an indication he has something to hide.

The list of things he criticized W for but has now done is growing longer by the day.

 

[cd12]

So if the DOJ issues subpoenas do they give the defendants these same privledges extended to them? Do defendants get to decide what is important to the DOJ's case?

 

[lawgator1]

and if the EP thing holds and everyone goes along their merry way then I hope Romney brings it up during every debate. If Holder's still the AG he should bring it up twice

I am not sure that bringing this up by Romney in the debates is a great idea. Obama will be loaded for bear on it -- better to stick to the economy, imo.

Guy on CNBC made one of the most insightful comments yesterday. He pointed out that only 5-7 % of people haven't made up their minds by now. And his point was that the people in that group are as bystander as bystander gets when it comes to politics. As divided as things have become, as partisan, how can someone not have made up their mind at this point?

And so that group, it will almost solely be about, in the closing days, how do they feel about the economy and specifically their own situations.

I think that's true and in my mind its so close. On the one hand things are still a mess and Obama hasn't been able to deliver on his promises. On the other hand, Romney is open to attack about whether he is really the guy to create jobs.

Once you get past that issue, people in the 5-7 % just aren't going to listen.

 

[lawgator1]

From CNN:


Q: When is the last time an executive branch official faced a contempt citation?


A: Although this is the first time an attorney general has faced a potential contempt citation, other executive branch officials have been held in contempt of Congress.
Most recently, George W. Bush White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten were held in contempt of Congress despite Bush asserting executive privilege in their case. During the vote in early 2008, a large number of Republicans walked out in protest of what they saw as a partisan vote.


Miers and Bolten were accused of failing to cooperate in a congressional investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys and allegations that the White House was using the Justice Department for political aims. Their citations marked the first time White House officials had been found in contempt of Congress.

 

[volinbham]

Quick quiz. Who said this?

“I think we will determine over the next several weeks how this administration (President Bush) responds to the very appropriate call by Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to have these individuals come in and testify, xxxx said in 2007. “There‘s been a tendency on the part of this administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there’s something a little shaky that’s taken place. I think the administration would be best served by coming clean on this. There doesn’t seem to be any national security issues involved with the U.S. Attorney… There doesn’t same to be any justification for not offering up some clear, plausible rationale for why these U.S. Attorneys were targeted when by all assessments they were doing an outstanding job.”

“I think the American people deserve to know what was going on,”

 

[lawgator1]

You mean both sides do it?

No way.

 

[utvolpj]

you mean firings and murder aren't equal?

no way

 

[lawgator1]

Wasn't that one over the firing of the attorneys general in some districts? I remember that --not sure that it compares but, as I say, both sides employing this tactic.

 

[lawgator1]

you mean firings and murder aren't equal?

no way

Huh? What are you talking about?

 

[BearCat204]

It will hold. Holder will likely get a contempt charge although I don't know how the EP impacts that.

Politically, the WH must feel that something more embarrassing is in the documents than the suspicion that the EP raises. Given how politically crafted all the WH moves are that tells me something right there about the contents.

Thats what I have been thinking after seeing what has unfolded. I would be very, very interested in seeing what is in those documents

 

[gsvol]

wow, clearly part of his transparent admin promise. Sad they can hide like this

If Obama wasn't involved (a blatant lie) before, he is involved up to his eyebrows now.

It's obvious that there is something in the documents. Interesting move by the POTUS. WH has repeatedly denied they had any contact with DoJ on this. This move certainly raises the specter of WH involvement.

I'm sure the Terry family is thrilled that the government is hiding the facts behind his death.

Clearly Obama is trying to delay until after the election.

Somebody needs to start keeping an eye on Sandy Berger. Just saying.

lol:

You mean Sandy Burglar?

So if the DOJ issues subpoenas do they give the defendants these same privledges extended to them? Do defendants get to decide what is important to the DOJ's case?

Some animals are more equal than others.

DOJ Secretly Drops Terrorism Charges In Taliban Case | Judicial Watch

The Department of Justice (DOJ) refuses to explain why it has abruptly dropped terrorism charges against a member of a Middle Eastern family indicted in south Florida last year with providing material support for the Pakistani Taliban.

In all, six people were charged with sending tens of thousands of dollars to the terrorist organization, which is associated with Al-Qaeda and has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks against American interests, including a 2009 suicide bombing at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan. The ringleader in this case is a Pakistani imam (Hafiz Muhammed Sher Ali Khan) who ran a mosque in Miami. The others include his sons, daughter and grandson.

It's only fair, if the Obama administration is going to leak information about a Pakistani doctor who helped us locate bin Laden, then why should be prosecuting those who are assisting the talibanis kill and maim American servicement in Afghanistan.

I have to say, the admins is at least being consistent with it's message to the Americn people.

 

[BeecherVol]

I am not sure that bringing this up by Romney in the debates is a great idea. Obama will be loaded for bear on it -- better to stick to the economy, imo.

Guy on CNBC made one of the most insightful comments yesterday. He pointed out that only 5-7 % of people haven't made up their minds by now. And his point was that the people in that group are as bystander as bystander gets when it comes to politics. As divided as things have become, as partisan, how can someone not have made up their mind at this point?

And so that group, it will almost solely be about, in the closing days, how do they feel about the economy and specifically their own situations.

I think that's true and in my mind its so close. On the one hand things are still a mess and Obama hasn't been able to deliver on his promises. On the other hand, Romney is open to attack about whether he is really the guy to create jobs.

Once you get past that issue, people in the 5-7 % just aren't going to listen.

Why does he need to reiterate that the economy sucks? Most realize that without Romney or anyone else telling them that. Romney doesn't have to bend and twist numbers to make that point. Thus he doesn't have to expend as much energy driving it home.

IMO thats Obama's problem right now. There is plenty of the obvious that is sticking out, he's gonna have to dodge darts from the less obvious from here on out.

To the last bold. I would agree. Obama's problem is that he has a record as the POTUS tho, (which even some of his followers thinks is less that stellar). Romney doesn't. That doesn't mean that it is a slam dunk that Romney is the savior at all, but from a campaign stand point he has less to defend than Obama.

 

[lawgator1]

Why does he need to reiterate that the economy sucks? Most realize that without Romney or anyone else telling them that. Romney doesn't have to bend and twist numbers to make that point. Thus he doesn't have to expend as much energy driving it home.

IMO thats Obama's problem right now. There is plenty of the obvious that is sticking out, he's gonna have to dodge darts from the less obvious from here on out.

To the last bold. I would agree. Obama's problem is that he has a record as the POTUS tho, (which even some of his followers thinks is less that stellar). Romney doesn't. That doesn't mean that it is a slam dunk that Romney is the savior at all, but from a campaign stand point he has less to defend than Obama.

I don't know about you, but most people I talk to are not at all convinced that the POTUS, whoever it might be, has much control over the current malaise. All they hear about on tv is the Greek crisis and the Eurozone is holding back the stock market. And as to housing, which is number one in their minds down this way, the lion's share of resentment is reserved for the mortgage industry.

I think that there is danger in trying to generalize the economic problems of voters. Because in the end we are talking about such a small percentage who will make the difference, and if they are so uninformed that they are undecided now, what line of thinking will work in late October?

 

[volinbham]

How can Bush be to blame with his "failed policies" if the POTUS doesn't have much control at all over the economy?

More seriously, the election is forward looking - people will be looking at who is better suited to move things in the right direction. Obama's biggest weakness is that his actions to date haven't made any appreciable difference in economic conditions but have and do appear to have had a big impact on the debt.