Purple,
I appreciate your desire to be a strict constitutionalist. However, I gave that fight up myself after having pages upon pages of court cases brought to my attention by some on these forums showing that the Constitution adapts w/o the benefit of amendment. As it is not in the Constitution, I would be quite happy to not allow it. Not only in this specific, but ALL other instances.

I thank you for the specific showing other members of the executive branch.

Does this have the appearance of something being hidden? If this is a screw-up by the Bush admin, wouldn't Obama's Admin be shouting this from the rooftops?

ray

Ricky, is it your view that it is okay for the justice department to not provide such documents? What is their motivation

I don't know if its okay. I would generally look for greater transparency. And comprehensive analysis and information gathering.

I do know that they, Issa's committee, haven't requested documents germane to the formulation of the "gun walking" strategy. So they aren't actually interested in really exploring how the policy was formed, how often it was used or whether it was effective.
That to me would be useful.
Nor have they actually called testimony from people in the Phoenix ATF office who ran the operation, or from the former head of the ATF, who told committee investigators that he never informed Justice Department higher-ups of the operation because he didn’t know about .

So Issa's so called investigation has the nature of a Hannity television quotation. He wants a scrap that might, in isolation, be construed in one manner. (Although we'll never know.)
I can understand Holders frustration with Issa's antics.
Its unfortunate that he resorted to the use of the executive privilege. It is, to Obamas credit, the first time in his adminsitration that EP has been used.

rickyp wrote:ray

Ricky, is it your view that it is okay for the justice department to not provide such documents? What is their motivation

I don't know if its okay. I would generally look for greater transparency. And comprehensive analysis and information gathering.

I do know that they, Issa's committee, haven't requested documents germane to the formulation of the "gun walking" strategy. So they aren't actually interested in really exploring how the policy was formed, how often it was used or whether it was effective.
That to me would be useful.
Nor have they actually called testimony from people in the Phoenix ATF office who ran the operation, or from the former head of the ATF, who told committee investigators that he never informed Justice Department higher-ups of the operation because he didn’t know about .

So Issa's so called investigation has the nature of a Hannity television quotation. He wants a scrap that might, in isolation, be construed in one manner. (Although we'll never know.)
I can understand Holders frustration with Issa's antics.
Its unfortunate that he resorted to the use of the executive privilege. It is, to Obamas credit, the first time in his adminsitration that EP has been used.

Ricky, I can't help but think that you are rationalizing bad behavior because you like Obama and generally don't like Republicans, and Issa is jerky. However, let's just be honest that all policians make mistakes, that politicians than try to cover them up, particularly 5 months before a close election where the stakes really matter. If there were nothing to hide I can't imagine that Obama would have Holder invoke executive privilege. They decided that the furor over a full explanation of what is going on over fast and furious would be worse than the furor over invoking EP, which is not minimal. Occum's razor suggests that Obama is hiding something, no?

bbauska wrote:Purple, I appreciate your desire to be a strict constitutionalist. However...

???
Nothing I posted had anything to do with constitutional interpretation - at least not my take on that subject. I merely demonstrated that Executive Privilege doesn't require the personal involvement of the Prez to be invoked. Perhaps you're thinking that by underlining the words "an element of the separation of powers doctrine" I was engaging in some interpretation. Not so. Neither the words "Executive Privilege" nor the words "separation of powers" appear in the document. Separation is a foundational concept that underlies the constitution as a whole. I've never heard of separation, as a concept, being approached on either an originalist or a "living constitutional" basis. Neither am I aware of separation being a concept that appeals disproportionately to left or right. --- Further discussion of this matter would be way off-topic so I'll stop there and hope you do too. If you'd like to discuss the concept of separation and how that applies to claims of privilege in a separate thread I'll participate.

Ray Jay: nice demonstration of common sense.

The way this is going it would seem Issa is shooting fish in a barrel, so to speak. I've maintained and still do that Romney is unelectable and Obama is safe in getting a 2nd term, barring of course an extraordinary scandal like this.

But still I just don't see the Republicans taking this to it's proper finale. Like the Libya affair, they ultimately want to be able to wield those illegal illegitimate powers themselves.

Would I be glad to be wrong on this? Yes!

Purple,

Not entirely pointed at you. I ran into the statement I addressed before. withdrawn

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky, I can't help but think that you are rationalizing bad behavior because you like Obama and generally don't like Republicans, and Issa is jerky. However, let's just be honest that all policians make mistakes, that politicians than try to cover them up, particularly 5 months before a close election where the stakes really matter. If there were nothing to hide I can't imagine that Obama would have Holder invoke executive privilege. They decided that the furor over a full explanation of what is going on over fast and furious would be worse than the furor over invoking EP, which is not minimal. Occum's razor suggests that Obama is hiding something, no?

While I do not believe Issa is blameless, Holder has behaved and testified in a contemptible manner. Based on his several appearances on this matter, one is forced to conclude that Holder is either a moron or he is playing games. Issa, charitably, concluded the latter.

In any event, I guess this forum has been transformed. Purple gave a rather broad view of executive privilege. May I recommend reviewing this? http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/21/c ... aim-stick/

Furthermore, it seems clear from Carney's blarney today that the Administration is bent on covering up their motivations for responding as they did. Doesn't Congress properly have the right to know why it was lied to and who knew about the deception?

ray

Ricky, I can't help but think that you are rationalizing bad behavior because you like Obama and generally don't like Republicans, and Issa is jerky. However, let's just be honest that all policians make mistakes, that politicians than try to cover them up, particularly 5 months before a close election where the stakes really matter. If there were nothing to hide I can't imagine that Obama would have Holder invoke executive privilege. They decided that the furor over a full explanation of what is going on over fast and furious would be worse than the furor over invoking EP, which is not minimal. Occum's razor suggests that Obama is hiding something, no?

Of course their hiding something. Thats the whole point of executive privilege. Duh.
I've no doubt that somwhere in here the DOJ under Holder would be found wanting. But finding out that Holder tried to forestall something embarressing is hardly the point.
The point of a responsible investigation by an oversight committee is to bring about real reform in the way the country is governed.
In this case a comprehensive investigation into Fast and Furious would seem appropriate. But that would and should include:
- deposing publicly the architects of the program. That would be DOJ under George Bush since the program was begun in 2006.
- deposing the people who actually ran the program from 2006 through to 2009.
- calling expert witness to testify about the results of the program
- calling for documentation that provides a complete picture of the process (including what I assume is a discussion of the political implications of what i believe are the failings Holder is hiding 1) not knowing about the program 2) not doing enough to find out about the program 3) not stepping forward appropriately to deal with the mess once CBS had done the work Holder should have done....

Instead Issa has his committee focussed on finding and promoting the last portion of the revelations... Which accomplishes little in the way of reforming or improving good governance. He's using his committee cudgel for a narrow political interest rather than for actual reform.
Issa, while serving on this committee branded the people who wanted to investigate Blackwater operations in Iraq as "Enemies of Patraeus" is the epitome of a venal corrupt politician. He's worse than bloody Charlie Rangel.

Fast and Furious was a bloody stupid exercise. Not knowing about it when he first took office, you can't really fault Holder. Not getting to the bottom of the program when allegations began to arise at the beginning of his term ... he can be faulted for.... (Politically as well as administratively. If he had discovered the full program and its implications he should have dsplayed every single part of the program as soon as possible and put the blame for it on his preceding DOJ. Which would have been accurate and innoculated him. I suspect he was a victim of a fairly effective internal coverup.)
He can also be faulted for any cover up after the CBS interview came forward. But thats hardly the point where anything substantive about police procedures, investigative technique or cockamanie tactics can be addresses. And its the only thing Issa is focussed on.
Its not like issa really gives a damn about those things.

You guys have to realize the investigation isn't into the program itself but rather into the Justice Dept's handling of the questioning. There are two main issues. First is a letter released Feb 4, 2011 by the Justice Dept when Fast & Furious first became know that said, amongst other things, no weapons were allowed to go across the border. That is demostrable false (for information, I think something like 1,700 of 2,000 guns were lost). Additionally, Holder said he first heard about in the Spring, 2011 but there is information saying he found out 10 months earlier.

So basically, the Gov't Oversight committee, which is responsible for the Justice Dept's budget, wants to know why the discrepency in these two things. Were they honest mistakes or attempts to cover up incompetence?

Here is a pretty decent explanation.

archduke

You guys have to realize the investigation isn't into the program itself but rather into the Justice Dept's handling of the questioning

.
This has been my whole point Archduke. Issa has no real interest in examining the program only the mess in the DOJ when the explanations turned out to be erroneous.
Now, thats embarressing for Holder. But based on what the Phoenix branch said about their operation, they never told Washington about it... Issa hasn't called any witnesses who would say this to his committee, becasue it would provide a reasonable explanation for why Holders office answered the way they did. (Doesn't excuse Holder or his staff from not being thorough in their investigation. )
There's no real political reason for Holder to have lied about the program. The guns that were smuggled went south during the previous administration. If they'd done a thorough investigation and were completely forthcoming about the results of the investigation Issa would be fuming about a failure from the Bush adminisration.
Moreover, Issa voted to fund the Fast and Furious program in 2008. . So going into a detailed investigation about the stupid program would include a review of Isaa's judgement in funding the program in the first place.
source:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/2 ... Initiative

From your explanation:

That is, what Issa may be after is not so much what happened with the guns, but what happened inside Holder’s house once they discovered that news of the failed operation had gotten out

Its very important to issa that the "investigation" be very specific and narrow. Because a responsible investigation would embarress more than just Holder. Using his committee power in this way, is enormously venal.

ATF Expands Efforts to Combat Illegal Flow of Firearms Into Mexico
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives(ATF) plans to add additional staff members, including 35 special agents and 15 industry operations investigators, to the southwest border and deploy eTrace technology in nine U.S. consulates in Mexico in an effort to stem the illegal flow of firearms to Mexico as part of Project Gunrunner ATF Acting Director Michael J. Sullivan and Director ArthurDoty of the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) today announced.

ATF is also part of the Administration’s recently announced “Merida initiative.” This initiative is a comprehensive U.S. strategy to address drug smuggling, firearms trafficking, and increasing violence in Mexico and Central America.

To address the overwhelming increase of violence and firearms trafficking along the Southwest border ATF has initiated “Project Gunrunner”, a comprehensive strategy that incorporates ATF’s expertise and resources to attack the problem both domestically and internationally.

I would like to conclude by again stating that ATF has developed and is actively implementing our “Project Gunrunner” initiative which is modeled upon our border successes over the years, and that is designed to actively disrupt, deter and dismantle the criminal enterprises and infrastructures seeking to ensure a continued and viable supply of U.S. sourced firearms for criminal purposes to Mexico, but which is also designed to address and eliminate the actual sources of the firearms and ammunition that have become so readily available for criminal purposes in both Mexico and in the U.S.

~Assistant ATF Director William Hoover to Congress in January 2008

rickyp wrote: But based on what the Phoenix branch said about their operation, they never told Washington about it... out

I am pretty sure that is not correct. I am pretty sure there has been both personal testimony and documentary evidence provided that says Washington did know about it. That is the whole point of why looking to see if there was an attemtp to cover up the mistakes.

arch

That is the whole point of why looking to see if there was an attempt to cover up the mistakes.

I'd say the mistakes go back to 2006.
And if there was an attempt to "cover up mistakes" it surely wasn't evident when Holder testified
“

This operation was flawed in its concept and flawed in its execution. And unfortunately, we will feel the effects for years to come, as guns that were lost during this operation continue to show up at crime scenes, both here and in Mexico. This should never have happened, and it must never happen again.”

He also admitted

People in the U.S. Attorneys’ Office, people at ATF, people who themselves have now indicated in their Congressional testimony before the House that they were not aware of the tactics that were employed. As a result of that, the information that is contained in the February 4th letter to you was not in fact accurate…. I regret that,” Holder said.

Now maybe this is bs. And I suspect that the documentation being hidden shows someone high up knew and Holder is covering for him.
But I'd compare that to giving the get away driver of a bank robbery a speeding ticket but ignoring the robbery.

Here's the thing Archduke. The whole point of F&F was to try and stop guns smuggled from the US from ending up in Mexican drug gangs... And yet, there is no serious effort being made to register or screen purchases at Texas gun stores. Which is where many, if not most of the guns are legally purchased. And then transported across the border. (Thats well documented.Even thought the fire arms lobby will quibble about the magnitude of the problem and try to off load it on other sources).
If the ATF agent who was killed had been killed by an AK47 bought in Houston, legally, would his death now be used by Issa for political gain? Pretty doubtful. The gun lobby wouldn't like that.
Its also why Issa must focus on the minor transgression of Holder covering for someone, instead of focussing on the stupidity of agents of the US govenrment sending drug gangs guns since 2006.
Holder should have canned someone over the cover up. Won't argue that. But using an investigative committee in the fashion Issa is using it is the very reason you have a dysfuntional government. No one really gives a damn about using their power to actually accomplish something positive. Like understanding how the stupid idea was green lighted and executed for 4 years...
But hell, that would involve Issa admitting that he green lighted it (by voting for it).
By the way; about the "I'm pretty sure Washington did know about it. The following suggest that no.... Not the details... "

http://documents.latimes.com/fast-furious-emails/

http://documents.latimes.com/us-mexico-atf-cable/

Operation Wide Receiver was run out of Tucson, Ariz., between 2006 and 2007 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), a division of the Justice Department
Operation Fast and Furious was carried out by the ATF. It began in the fall of 2009 and continued into early 2011, during which time the federal government purposefully allowed known or suspected gun smugglers to purchase guns at federally licensed firearms dealers in Arizona. The government did not seek to abort these gun purchases, intercept the smugglers after the purchases, or recover the guns they had purchased.

rickyp wrote:arch

That is the whole point of why looking to see if there was an attempt to cover up the mistakes.

I'd say the mistakes go back to 2006.
And if there was an attempt to "cover up mistakes" it surely wasn't evident when Holder testified

Why is this "surely" the case?

What evidence do you have that no one else seems to have. How do you know there was no "political reason" for Holder to lie? After all, there is a dead Border Patrol agent, F and F guns at the location, no apparent reason for letting the guns go to Mexico without Mexico's knowledge and without tracking devices, so there are some questions that need to be answered.

This operation was flawed in its concept and flawed in its execution. And unfortunately, we will feel the effects for years to come, as guns that were lost during this operation continue to show up at crime scenes, both here and in Mexico. This should never have happened, and it must never happen again.”

How do guns go across a border with no one above a local station chief knowing about it?

How do we know Holder and the President had no knowledge?

People in the U.S. Attorneys’ Office, people at ATF, people who themselves have now indicated in their Congressional testimony before the House that they were not aware of the tactics that were employed. As a result of that, the information that is contained in the February 4th letter to you was not in fact accurate…. I regret that,” Holder said.

Who authorized the program? Why? If no one up the chain of command knew about it, what kind of messed up organization allows guns to go to murderers, kidnappers and drug cartels? Why should the American people pay salaries for people who are that incompetent and DANGEROUS?

Many people have died as a result of F and F. Where is the investigation?

Now maybe this is bs. And I suspect that the documentation being hidden shows someone high up knew and Holder is covering for him.
But I'd compare that to giving the get away driver of a bank robbery a speeding ticket but ignoring the robbery.

An inapt comparison, at best. We are talking about dead people, not speeding tickets. We are talking about the United States violating the sovereignty of Mexico--and, allegedly, no one of any authority knew anything about it.

Sure. That's why "executive privilege" was invoked--because there's nothing to hide.

Here's the thing Archduke. The whole point of F&F was to try and stop guns smuggled from the US from ending up in Mexican drug gangs...

And, in order to accomplish that, the best means was to allow guns to be smuggled into Mexico and given to drug cartels . . . this makes sense to you?

It's on par with, "To save the village, we had to destroy it."

Read again what you're saying: to stop guns from being smuggled, we had to allow guns to be smuggled--with no way of tracing them, accounting for them, or preventing them from getting to the dangerous, murderous, drug cartels.

Someone should be fired. Probably the guy in charge of the Justice Department. If he didn't know what was going on, that is reason enough. It is a scandal to anyone but the most devoted Obama loyalist.

If the ATF agent who was killed had been killed by an AK47 bought in Houston, legally, would his death now be used by Issa for political gain? Pretty doubtful. The gun lobby wouldn't like that.

That is as pointless a hypothetical as anyone has ever posed.

It's also offensive. If this is all a political witch hunt (as you hint), then there's nothing too serious worth hiding. And, yet . . . executive privilege is invoked.

Its also why Issa must focus on the minor transgression of Holder covering for someone, instead of focussing on the stupidity of agents of the US govenrment sending drug gangs guns since 2006.

Stop being so dishonest. Please.

Holder is not permitted to lie or to cover for someone.

As you yourself note, F and F started in 2009. It's not Bush's fault. Previous efforts, as misguided as they were, were done with RFID equipment and other measures. They were also done with Mexico's cooperation.

Holder should have canned someone over the cover up. Won't argue that. But using an investigative committee in the fashion Issa is using it is the very reason you have a dysfuntional government.

You don't get it. This isn't the Boy Scouts and Eric Holder is not some kid covering up for someone who forgot their scouting manual. Holder lied; people died--or reverse the order if you like. He is the chief law enforcement officer of the country. If he failed, as YOU indicate, to take appropriate measures for malfeasance of a subordinate, he should be fired. Period.

Stewart: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... ilege.html

Let me try to help Rickyp out. He needs the assistance.

Doctor Fate wrote:...what kind of messed up organization allows guns to go to murderers, kidnappers and drug cartels?

Answer: The Republican-controlled US House of Representatives, at least according to the Brady Campaign, who note that the guns sent south by FaF represent just 3% (at best, I would note) of the guns crossing that border. Mexico "recovers" firearms and sends them to ATF for tracing. According to ATF: "between calendar years 2007 and 2011 the Government of Mexico recovered and submitted more than 99,000 firearms to ATF for tracing. Of those firearms more than 68,000 were U.S.-sourced." The guy at Brady says:

Not only has the Republican House majority done nothing to stem the trafficking of guns to Mexico; it has acted to block the modest efforts of the Obama Administration to address the problem. The House twice has voted to block continued implementation of the Administration’s regulatory requirement that multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles in the border states be promptly reported to ATF to give the law enforcers real-time notice of the suspicious gun sales that are feeding the cartels. Given that “Fast and Furious” has been rightly criticized for allowing guns to “walk” to Mexico, it seems odd that House Republicans would object to a regulation that is enabling ATF to better stop trafficked guns before they get to the border and to arrest the traffickers.

In less than one year, ATF opened more than 120 criminal investigations based solely on the rifle reporting rule, more than 25 of which have been referred to prosecutors. It is difficult to take seriously the Republican leaders’ expression of concern about cracking down on gun trafficking, when they are working to dismantle an initiative of such obvious enforcement value.

ATF: http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2012/04/042612-atf-atf-releases-government-of-mexico-firearms-trace-data.html
BradyBlog: http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=3693

Doctor Fate wrote:Why should the American people pay salaries for people who are that incompetent and DANGEROUS?

Indeed. I assume Dr. Fate will be voting Democrat this fall.

To summarize all of the above, there are two stories here. Dr. Fate is more or less on-point about A but is ignoring B, while Rickyp is more or less on-point about B but is ignoring A. As a discussion like the above shows, it can be incredibly difficult in a partisan environment to dispassionately address both A and B even if/when both deserve to be addressed. To an extent, the best an independent non-partisan like me can do is pick one - try to decide which of the two stories is more important.

To me, Dr. Fate's story would not have been able to compete with Rickyp's in importance until Obama invoked Executive Privilege. That act causes me to think that his administration has something important to hide. President Clinton, in eight years, invoked Executive Privilege 14 times. George W. Bush, in eight years, invoked it six times. Obama has now busted his cherry and invoked it once. There's both good and bad in that loss of virginity. It's great that so far he's had so little need to cover up executive doings. I give him credit for that and thus would like to also give him the benefit of the doubt.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt would mean believing that he invoked EP this time solely for legitimate reasons: either A) to protect the freedom of speech within the executive department, so officials can offer what they think is the best possible pure policy advice - or just engage in blue-sky thinking out loud - without worrying about their words (probably out of context) appearing via congressional subpoena on the pages of the Washington Post, or B) to protect the separation of powers - the executive department's ability to internally plan/plot "against" the congress. (Imagine if Obama demanded transcripts of the private discussions that take place in John Boehner's office!)

The problem is that Obama's only invoked EP once. I'll bet that if he were serious about using it legitimately he'd have had to use it at least as often as Bill Clinton did. (Not that Clinton always used it legitimately.) What are the chances that this is the first time a legitimate reason to invoke it has arisen? It just seems more likely that this is the first time a strong political reason has arisen to invoke it. Bravo for Obama: a very clean 3.5 years! But ironic as it may be, that cleanliness makes this probable dirt stand out.

Rickyp's story has much more long-term and far-reaching importance, and certainly more humane importance. But abuse of executive power isn't chicken feed. Dr. Fate's story also needs to be resolved. Working on both simultaneously would require a much less partisan environment. I'm not holding my breath.