Page 55 of 72 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 550 of 714

Thread: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/226]

  1. #541
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    There were TWO simple questions asked of DOJ about F&F; WHO authorized the guns walking and WHY? That should be EASY to do, BUT NO, Holder says that information is not available, which is INSANE. You do not run a multi million dollar program, involving hundreds of people, in many locations, in multiple states and with NOBODY in charge.
    Those are not the questions that are subject to the assertion of privilege.

    As Holder has said, it appears that the operation was authorized by someone in ATF, and the Inspector General is investigating that question.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  2. #542
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

    Quote Originally Posted by Karl View Post
    While I sincerely appreciate your efforts (many here don't even try), you have not shown that executive privilege is limited solely to national security issues. I agree that executive privilege is not absolute, but I never claimed it was.
    In every case that Executive Privelege has been invoked due to national securtiy, it has been accepted by the court as valid. In the cases that it has been invoked and not related to national security (as was the case with both Nixon and Clinton) it has been overturned.
    Last edited by mac; 06-25-12 at 12:44 PM.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  3. #543
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,262

    Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Classified information comes in many levels. Operational details against a campaign against the cartel is probably amongst the information you need to be the very most careful with. People in the DOJ who have access to that kind of information get years of training, they only keep it in physical files in ultra secure facilities or ultra secure computer systems that are not connected to the outside world in any way. The DOJ never releases the names of anybody who has access to that kind of information. If you just hand it over to a Congressional committee, literally, unpaid 19 year old interns get access to it, and the cartel would know every one of their names because it is all public record. Congresspeople have no training, no secure bunkers to keep their files in, just normal office computers hooked up to the internet...

    Now, some times information that highly secure has been shared with Congresspeople. For example, leading up to the Iraq war, Bush brought in one senator and one representative from each party to much more secure briefings on some of the most secret stuff. Obama brought in members of both parties on the Bin Laden killing. But, that is a VERY different thing than this. Who those folks are is carefully negotiated by the parties and the administration. They're usually moderates. They're people that everybody trusts. They often, if not always, have had a top security clearance in the relevant area previously for some reason or another because they were in the military or the DOJ or something previously. I mean, if you want to, say, send in McCain and Kerry to review the documents, I'd be totally fine with that.

    But Issa is a whole different deal. He is not John McCain. He's a hothead. He's a Joe McCarthy. A scandalmaker. That's his schtick. Trying to manufacture scandals for the conspiracy nuts. Nobody trusts him, nor should they. Turning ultra sensitive information over to a guy like that would get a lot of people killed for no reason other than to fuel his headline grabbing spasm. And turning it over to a whole committee, that should never happen.
    OPSEC applies to all, so your underlying argument is wrong. If there are leaks, it's not the access but the security process that has failed. Information is disseminated on a need-to-know basis regardless of its classification. Just because you are cleared, does not mean you automatically have access.

    Now I don't know about any secrecy oath, but every employee of the US govt (including all elected officials) are require to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which by implication and explicitly by obtaining a security clearance level require you to secure the information you are given access to.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #544
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    In every case that Executive Privelege has been invoked due to national securtiy, it has been accepted by the court as valid. In the cases that it has been invoked and not related to national security (as was the case with both Nixon and Clinton) it has been overturned.
    There are few cases where it's ever been challenged. When it has been challenged the Court has acknowledged that the privilege is not limited to matters of national security.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  5. #545
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    There are few cases where it's ever been challenged. When it has been challenged the Court has acknowledged that the privilege is not limited to matters of national security.
    When has it been used in matters not related to national security and been allowed?
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  6. #546
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,551

    Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Those are not the questions that are subject to the assertion of privilege.

    As Holder has said, it appears that the operation was authorized by someone in ATF, and the Inspector General is investigating that question.
    It does NOT take 18 months to figure that out. This IS a cover up.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #547
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Usually we require probable cause in order to justify a subpoena. You don't authorize a massive document search on the theory that the production of documents might give you after-the-fact justification for the search.
    This is not criminal law, but a function of congressional oversight. Congress has the right to subpoena and to fish as oversight, not the same as a civil or criminal subpeona.

  8. #548
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    When has it been used in matters not related to national security and been allowed?
    How about Cheney's successful assertion of the privelege to hide transcripts of his closed door energy policy meetings, for one?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  9. #549
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    This is not criminal law, but a function of congressional oversight. Congress has the right to subpoena and to fish as oversight, not the same as a civil or criminal subpeona.
    They don't have a right to anything they request.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  10. #550
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    They don't have a right to anything they request.
    That's a bit of a dodge. They do have the right to subpeona whatever they want under color of oversight. As to whether what they want is produced, that's up to the agency/individual being subpeonaed to give legal justification as to why they aren't producing. The penalty congress can levy for failure is small, not at all like a criminal subpeona. However, the threat of contempt of congress charges generally holds some political weight.

Page 55 of 72 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •