• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

The things you are talking about cross two different types of classified information. You are talking about Law Enforcement Use only information but trying to describe (poorly) controls given to national security information.

And how did you think that was relevant kiddo? Go ahead, lay out your argument.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

Who cares what I think? I can assure you that I don't care what anyone else thinks. I'm here to see and participate a rational, fact-based debate (yes, I know -- folly). As I told you before, read the Holder-to-Obama letter; it lays out his reasons without any need to fantasize (which would surely involve partisan conspiracy theories).

But your opinion is oh-so-important to me. If all you are interested in is fact based discussion, why are you ignoring a major fact in the debate?

Barring any evidence to the contrary, we can only assume that what Holder wrote is the truth. It certainly makes sense -- privileged executive communications, are, well, privileged, and each administration has a duty to defend that privilege. If you think his claim is false, or it should not apply in this case, then your remedy is the court system. If you don't like the concept of Executive Privilege, then your remedy is to lobby your legislators to introduce a constitutional amendment banning it.

If your remedy is to create partisan conspiracy theories, please be advised that I have no interest in them and will not address them.

Dude, I can't count how many times you've said "the right" so spare me the bs about partisanship.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

And how did you think that was relevant kiddo? Go ahead, lay out your argument.

It's relevant because you are misrepresenting how the information is routinely handled, youngster.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

It's relevant because you are misrepresenting how the information is routinely handled, youngster.

Kiddo. If you have an argument, present it. Don't play games trying to get people to guess what argument you think you have.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

No, no. The date of the piece of paper is irrelevant. What they contain is likely to describe who knew what and when they knew it. Why else invoke the EP?

Why do you keep avoiding that last question?
As I noted above, because it involves an opinion. Trust me, you would not want to know my opinion of other peoples' opinions, for the most part anyway.

"Who knew what and when" is a red herring. It means nothing unless it contradicts sworn testimony, or if the "what" is illegal. If, in a discussion with Obama, Holder contradicts his sworn testimony then you are out of luck -- you'll never get that piece of paper because of executive privilege (regardless of why it was invoked). Otherwise, "knowing" about F and F is not a crime. Indeed, I have not seen it argued that F and F itself was a crime (I may have seen some wild claims, but no real argument).
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

As I noted above, because it involves an opinion. Trust me, you would not want to know my opinion of other peoples' opinions, for the most part anyway.

You've had no troubles offering opinions about the motives of "the right". why stop now?

"Who knew what and when" is a red herring. It means nothing unless it contradicts sworn testimony, or if the "what" is illegal. If, in a discussion with Obama, Holder contradicts his sworn testimony then you are out of luck -- you'll never get that piece of paper because of executive privilege (regardless of why it was invoked). Otherwise, "knowing" about F and F is not a crime. Indeed, I have not seen it argued that F and F itself was a crime (I may have seen some wild claims, but no real argument).

Who knew what and when is not a red herring, it's exceptionally relevant. It would prove that Holder lied to the Congressional oversight committee (which is bad for a number of reasons). It could also prove that the operation was conceived by the WH (which the Republicans would love) and the American people should know that the Obama administration (if it were true) was behind it.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

Kiddo. If you have an argument, present it. Don't play games trying to get people to guess what argument you think you have.


Listen sweet-cheeks, the point is made. You're trying to pass yourself off as knowledgeable on a subject you clearly are not knowledgeable on. End of story.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

You've had no troubles offering opinions about the motives of "the right". why stop now?
If you'll source your claim with a particular quote (which shouldn't be difficult) I'll address it. Otherwise, the non-specific nature of generalities preclude any relevant response.

Who knew what and when is not a red herring, it's exceptionally relevant. It would prove that Holder lied to the Congressional oversight committee (which is bad for a number of reasons).
But you're never going to get it, for the reasons I've already stated (if Holder made such an admission in a conversation with Obama, it would be privileged). Furthermore, I do wonder why you claim the documents would prove anything.

It could also prove that the operation was conceived by the WH (which the Republicans would love) and the American people should know that the Obama administration (if it were true) was behind it.
Now you're way out in the Conspiracy Theory End Zone, but you're never going to get that either. Executive privilege would apply.

To sum up, the right (Issa) wants something they know that they'll never get, which gives them the immoral premise to claim that what they can't get -- for perfectly constititutional reasons -- must therefore contain what they implausibly claim it does. It's a nicely constructed paradox, but it is also transparent to any intelligent analysis (which neatly excludes their base and their propaganda media outlets).
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

Listen sweet-cheeks, the point is made. You're trying to pass yourself off as knowledgeable on a subject you clearly are not knowledgeable on. End of story.

Well, obviously you don't have an argument... Sure, national security classified information and law enforcement classified information are different things... No idea how you think that pertains to anything we're talking about though. This is arguably both. Everything I said is equally true of both anyways.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

[...] the American people should know that the Obama administration (if it were true) was behind it.
Why? Are you asserting it was illegal? If so, in what way?
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

If you'll source your claim with a particular quote (which shouldn't be difficult) I'll address it. Otherwise, the non-specific nature of generalities preclude any relevant response.

Well, that's easy:

Issa is not looking for documents about F and F, or about the death of Agent Terry (again, shame on the right for using his death, and his family, as a political soapbox), he is looking for documents that might indicate a cover up, an intent to punish whistleblowers, or some other admission of knowledge that has not been made public. In other words, he doesn't give a **** about F and F, he's just trying to find some way to damage the administration after the fact.

I only had to go back a few posts to see you offering an opinion...you're right, not difficult. So, what's you're opinion of the use of Executive Privilege?

But you're never going to get it, for the reasons I've already stated (if Holder made such an admission in a conversation with Obama, it would be privileged). Furthermore, I do wonder why you claim the documents would prove anything.

:shock: Exactly. It would be privileged "if Holder made such an admission in a conversation with Obama" among others. So, if this is not the case, why is it privileged?

Now you're way out in the Conspiracy Theory End Zone, but you're never going to get that either. Executive privilege would apply.

I wouldn't say "way out" it's plausible and only a little unlikely.

To sum up, the right (Issa) wants something they know that they'll never get, which gives them the immoral premise to claim that what they can't get -- for perfectly constititutional reasons -- must therefore contain what they implausibly claim it does. It's a nicely constructed paradox, but it is also transparent to any intelligent analysis (which neatly excludes their base and their propaganda media outlets).

See? Partisanship, and the "immoral premise" makes no sense.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

Well, obviously you don't have an argument... Sure, national security classified information and law enforcement classified information are different things... No idea how you think that pertains to anything we're talking about though. This is arguably both. Everything I said is equally true of both anyways.

No, it isn't equally true of both. For instance, age has nothing to do with clearance just for starters....The point is made, you don't know much beyond Hollywood about classified information.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

Why? Are you asserting it was illegal? If so, in what way?

Whether or not it was illegal is irrelevant (sorta). That it was an extremely flawed plan is important. If the Boss came up with that plan, it's time for a new boss. What's most important is whether or not the DoJ is lieing to the oversight committee.

As far as conspiracy theories go...the only theory that makes sense if it were a whitehouse plan was in using it to push gun control legislation or bans. Again, unlikely....but possible.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

No, it isn't equally true of both. For instance, age has nothing to do with clearance just for starters....The point is made, you don't know much beyond Hollywood about classified information.

Well, obviously you don't have an argument. Just insulting me at random doesn't hide that somehow... You are correct, there is a distinction between national security classified info and law enforcement classified info, but it isn't relevant to anything we're talking about. I get the sense that you just blurted that out and now you've realized it wasn't relevant, but you're just awkward about admitting stuff like that
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

Well, obviously you don't have an argument.

There was no argument. There was a point.

Just insulting me at random doesn't hide that somehow... You are correct, there is a distinction between national security classified info and law enforcement classified info, but it isn't relevant to anything we're talking about. I get the sense that you just blurted that out and now you've realized it wasn't relevant, but you're just awkward about admitting stuff like that

Unfortunately, you're wrong again. First, I have not insulted you. Second, LEUO information is not protected from court cases, nor does it have the strict controls you implied it has. That is a point, not an argument. Basing your argument on your less than perfect understanding of classified material is your problem.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

Well, that's easy:
Given that the documents subpoenaed encompass only the time period after 2/4/11, after which the F and F 'scandal' had already broken, and given that Holder assigned an Inspector General to the case sometime in 2/11, and given that Obama spoke publicly about F and F on 3/23/11, then it would be reasonable to assume that the subpoenaed documents would include the actions and communications of the president himself (I would presume he had also been informed of the IG investigation launched in February).

[1] Issa is not looking for documents about F and F, or about the death of Agent Terry ([3] again, shame on the right for using his death, and his family, as a political soapbox), he is looking for documents that might indicate a cover up, an intent to punish whistleblowers, or some other admission of knowledge that has not been made public. [2] In other words, he doesn't give a **** about F and F, he's just trying to find some way to damage the administration after the fact.
I only had to go back a few posts to see you offering an opinion...you're right, not difficult.
#1 is a reasonable conclusion based upon the facts presented in the first paragraph. #2 is simply a restatement of #1 in harsher terms while also relying on other public behavior and statements by Issa that are not listed. #3 is clearly an admonition for callous public misbehavior. That Issa is a member of the "right" has no bearing on the facts or my interpretation of them, although many on the "right" are acting in concert with him (or vice versa). However, it is their actions that are analysed here, not their political lean.

So, what's you're opinion of the use of Executive Privilege?
Your previous requests were along the lines of why did Obama invoke it. That, of course, is unanswerable by anyone other than Obama.

If you mean the use of E.P. in the specific instance under discussion, the facts available do not indicate any problem with it. With that, I would note that those who do have a problem with it have no facts upon which to serve as a foundation for those problems.

If you mean in general terms, unrelated to the current case, then I can certainly see a need for the practice (roughly speaking, it appears to be similar to attorney-client or doctor-patient privilege).
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

Unfortunately, you're wrong again. LEUO information is not protected from court cases, nor does it have the strict controls you implied it has. That is a point, not an argument. Basing your argument on your less than perfect understanding of classified material is your problem.

In theory, courts can see all information of either kind, but if the government requests that they don't, they need to weigh the risk to law enforcement or national security against the rights of the parties. Generally, of course, most law enforcement information is way less sensitive than most national security information, but that certainly isn't always the case. Stuff about a campaign against the cartel is definitely in the maximum secrecy range. But, again, none of that is relevant to what Congresspeople can see, and this information is probably both anyways.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

:shock: Exactly. It would be privileged "if Holder made such an admission in a conversation with Obama" among others. So, if this is not the case, why is it privileged?
I thought it was common knowledge that all private discussions between the president and his advisors were privileged.

You seem to be arguing that the only such private communications that are privileged are those that show some type of guilt. Rather bizzare, but in line with -- I hate to say it -- typical right wing claims that perfectly constitutional acts, such as invoking the 5th amendment, or simply declining to testify in one's defense, are evidence of guilt. That's not a very patriotic, constitution-supporting view, is it?
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

Whether or not it was illegal is irrelevant (sorta). That it was an extremely flawed plan is important. If the Boss came up with that plan, it's time for a new boss. [...]
The plan, only minimally different, was "came up with" in 2006. I'm sure you know who the Boss was then. He's already gone. Yes, I know these facts will make you howl ;)
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

Listen sweet-cheeks, the point is made. You're trying to pass yourself off as knowledgeable on a subject you clearly are not knowledgeable on. End of story.

Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the snarkiness, mac.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

I thought it was common knowledge that all private discussions between the president and his advisors were privileged.

You seem to be arguing that the only such private communications that are privileged are those that show some type of guilt. Rather bizzare, but in line with -- I hate to say it -- typical right wing claims that perfectly constitutional acts, such as invoking the 5th amendment, or simply declining to testify in one's defense, are evidence of guilt. That's not a very patriotic, constitution-supporting view, is it?

Whether or not they are privileged in general is also irrelevant. Why they are being redacted under executive privilege is the issue. We're talking about a law enforcement issue, not a national security issue...why the need to protect it?
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the snarkiness, mac.

Eh, I should knock off the snarkiness too. I was calling him "kiddo" first I think :)
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious

Eh, I should knock off the snarkiness too. I was calling him "kiddo" first I think :)

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

Whether or not they are privileged in general is also irrelevant. Why they are being redacted under executive privilege is the issue. We're talking about a law enforcement issue, not a national security issue...why the need to protect it?
I thought that all constitutional rights should be protected.

I did not think that the excercise of constitutional rights was evidence of guilt.

However, it seems that those bedrock founding principles of liberty and freedom are no longer universally accepted and cherished.
 
Re: Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over F&F doc [W:116/2

Yet wide receiver and F&F were both operated out of the same ATF office.Kinda odd don't you think?:roll:

I don't recall that President Bush invoked executive privilege to prevent the release of documents to a congressional committee seeking information about the death of a federal agent related to his program either.

This just reeks of cover-up to everyone who isn't a liberal, socialist, or left of center democrat.

Could this be President Obama's Watergate? Tick-tock...
 
Back
Top Bottom