ATF Project Gunrunner

It appears that some more information came out of the latest meeting:

1.Apparently, DOJ retracted the "Bush Knew" line that they were pushing earlier in this controversy.

2. DOJ turned over some notes indicating that on April 28, 2010, Jacob Weinstein (Lanny Breuer's Deputy Assistant) was briefed on Fast and Furious in some detail (PDF of handwritten notes here)

3. More embarrassing emails re: Wide Receiver (http://www.grassley.senate.gov/about/upload/-3-DOJ-s-press-focus-in-Wide-Receiver.pdf

http://washingtonexaminer.com/holde...m-knew-about-fast-and-furious/article/2500157
 
DOJ retracts another statement

In a letter Monday, the department stated that Holder “inadvertently” said during a Senate committee hearing last week that his predecessor, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, had been briefed about a tactic known as gun-walking in a federal program known as Operation Wide Receiver
Click to expand...

Which was false

"This is the second time in nearly seven months that the department has gotten its facts wrong about gun walking,” Grassley said in a statement.
Click to expand...

I don't think its a big deal as far as the core issues of Fast & Furious but I think it does speak to Holder's credibility.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nd-document-sent-to-congress-on-fast-furious/

I think it also pokes a hole in the "Bush did it too" argument that they had been pushing.
 
Obama's sop in a meeting with gun control advocates ("...under the radar...") so they would know his heart was with them but not in public was a Freudian slip. He is sooo desperate to please the right people, always has been. He had a really good secret and just couldn't resist burbling just a little about it. Same behavior on the cyberwar and other security leaks, except the desperation to appear a "warrior" president might also be a factor.

Holder could not release the documents asked for because Obama's fingerprints are all over them, all with a bunch of his cadre. Kevin O'Reilly didn't, I guess, ask for his assignment in Iraq. Hillary, Napolitano, etc., F+F would be the kind of op that would tickle their egos. And Holder's, to be in the front of it via ATF. The preferred outcome, major gun control legislation, and the prepatory meme (all the cartel guns come from the US) were out there and too repetitive by too many even as the op went on. The actors were just too clever by half. The dots are all there.

Obama has less room to bury F+F via EP than Nixon had with the tapes. Too much data is out there. While it may drag on and on with legal theater and party-line votes, sometime or other the turds will rise to the surface of the punch bowl. Obama is a relatively young man. He will have to worry about this fiasco for a long time.

Obama has to do this, tactically. He has too many troubles already.
 
executive privilege n. a claim by the President or another high official of the executive branch that he/she need not answer a request (including a subpena issued by a court or Congress) for confidential government or personal communications, on the ground that such revelations would hamper effective governmental operations and decision-making. The rationale is that such a demand would violate the principle of separation of powers among the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
Click to expand...
But F&F is over and done, past history except for the mopping up of rolled heads and tying up of loose ends. It WAS an "official" operation of an agency of the U.S. government, so they can't claim executive privilege based on personal communications. Since the operation has been long since shut down, I don't see how it can qualify as "confidential." The only thing needing to be protected now (aside from some highly-placed officials with dirty hands) might be the names of a few operatives in Mexico, but names can easily be redacted. And there can't be many, if any, of them, since it has already been shown that the BATFE chief in Mexico was NOT even informed that the operation was being carried out. Which further shows that claims the intent was to "track" the guns in Mexico to the cartels was a blatant falsehood, because you can't track guns when the trackers don't even know they exist.

In 2007 Barack Obama told CNN that Executive Priviledge was not a good reason to with hold information from Congress
Click to expand...
Ah, but that was then, and this is now. Then, the evil George Bush was President. Now, the heroic Barack Obama is President.
 
Last edited:
The Hill reports that a full vote on contempt will be held on the House floor next week unless the documents are provided. The Hill also reports:

"If the measure against Holder passes the House, it will be sent to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, who will convene a grand jury that would decide whether to indict Holder. The U.S. Attorney’s office would be the designated prosecutor for the committee if Holder were to be indicted. The attorney general would face a maximum sentence of one year in prison if convicted by a jury."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/233763-house-panel-votes-to-place-holder-in-contempt-of-congress

If this makes it to a grand jury, I don't see any way that the Attorney General isn't indicted. At that point, whether the DOJ chooses to prosecute or not, having the Attorney General of the U.S. under indictment cannot help the Administration.

Also interesting is what CBS News, the Hill, and several others HAVEN'T reported.... they all report that Holder offered the documents in exchange for dropping the contempt vote and the two subpoenas. None of them have reported that Holder offered to provide SOME documents, a briefing on documents withheld, and that in return for the promise to provide some documents, he wanted the free pass on contempt and the subpoena. Not suprisingly, the Republican leadership didn't bite on that offer; but only one of the stories I have seen so far quotes Grassley's public statement explaining why not. If you just read the CBS or the Hill reporting, you would think the Republicans rejected a perfectly reasonable offer from DOJ.
 
Judge Neapolitano, Fox news legal analyst, seemed to indicate that by invoking Executive Privilege Holder may have opened himself to the PERJURY TRAP.

As reported, Holder testified that the President had not been involved in F&F.

The invocation of Executive Privilege requires direct Presidential involvement for the purpose of a Presidential Decision
 
If this makes it to a grand jury, I don't see any way that the Attorney General isn't indicted.
Click to expand...
Seriously?

Prosecutor in front of grand jury:

Prosecutor: The next item for your consideration is a contempt of Congress citation against the United States Attorney General. Copies of the citation have been passed out.

Foreperson: What witnesses are ready to be called?

P. I looked in the hallway and didn't see anybody.

F. Did you subpoena anyone?

P. I tried to subpoena an ATF guy but he's in Iraq.

F. What about the Attorney General?

P. We issued a subpoena but the marshal couldn't find him.

etc., etc.

Over the top but I cannot believe a sitting U.S. Attorney would prosecute his/her boss.
 
Judge Neapolitano, Fox news legal analyst, seemed to indicate that by invoking Executive Privilege Holder may have opened himself to the PERJURY TRAP.

As reported, Holder testified that the President had not been involved in F&F.

The invocation of Executive Privilege requires direct Presidential involvement for the purpose of a Presidential Decision
Click to expand...

THAT'S an interesting idea. He did say that, under oath. The post by Aquila about since the op was closed down, if anyone was talking to Obama and counseling him, it had to be about damage control, not the concept or operational matters. How then really can Obama assert EP when he didn't know and/or all he knows is about strategies "to bury the ****"?

I guess since those discussions would involve concealment of serial felonies by ATF and DOJ personnel, at minimum, and probably concealment of conceptual and operational participation by senior admin staffers, no sentient would believe Obama didn't know. And participating in such discussions would enter sometime the realm of conspiracy to avoid prosecution (aiding and abetting?) for felony crimes, to promote political survival. Seems to me some Nixon aides went to jail for such things, Nixon resigned but had to be pardoned.

Obama could have thrown Holder under the bus, but maybe Holder has a file someplace, in case of his sudden disappearance, or they figure it would have encouraged the purported "moles" in DOJ to come out of the cold to avoid a similar fate. And then Obama has lost all control of events.

Even if Obama didn't know, how can he or anyone justify the serial felonies involved and lack of prosecutions?
 
I think Grand Juries tend to be skeptical of politicians; but I may be optimistic on that count.

I am kind of surprised that Holder hasn't thrown Weinstein or Breuer under the bus yet. They are both political appointees who likely only have several months left in DOJ employment. They are also the obvious links back to Holder. Breuer has already publically indicated his willingness to fall on his sword.

I guess Holder has surmised (probably correctly) that it is too late in the game for that now.
 
Aren't there two types of executive privilege the “presidential communications privilege" and the more limited “deliberative process privilege.” The White House can invoke the latter to apply to executive branch officials outside of the president’s inner circle, as long as they were involved with the government’s decision-making process. Didn't presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush assert executive privilege in matters not involving presidential communications?
 
Didn't presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush assert executive privilege in matters not involving presidential communications?
Click to expand...

George W. Bush went even further. He signed an executive order exempting the white house communications of former presidents from Freedom of Information Act requests.
 
I remember Clinton tried to claim executive privilege and it was overturned by the Supreme Court. George W Bush claim the privilege successfully. There are good reason for the privilege to be used but I do not think they apply in the F&F case.

Many documents are exempt from FOIA requests for various reasons but very few are exempt from subpoenas.
 
The White House can invoke the latter to apply to executive branch officials outside of the president’s inner circle, as long as they were involved with the government’s decision-making process.
Click to expand...

I am not so sure how that would work when the decision-making process being questioned is 'how to lie to Congress' (e.g. DOJ's 2/4/2011 letter).
 
Aren't there two types of executive privilege the “presidential communications privilege" and the more limited “deliberative process privilege.” The White House can invoke the latter to apply to executive branch officials outside of the president’s inner circle, as long as they were involved with the government’s decision-making process. Didn't presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush assert executive privilege in matters not involving presidential communications?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, you skipped Clinton though. You can go back as far as Truman if you want when he was covering up socialist activity among his staffers. It does not mean that Obama had any knowledge. What it does mean needs to be discovered however.

Obama could still throw Holder under the bus too. He just does not want to this close to the election.
 
HarrySchell said:
THAT'S an interesting idea. He did say that, under oath. The post by Aquila about since the op was closed down, if anyone was talking to Obama and counseling him, it had to be about damage control, not the concept or operational matters. How then really can Obama assert EP when he didn't know and/or all he knows is about strategies "to bury the ****"?
Click to expand...
That wasn't the point I was trying to make.

The grounds for invoking Executive Privilege are to protect either personal communications or to protect confidential information.

Personal communications does not apply, since the operation was an official BATFE operation. The committee is not seeking e-mails asking how someone's mother-in-law came through the operation, they are seeking communications and documents pertaining to an official government operation. Scratch "personal" as a justification.

That leaves "confidential." If the operation were still in progress and release of the sought-after documents might endanger either the on-going operation itself, or the lives of covert agents in Mexico or even in the U.S., then maybe the administration would have some valid claim to EP. But ... the operation has been shut down for a period of YEARS. Release of these documents can't jeopardize the operation itself, because the operation itself no longer exists. The documents probably can't endanger any covert BATFE agents in Mexico (if there are any -- I don't know) for multiple reasons:

First, the BATFE in Mexico wasn't informed of the operation at all, so stateside communications pertaining to the operation probably don't name any covert agents in Mexico;

Second, if there ARE a few agents who might be endangered, it would be easy enough to redact the names in order to protect the confidentiality of their identities. That means there's really nothing that legitimately needs to be held back under the blanket of "confidential." So we are left with the inescapable conclusion (at least, IMHO) that the only possible reason for invoking EP is to conceal the true motivation and conspiracy behind the operation. I don't think release of the documents will show "counseling" Obama after the fact; I think the documents would show that the operation was hatched in Washington, not Phoenix, and that both the AG and the Prez were fully informed about it and in on it from the git-go.
 
Every president since Ike has invoked executive privilege. Hillary Clinton claimed executive privilege in her involvement in her health care plan.

We know how SCOTUS voted in Nixons case. G. W. Bush claimed executive privilege after CIA agent Valerie Plame was burned by the white house. Bush invoked executive privilege over Cheneys super secret meetings with energy moguls.

Lots of folks have claimed executive privilege for many different reasons including "its the right thing to do".

We will never know the truth about Gunwalker, Wide Receiver or Fast and Furious because partisan critters in congress continue to shield panjandrums of their party who were involved in these operations.
 
Re this declaration of Executive Privilege, the following comes to mind:

1. Then President Nixon tried to invoke the same thing, correct me if I'm wrong. His attempt didn't work, Obama's might not either.

2. Obame appears to be giving Holder "political cover".

3. The above having been said, it strikes me that Obama's action is akin to pouring gasoline on hast proverbial fire, a most "unsmart" thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top