Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Outside the Beltway)   New York Times in 2007: How dare the Executive defy Congress by invoking Executive Privilege. 2012: How dare Congress question the Executive when it invokes Executive Privilege   (outsidethebeltway.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, executive privilege, congresses, Harriet Miers, Congressional Oversight, New York Times Company, George Mason, Jonathan Davis, privileges  
•       •       •

3003 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jun 2012 at 10:43 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-06-22 02:39:29 PM  

redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: Sudlow: You do know that a Border Patrol agent died because of what DOJ did in all this.

He died because someone shot him. The DOJ never ordered any hits from what I know.

Oh come on. Putting peanut butter on your junk around a hungry dog doesn't force the dog to lick your nuts, but you have a pretty damn good idea that it can and probably will happen.


You are completely correct. The guy who shot that agent would never have had a gun if F&F had not taken place. Guns were impossible to find in Mexico before it.
 
2012-06-22 02:47:34 PM  

Fark It: Crotchrocket Slim: Fark It: When Republicans investigate something, it's "ammunition for political combat." When Democrats do it, it's because "Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed."

Given that most House Republicans were elected on jobs-creation etc. platforms and have done everything they can to stifle the President's efforts and suggested none of their own (yay could they waste more time on socially divisive stuff like killing subsidized birth control that marginally over half the population thinks is an excellent use of taxpayer money) I'd say it's very fair to question their motives.

This right here is more partisan and politically motivated than the F&F investigation has ever been.


Well. considering how well you just backed up your opinion it's no wonder the GOP swept both houses of Congress last off-year election.

How about you tell me one thing the Tea Party-centric and other Congressional members of the GOP have accomplished for the nation economically other than mess up our AAA credit rating since 2010?
 
2012-06-22 02:57:07 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Fark It: Crotchrocket Slim: Fark It: When Republicans investigate something, it's "ammunition for political combat." When Democrats do it, it's because "Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed."

Given that most House Republicans were elected on jobs-creation etc. platforms and have done everything they can to stifle the President's efforts and suggested none of their own (yay could they waste more time on socially divisive stuff like killing subsidized birth control that marginally over half the population thinks is an excellent use of taxpayer money) I'd say it's very fair to question their motives.

This right here is more partisan and politically motivated than the F&F investigation has ever been.

Well. considering how well you just backed up your opinion it's no wonder the GOP swept both houses of Congress last off-year election.

How about you tell me one thing the Tea Party-centric and other Congressional members of the GOP have accomplished for the nation economically other than mess up our AAA credit rating since 2010?


....they haven't, and that's not what this discussion is about.
 
2012-06-22 02:58:16 PM  
This is different because black.
 
2012-06-22 03:21:33 PM  
Operation Fast and Furious began during the Bush administration. Here is the irony of all ironies, Darrell Issa voted to fund it!
 
2012-06-22 03:29:43 PM  

Mentat: I don't know whether Obama is right or not, but yet again we have an example of the Republicans setting a precedent and having a Democrat use it against them. We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.


Bush didn't invent executive privilege either. It goes back a long way, at least to Eisenhower. And since at least the 70's, has been recognized by the Supreme Court.

The documents requested here as part of Issa's partisan witch hunt implicate ongoing international law enforcement operations, and United States foreign policy. The need for secrecy in both of those domains is paramount.

The Supreme Court has said there is a duty for both the executive branch and the legislative branch to seek compromise when Congress subpoena's privileged documents. And compromise is the historic mode by which these conflicts are sorted out. Holder has made good faith efforts to give Congress "unprecedented" access to relevant documents as part of a compromise.

But Issa and the Republicans aren't interested in compromise, and they've made no bona fide effort to. They're grandstanding.They've failed even to speak to any of the Bush administration figures who launched Project Gunrunner, of which Fast and Furious was a part. Questions like "why didn't you order an immediate cessation of Project Gunrunner when Operation Wide Receiver ended up with guns disappearing to Mexico" are highly relevant here. Yet the Republicans in Congress have expressed no interest in asking them whatsoever.

This is a partisan witch hunt, nothing more. Obama is right to invoke executive privilege to protect documents which no doubt implicate ongoing law enforcement operations, and United States foreign policy--two areas in which secrecy is paramount.
 
2012-06-22 03:48:29 PM  

bugontherug: Mentat: I don't know whether Obama is right or not, but yet again we have an example of the Republicans setting a precedent and having a Democrat use it against them. We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

Bush didn't invent executive privilege either. It goes back a long way, at least to Eisenhower. And since at least the 70's, has been recognized by the Supreme Court.

The documents requested here as part of Issa's partisan witch hunt implicate ongoing international law enforcement operations, and United States foreign policy. The need for secrecy in both of those domains is paramount.

The Supreme Court has said there is a duty for both the executive branch and the legislative branch to seek compromise when Congress subpoena's privileged documents. And compromise is the historic mode by which these conflicts are sorted out. Holder has made good faith efforts to give Congress "unprecedented" access to relevant documents as part of a compromise.

But Issa and the Republicans aren't interested in compromise, and they've made no bona fide effort to. They're grandstanding.They've failed even to speak to any of the Bush administration figures who launched Project Gunrunner, of which Fast and Furious was a part. Questions like "why didn't you order an immediate cessation of Project Gunrunner when Operation Wide Receiver ended up with guns disappearing to Mexico" are highly relevant here. Yet the Republicans in Congress have expressed no interest in asking them whatsoever.

This is a partisan witch hunt, nothing more. Obama is right to invoke executive privilege to protect documents which no doubt implicate ongoing law enforcement operations, and United States foreign policy--two areas in which secrecy is paramount.


All good points. All very true. The one thing I would add is that executive privilege was first invoked by George Washington.
 
2012-06-22 03:54:25 PM  

steverockson: Operation Fast and Furious began during the Bush administration. Here is the irony of all ironies, Darrell Issa voted to fund it!


Wrong.

Operation Fast and Furious started in 2009. Bush was out of office then. Operation Wide Receiver was started under Bush. It was designed to track guns being issued to Mexico by BOTH US and Mexican authorities. Mexico didn't hold up their end of the bargain and the United States cancelled the operation in 2007.

So before you spout your partisan b.s., learn your facts.
 
2012-06-22 04:05:28 PM  

HopScotchNSoda: Raug the Dwarf: But if you're spending money, as a group or individual, in support or against a candidate currently running for political office, then your dollar amount would count against the current amount for the candidate you're favoring. There's also 'equal airtime' policies on the books as well. If you do own a station or printing press, then it's your legal duty to offer and provide equal airtime to both candidates.

You appear to be confusing the equal time rule with the old "fairness doctrine" that was done away with in 1987, and misapplying it to media which has never been subject to it. The equal time rule only requires two things:

1, If you provide free access to a candidate then you have to offer an equal amount of free access to the opposing candidates. There are lots of exceptions (news coverage, debates that aren't sponsored by the station itself, and in some cases talk shows).

2. If you accept advertising, you have to offer advertising to political candidates/organisations at the same rates as your best clients.

The equal time rule applies only to terrestrial television stations and terrestrial radio stations; much like the former rule requiring X hours of news and public information per week, it was conceived as a condition of stations getting the free broadcasting bandwidth: It has never applied to newspapers. Newspapers have traditionally enforced candidates and continue to do so. Satellite radio, magazines, cable/satellite television, the intarwebs, billboards, inter alia are not subject in any way to the equal time rule.


How about....No money EVER spent on ANY political campaigns from Dog Catcher all the way up to President......You get X GB of space on the US.gov website per candidate......Make all political commercials illegal.
 
2012-06-22 04:06:26 PM  

steverockson: Operation Fast and Furious began during the Bush administration. Here is the irony of all ironies, Darrell Issa voted to fund it!


Thanks for letting us know upfront how misinformed you are.
 
2012-06-22 04:35:35 PM  

SithLord: steverockson: Operation Fast and Furious began during the Bush administration. Here is the irony of all ironies, Darrell Issa voted to fund it!

Wrong.

Operation Fast and Furious started in 2009. Bush was out of office then. Operation Wide Receiver was started under Bush. It was designed to track guns being issued to Mexico by BOTH US and Mexican authorities. Mexico didn't hold up their end of the bargain and the United States cancelled the operation in 2007.

So before you spout your partisan b.s., learn your facts.


Fast and Furious was an offshoot of the Merida Initiative and Project Gunrunner which Issa voted to fund in 2008. Learn your facts.
 
2012-06-22 04:41:52 PM  
What? You mean that the current programs are offshoots of old programs that have been supported by both Republicans and Democrats and enveloped in a huge political morass so deeply that no one can tell where they originated and who voted for what program or offshoot of whichever program?

I stand by my "Throw all the bastards out on their asses" statement from earlier.
 
2012-06-22 04:52:53 PM  
A great debunking on all the right-wing misinformation on this matter.
The GOP is full of shiat
 
2012-06-22 04:58:55 PM  

steverockson: Fast and Furious was an offshoot of the Merida Initiative and Project Gunrunner which Issa voted to fund in 2008. Learn your facts.


And the program was exactly the same then as it is now. Learn your facts.
 
2012-06-22 05:02:24 PM  
As fun as it is to make fun of the GOP being hoist by its own petard, they are absolutely, 100% correct in their assessment of this use of privilege as bullshiat. There is no security or operational advantage in the Executive branch's discussions of how to respond to a congressional inquiry whatsoever, and thus no valid reason to keep these documents secret.

Branches of government can't collectively plead the fifth and seal documents to avoid incrimination or embarrassment, even if they have the balls to outright say that that's what they're doing. No. Not proper. Bad Obama, bad.

//The fact that other people have used EP inappropriately in the past does not remove the current administration's obligation to behave ethically.
 
2012-06-22 05:10:12 PM  

umad: steverockson: Fast and Furious was an offshoot of the Merida Initiative and Project Gunrunner which Issa voted to fund in 2008. Learn your facts.

And the program was exactly the same then as it is now. Learn your facts.


Your point is what?
 
2012-06-22 05:17:49 PM  
GAWKER SAID IT WELL:

"For the record: Executive privilege is a dreadful doctrine. It is corrosive to democracy, a haven for scoundrels, an easy out for liars and cheats. It allows presidents to cover their tracks and throw up obstacles to congressional inquiry, even if a court finds it was improperly invoked months (or years) after the fact. It enshrines secrets, and secrets are bad. Obama is a hypocrite and coward for invoking it.

I'm allowed to say that because that's how I felt about Reagan's use of it to keep then-Supreme Court nominee William Rehnquist's Justice Department memos secret, and George H.W. Bush's use of it to prevent Defense Secretary Dick Cheney from handing over documents about Pentagon cost overruns, and Bill Clinton's use of it to hide his reflexive lies and monstrous appetite for intern-flesh, and George W. Bush's use of it (six all told) to cover up his various scandals. Every president since Kennedy has invoked executive privilege in one form or another. George W. Bush first did it on his 334th day in office. It took Obama 1,240."
 
2012-06-22 05:21:52 PM  

platedlizard: redmid17: HotWingConspiracy: Sudlow: You do know that a Border Patrol agent died because of what DOJ did in all this.

He died because someone shot him. The DOJ never ordered any hits from what I know.

Oh come on. Putting peanut butter on your junk around a hungry dog doesn't force the dog to lick your nuts, but you have a pretty damn good idea that it can and probably will happen.

You are completely correct. The guy who shot that agent would never have had a gun if F&F had not taken place. Guns were impossible to find in Mexico before it.


I do not believe that is what I said.
 
2012-06-22 05:25:16 PM  

onestr8: GAWKER SAID IT WELL:

"For the record: Executive privilege is a dreadful doctrine. It is corrosive to democracy, a haven for scoundrels, an easy out for liars and cheats. It allows presidents to cover their tracks and throw up obstacles to congressional inquiry, even if a court finds it was improperly invoked months (or years) after the fact. It enshrines secrets, and secrets are bad. Obama is a hypocrite and coward for invoking it.

I'm allowed to say that because that's how I felt about Reagan's use of it to keep then-Supreme Court nominee William Rehnquist's Justice Department memos secret, and George H.W. Bush's use of it to prevent Defense Secretary Dick Cheney from handing over documents about Pentagon cost overruns, and Bill Clinton's use of it to hide his reflexive lies and monstrous appetite for intern-flesh, and George W. Bush's use of it (six all told) to cover up his various scandals. Every president since Kennedy has invoked executive privilege in one form or another. George W. Bush first did it on his 334th day in office. It took Obama 1,240."


Why didn't you quote all the other stuff in that article?
 
2012-06-22 06:22:49 PM  
img191.imageshack.us
 
2012-06-22 06:51:46 PM  

steverockson: umad: steverockson: Fast and Furious was an offshoot of the Merida Initiative and Project Gunrunner which Issa voted to fund in 2008. Learn your facts.

And the program was exactly the same then as it is now. Learn your facts.

Your point is what?


That you don't get sarcasm.
 
2012-06-22 07:59:26 PM  

Mighty_Joe: demonbug:

That said, heads should roll for the stupidity that was F&F. Of course, all of the information shows that it was cooked up by the Arizona locals without apparent approval from above, but that hasn't stopped the Republicans from trying to score political points by demanding documents relating to after-the-fact discussion between Justice and the White House once the idiocy came to light.

locals without apparent approval from above? After the fact? Here's documents from July 2010 between Washington and Phoenix. Brian Terry was killed in November 2010.


The documents that the fight is about are all after-the-fact discussions within the DoJ and White House, from the time it came to light that missing guns from F&F were found at the scene of Terry's death. All of the documentation requested concerning the program, including the "who knew what when" that the Republicans are pretending this is about, were already released. At least, that's what all the news reports I've read have said. Likely there were some juicy discussions as it was coming out about how to respond or what to say, likely including whether to try to cover it up (which they didn't do), and it is that discussion the Republicans are trying to get hold of - nothing at all to do with who approved the operation or how it went wrong. The only explanation seems to be that they are hunting for soundbites to use against the administration as the election approaches.
 
2012-06-22 08:04:54 PM  

umad: steverockson: umad: steverockson: Fast and Furious was an offshoot of the Merida Initiative and Project Gunrunner which Issa voted to fund in 2008. Learn your facts.

And the program was exactly the same then as it is now. Learn your facts.

Your point is what?

That you don't get sarcasm.


Oh, a lame attempt at humor. Gotcha.
 
2012-06-22 08:10:08 PM  

bhcompy: demonbug: Still, this story has pretty clearly been blown out of proportion for political ends. The same people that argue, "Guns don't kill people, people do," now want us to believe that it is, in fact, the specific gun used in a crime that matters even if there were tens of thousands of others that could just as easily have ended up at the scene of the crime. The Fast and Furious idea was idiotic, but arguing that the BP agent was killed because of it, like the cartels wouldn't have had weapons to use if the ATFE hadn't let those particular guns walk, is equally idiotic.

Well, here's the problem:

You're providing materiel support to the cartels, who kill innocent people, including Americans, right now. People crucify Republicans for doing the same 30 years ago when they provided materiel support to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets and who later broke apart in to groups, one major group of which killed(and continue to kill) innocents and Americans. You either have one or the other, can't have both.


I'm not doing anything. But the analogy you are making is seriously flawed, for a couple of reasons. One, material support wasn't given - the ATF didn't provide the guns, they just didn't pick them up when they knew about them and tried to track them instead. Two, the guns involved were a tiny little piece of the gun trade going across the border. The ATF wasn't the primary source of weapons used by the cartels. Three, as stupid as the program was, it did not involve sending weapons to the cartels that they could not otherwise have obtained. The U.S. was supplying shoulder-fired missiles and other high-tech weaponry that was far beyond anything the Mujahideen could have fielded themselves; this is very different than if the U.S. had just been allowing a few more AK-47s to fall into their hands, which is essentially what was going on here.

If the ATF had been supplying RPGs and anti-aircraft missiles to the Mexican cartels in an attempt to destabilize the Mexican government, you might have a point.
 
2012-06-22 09:32:20 PM  
It's the NYT, people? Apologists for the left. They gave up on unbiased journalism when they realized they were going bankrupt...by providing unbiased journalism. But hey, the left needs their fox news equivalent and the huffington post is just too poorly done and too tacky. It is as bad as fox news. At least the nyt appears credible.
 
2012-06-23 12:35:15 AM  
Subby doesn't know that blogger is an idiot whose blog sucks.

FTFA, from the recent NY Times editiorial:


Executive privilege cannot and should not be allowed to shield the executive branch from regular, valuable Congressional oversight. There was no reason the House committee and the Justice Department could not work out a deal to produce the documents requested, or some form of them. Instead, they show again that every issue, large or small, can be turned into ammunition for political combat.


They didn't say that the President was right to do this. They blasted the House committee and Justice Department could have come to a solution and didn't.

That's not the same thing.

/farking poor critical thinking skills
/sad for the right wing
 
2012-06-23 04:19:00 PM  

Descartes: [img191.imageshack.us image 335x399]


Another (R)etard who does not understand what Fascism means. How typical.
 
2012-06-24 05:13:53 AM  

Fark It: When Republicans Democrats investigate something, it's "ammunition for political combat." When Democrats Republicans do it, it's because "Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed."


See? I'm pretty sure this how the fark politics tab game is played.
 
2012-06-24 05:16:48 AM  

Mentat: I don't know whether Obama is right or not, but yet again we have an example of the Republicans Democrats setting a precedent and having a Democrat Republican use it against them. We told you when Bush Obama was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat Republican would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.


Shiat. I do believe I have this politic thing down pat.
 
2012-06-24 05:20:04 AM  

Biness: Lets all just agree that Obama is terrible


I do...until the price of gas gets below $2 a gallon. If it does, my entire immediate family of Republicans is voting for him this year.

/That's 4 votes for Fartbongo, from Indiana.
 
Displayed 30 of 130 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report