Transparency
- Thread starter Tom P
- Start date
"I think the administration would be best served by coming clean on this," Obama said, after Bush claimed executive privilege on the issue.
Obama criticized Bush for trying to 'hide' behind executive privilege - TheHill.com
p.s. Clinton 14
Obama criticized Bush for trying to 'hide' behind executive privilege - TheHill.com
p.s. Clinton 14
I think the difference between G.W. Bush and Obama's use of Executive Privilege is that Bush used it to hide the dealings of his shady friends except in the case of the FBI's misuse use of its informants; while Obama is using it to cover up the fact that the Fast and Furious operation was intended to infringe a constitutional amendment. I think that's a pretty big difference, don't you?
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
You'll have to help me. How was a program designed to track how US weapons were getting to drug cartels in Mexico infringing on the 2nd Amendment?
I'm not a fan of the program and while executive privilege has its place, I wish the DoJ would just come clean on this. That said, there is a lot of lunacy on the right in regards to this. It was a stupid program, that's all. Should have been shut down earlier.
I'm not a fan of the program and while executive privilege has its place, I wish the DoJ would just come clean on this. That said, there is a lot of lunacy on the right in regards to this. It was a stupid program, that's all. Should have been shut down earlier.
You do realize that Nixon got into trouble with Watergate not because of the break in, but because of the cover up. It might be wiser for B.O. to open in his dealings.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Watergate was an illegal operation run directly from the White House, Nixon, His chief of staff and others were fully involved. In the end most of the folks except Nixon were convicted and did time in prison. The cover up is the reason they used to get him to resign, but the cover up was not his only crime.
This was a failed, pooly run, stupid DOJ operation with good intentions? It was totally separate, not run from the White House, to try and compare them shows how little you understand the issues.
This was a failed, pooly run, stupid DOJ operation with good intentions? It was totally separate, not run from the White House, to try and compare them shows how little you understand the issues.
Last edited:
The program was designed to provide data, fabricating a proof, for the longtime theory (since the Obama administration took office) that the US border states were responsible for arming the drug cartels and gangs in Mexico at a significant level.
The goal was to force the sales of these weapons to the cartels/gangs to show that this was happening in hopes of passing stricter gun control laws. Sounds pretty far fetched, huh?
2009 is, I believe, around the time the whole thing started. I recall seeing some interviews with some of the heads of the ATF on TV saying there was a "problem" at the boarder. The statistics they quoted at the time were shaky at best. The famous one being that "90% of all traceable guns seized in Mexico were from the US.". But what they made it sound like was that 90% of ALL guns in Mexico were from the US. Turns out, that the 90% of TRACEABLE guns in Mexico is a insignificant amount.
Here is Obama laying the groundwork for Fast and Furious in 2009.
Obama Perpetuates The '90 Percent Of Mexico's Weapons Come From The U.S.' Lie -- In Mexico! - YouTube
I thought it was strange at the time that the ATF was giving interviews about US guns in Mexico when there didn't seem to be any cause. Especially when the big cartels have access to ports where they receive military weapons like RPG's, grenades, and fully-automatic weapons - guns that are not available over-the-counter in the US.
Furthermore, Fast and Furious involved some 2000 guns. Only 2 of them had GPS tracking devices on them. Obviously, an investigation on where the guns were going was not their objective.
Nixon never ordered the break in. He covered it up, so get a little of your own understanding.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Yes, I've heard this explanation before and I believe there is one internal ATF memo suggesting that a byproduct -- byproduct -- of this operation might be to drum up support for additional gun regulation.
There is on concrete evidence beyond that to suggest the motive was anything other than to figure out how guns were getting to the cartels, and that does seem to be the primary reason the BATF engaged in this mess.
Beyond that, it's not a "constitutional violation" to pass reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and sales. The Supreme Court -- even after the DC case -- has always recognized that if there is a compelling state interest in doing so, certain restrictions are appropriate. Preventing convicted felons from owning weapons is one. Another would be preventing children, or the mentally handicapped.
If there was sufficient evidence that guns from the US were flowing at a dangerous rate into Mexico there could conceivably be defensible regulation in addition to what we have passed to stop that.
So let's focus on the real issue(s) here. The Holder DoJ apparently inherited (the roots go back to 2006, although I'm NOT saying this is "Bush's fault -- it's the fault of mid level folks at BATF) a really stupid program to sell guns into drug cartels. Holder may or may not have known about it in 2010 and if he did, he should have shut it down (and if he did, he lied about his knowledge in testimony to Congress and he should resign and becharged with perjury).
If he didn't know about it, it's still a huge problem showing incompetent leadership and management of the BATF.
On top of that, if the Presidnet is going to claim executive privilege, he needs to explain in detail the basis for it. To my knowledge, to date, he's not done that.
Those are the issues. The "ATF guns killed a US agent" and "this was a smokescreen to take our guns" stuff is a diversion.
There is on concrete evidence beyond that to suggest the motive was anything other than to figure out how guns were getting to the cartels, and that does seem to be the primary reason the BATF engaged in this mess.
Beyond that, it's not a "constitutional violation" to pass reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and sales. The Supreme Court -- even after the DC case -- has always recognized that if there is a compelling state interest in doing so, certain restrictions are appropriate. Preventing convicted felons from owning weapons is one. Another would be preventing children, or the mentally handicapped.
If there was sufficient evidence that guns from the US were flowing at a dangerous rate into Mexico there could conceivably be defensible regulation in addition to what we have passed to stop that.
So let's focus on the real issue(s) here. The Holder DoJ apparently inherited (the roots go back to 2006, although I'm NOT saying this is "Bush's fault -- it's the fault of mid level folks at BATF) a really stupid program to sell guns into drug cartels. Holder may or may not have known about it in 2010 and if he did, he should have shut it down (and if he did, he lied about his knowledge in testimony to Congress and he should resign and becharged with perjury).
If he didn't know about it, it's still a huge problem showing incompetent leadership and management of the BATF.
On top of that, if the Presidnet is going to claim executive privilege, he needs to explain in detail the basis for it. To my knowledge, to date, he's not done that.
Those are the issues. The "ATF guns killed a US agent" and "this was a smokescreen to take our guns" stuff is a diversion.
Actually no, I wouldn't be a hypocrite because Reagan was not the last president to force a major gun law on the people and second, his laws didn't do anything to restrict sales or ownership. I don't see any connections between Reagan and Obama on this topic at all.
Furthermore, if Reagan did impose some terribly restrictive law that I felt seriously challenged my views on gun control, I simply wouldn't agree with him. I don't lock step with his thinking.
Furthermore, if Reagan did impose some terribly restrictive law that I felt seriously challenged my views on gun control, I simply wouldn't agree with him. I don't lock step with his thinking.
Pat
Supporter
I agree with Jeff. This is a bad idea that has gotten worse. It's hard to imagine some idiot actually thought that arming criminals and letting the arms cross the border was a clever strategy. The loss of lives makes this a compounded tragedy. Then the denial of any DOJ knowledge and then a retraction of the denial is a clear demonstration of the inability of the bureaucracy to manage the fallout. I personally think they are trying to pull a page from the Monica Lewinski scandal recovery playbook, start with "we didn't do it", then on to "everybody does it" and conclude with "it doesn't matter. Trouble is, Bill Clinton ran a much tighter ship with a far more skilled team than the bozos currently in the executive branch. Case in point: how well Sandy Berger's "careless" stuffing of National Archives documents in his pants was handled.
This is a distraction that will be resolved in time when the hysterics die down. In the meantime, jobs are in the tank, the economy is stuttering, secrets are leaking, no budget has been passed in three years and the same government that bungled the gunrunning operation wants to manage health care, the economy and the seat height of my toilet.
You forgot them Democrats Jim. Here's all of them from Kennedy on.
John F. Kennedy
Directed his military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, to refuse to testify before a congressional committee examining the botched Bay of Pigs operation.
Lyndon B. Johnson
On three occasions, Johnson administration officials refused to comply with congressional committee requests for information.
Richard Nixon
Claimed executive privilege three times to fight release of White House tapes during Watergate. He lost in court. Before that, he had asserted the privilege three times. First, he directed his attorney general to withhold FBI reports from a committee in 1970. A year later, his secretary of state asserted the privilege to withhold information from Congress about military assistance programs. It was asserted again to prevent a White House adviser from testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding a nominee for attorney general in 1972.
Gerald Ford
Directed Secretary of State Kissinger to withhold documents during a congressional investigation of covert activities in 1975.
Jimmy Carter
Ordered his energy secretary to claim executive privilege after a committee demanded documents relating to a policy to impose a petroleum import fee.
Ronald Reagan
Asserted the privilege three times—in an investigation of Canadian oil leases, in an inquiry about the EPA’s pollution enforcement practices, and at nomination hearings for William Rehnquist to withhold memos written by him years earlier when he was a lawyer at the Justice Department.
George H.W. Bush
Asserted the privilege once, in 1991, ordering his defense secretary not to comply with a demand for document in an investigation of cost overruns of a Navy aircraft program.
Bill Clinton
Because he didn’t issue written directives asserting privilege, he didn’t make it completely clear when he was asserting the privilege. He is generally regarded to have asserted the privilege 14 times, including four times in the face of grand-jury demands for documents.
George W. Bush
Asserted the privilege six times, beginning with a denial of documents in an inquiry into the FBI’s mishandling of informants in Boston. He asserted it again in 2007 when a congressional investigation sought the testimony and papers of two senior aides, Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten over the removal of U.S. Attorneys.
Here is a nice analysis of the issue with respect to Executive Privilege in this particular case:
Why contempt case against Holder may be doomed - CNN.com
The most interesting part of the analysis, to me, is this:
"the executive branch has articulated a strong and highly specific reason for withholding the documents at issue: Forced disclosure to Congress of internal deliberations concerning how best to interact with Congress would undermine the executive's capacity to function as a co-equal branch. It would undermine the prospects for future candid deliberations about interactions with the other institutions of government."
Ian
Why contempt case against Holder may be doomed - CNN.com
The most interesting part of the analysis, to me, is this:
"the executive branch has articulated a strong and highly specific reason for withholding the documents at issue: Forced disclosure to Congress of internal deliberations concerning how best to interact with Congress would undermine the executive's capacity to function as a co-equal branch. It would undermine the prospects for future candid deliberations about interactions with the other institutions of government."
Ian
