Obama Tacitly Admits He Was Involved in Fast & Furious

No they would have had to drop the entire investigation, not just his contempt. Your facts are all just totally messed up as usual. We are not debating, I am just constantly correcting you.

Ask yourself how it is possible your opinions are so strong when your facts are so false.

 

Actually Sweet Lou is right in this regard and you are wrong. I just responded to this in the other thread (which should be merged).

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6929691&postcount=184

 

Not really accurate. He agreed to give a briefing on some of the documents and give over some of the others.

A few things of note in my mind:

1) Elijah Cummings stated at the beginning that Holder is legally prohibited from revealing these documents (LOL) which is a line that quoted in this thread by someone. MYTH BUSTED: Holder offered the docs as long as he got something in return.

2) The media (including Fox and CNN) have both reported on Holder's public statements that releasing these documents would endanger ongoing investigations and put American lives in jeopardy. However, his own letter to Obama states the reason for not releasing these documents is that it would damage the ability of the executive branch to prepare for and deal with congressional oversight investigations. Basically his argument is that Congress shouldn't have the right to see what kind of internal deliberations occur on the executive side when they try to figure out how to answer these inquiries. I agree with him that the branches should be separate (duh) but if the scope of the investigation is to determine whether a coverup occurred, how can you reasonably argue that no one has the right to see the docs? Even the courts have ruled on this side.

 

Your article doesn't say what you think it says. (If you think it says what Sweet Lou said.)

Sweet Lou said the deal was drop the contempt vote and you'll get the docs. That is false. The deal was we'll give you the documents if you drop the subpoena issue, meaning no more document requests. Issa's point was how can he make that deal until he sees what's in the documents?

 

I am going to note another irony about this whole situation is that you have people complaining that the Obama isn't releasing enough information and then many of those same people complaining it releases too much.

 

The quote from the article I cite specifically says it was an attempt to head off the contempt vote.

[rquoter]In a bid to head off a contempt vote, Holder met with Issa and several other lawmakers Tuesday evening. The attorney general agreed to turn over documents that Justice officials think would answer Issa’s questions if the committee would consider the subpoena issues related to Fast and Furious to be “resolved.” He told reporters afterward that the set of documents “pretty clearly demonstrates that there was no intention to mislead, to deceive.”

Issa declined the offer, however, saying he would not make such a determination until he saw the documents.[/rquoter]

 

Again, I'm not sure if you are misreading or misinterpreting.

Yes, it was an attempt to head off the contempt bid. However, Issa has said the contempt bid would be dropped if he got the docs and reiterated that yesterday.

The quote in that article said this:

Obviously part 1 of the deal is you drop the contempt vote. That part was agreed upon and is still agreed upon. It's part 2 that is the problem. "Consider the subpoena issues related to Fast and Furious to be 'resolved.'"

Holder's deal is no more doc requests. The issue is dropped. It's not just no contempt vote.

 

releasing information to press about national security issues that include Obama's philosophical musings in an effort to look good for an election /= releasing documents to Congress that are subpoenaed by a House oversight committee regarding statements made to Congress that were subsequently retracted by the DOJ as false.

I get the point you were trying to make, but the two are completely different situations. The irony isn't really there.

I do wish this would just go away though. If we end up spending millions on a special prosecutor to dig into this I'm going to be pissed.

 

Tard Lou said drop the contempt charge, Holder wanted the entire investigation dropped prior to anyone seeing even the small amount of documents he was willing to show during his 'presentation'

Sorry, not wrong.

 

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=1697540635001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

 

i was just curious if the clock is still ticking?

 

It's expected for Republicans to demonstrate partisan behavior and protect their guy. Why would they take their own president to task for breaking the law? That's supposed to be the job of the other party, and as I said in my previous post, a proper system of checks and balances is supposed to work in a way that each branch keeps checks on the other. In partisan politics, it's the job of the other party to express skepticism and conduct investigations.

Take the example of warantless wiretapping- such activity was in direct contravention of FISA legislation. There was absolutely no legal justification for it, and both telecoms and the government could, and indeed should, have been investigated. If not for the complete support of the Democratic establishment, passing of legislation like the 'Protect America Act' (passed in 2007) could not have been possible.

Prior to that vote, Democrats were vocalizing concern about the program. A champion of this cause was Jay Rockefeller, then the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who wrote a letter to the White House excoriating it for its lack of transparency, and demanding details about the program.

This same Rockefeller became one of the strongest advocates for full immunity in 2007 (as he coincidentally became one of the largest recipients of telecom political donations), as he was one of the chief architects for bills that immunized both government officials and telecoms from ever having to answer questions about the NSA's spying program- a program so illegal that James Comey, Bush's deputy attorney general in 2003 and 2004, testified in 2007 before the Senate Judiciary Committee saying that the program, based on his own investigation, was patently illegal. So illegal was this program, that Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card tried to pressure John Ashcroft while he was in the hospital to authorize the program.

Even more shocking has been the Obama Administrations refusal to consider this case in a court of law. As a senior lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights said:

Another, perhaps more pathetic capitulation on the rule of law has been Obama's insistence on investigating Bush era torture, one that he himself, time and again, insisted would see the light of day in a court of law.

It is healthy, and indeed necessary, for any political figure to know that they must operate within the confines of the law, and that contravention of it has consequences. This is something the Democrats never did with Bush, and if the Republicans are going to be the first to do it during an election year for political reasons, in the aggregate I see it as a positive step despite its partisan roots....

 

The BATFE murders people regardless of the political affiliation of the current president. See Ruby Ridge.

 

Last I heard about 6 pages ago, it was.

No matter what happens though, just remember that the official request has been submitted.

 

Sam has to route everything through Poppa Smurff who then forwards it to the Mods. There's just so much blue tape for him to go through.

 

Yes, he is accountable for it. And the Obama administration brought the program the Bush administration started to an end.

Your analogy is a little off, because intel isn't the same as starting an actual program.

It would be more appropriate to say that Bush started the war with Iraq, but Obama was responsible for that war after his inauguration.

 

The lengths you go to in order to defend Obama are simply comical. You're so biased that it's hard to even take your posts seriously.

 

I stated two facts that are relevant and on topic. The Fast and Furious program started under the Bush administration, and the Obama administration ended the program.

Those are facts.

 

The lengths you go to in order to criticize Obama are simply comical. You're so biased that it's hard to even take your posts seriously.

 

The length this thread has gotten to in order to be locked are simply comical. SaulFisher's so inconsequential it's hard to take him seriously.