Methinks you are correct.Quote:
As I wrote earlier, time is a flyin till recess and silly season. This is going nowhere.
Printable View
Methinks you are correct.Quote:
As I wrote earlier, time is a flyin till recess and silly season. This is going nowhere.
Maybe you should testify in front of Issa and his group if you have proof of all this. They have been trying for over a year now to get information to see where F&F originated. That is the issue of the whole subpeona. Issa does not believe that Holder has cooperated to the full extent required by law and that is the reason he has put together the contmept charge, to get the cooperation he believes he needs to investigate this matter fully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sig 210
Yes. Outside of elements of the gun owning community, most folks give it no attention and could care less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistology
Until a subpoena by Congress is enforced by a Federal Judge, its gong nowhere, and there isn't enough time till silly season
for anything but posturing and playing games; not that the Congress ever does anything but posture and play games.
And notwithstanding what was put in post 58, Executive Privilege is real. Read the entirety of the Wiki article I cited.
Sure, it isn't "fully authoritative" (I've found some glaring mistakes) but it is a good starting point.
Yes, but it is still a fairly good starting point. I've stumbled on one glaring error recently where they entirely fumbledQuote:
Originally Posted by Adameeski
the facts spectacularly, but that is IMO not typical.
[QUOTE]Quote:
Maybe you should testify in front of Issa and his group if you have proof of all this. They have been trying for over a year now to get information to see where F&F originated.
Maybe you need to read the testimony of agents from the Phoenix office of the BATFE. Also read page 22 of the Congressional Staff Report.
BTW: Issa has some skeletons in his closet. As an Army EOD guy Issa stole the car belonging to Jay Bergey, his NCOIC.Quote:
Having launched an innovative strategic plan, ATF senior leadership at Phoenix was
excited at the prospect of a new way of combating drug cartel activity. ATF and DOJ leadership
both approved of this plan. As such, ATF Phoenix leadership were loathe to let disgruntled field
agents scuttle their signature achievement. In this matter, a great divide developed between
those who knew walking guns was a bad policy and vehemently spoke out against it, and those
who believed walking guns was an effective policy.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../NEWS12714.dtl
Zactly! Any site with edit links open to the general public, to the side of the page, are not what I would call reliable. Good for quick reference.. but not good for citing.. IMDB or The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) another such siteQuote:
Originally Posted by Adameeski
At least the imfdb requires you to be a member before you can even see the Edit links. LOL
Main Page - imfdb :. guns in movies :. movie guns :. the internet movie firearms database
[QUOTE=Sig 210;2253566]You are right about the Phoenix office, however, Holder has denied knowing anything about it. It is important to know how high up it went. So far all the BATF has done is to reassign agents some with raises and promotions. The Phoenix office testified that ATF and DOJ leadership approved F&F.Quote:
Maybe you need to read the testimony of agents from the Phoenix office of the BATFE. Also read page 22 of the Congressional Staff Report.
BTW: Issa has some skeletons in his closet. As an Army EOD guy Issa stole the car belonging to Jay Bergey, his NCOIC.
Issa's Army record in doubt
I am not sure what Issa's past deeds have to do with this investigation.
Just the fact: executive privilege legal definition of executive privilege. executive privilege synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
There is an excellent discussion of the scope, the history, and the changes through time which apply
to the implied power vested in the Executive to do its work without undue interference from the other two branches.
And its not Wiki for all you nit-pickers who don't want to be confused by the facts.
"The courts have ruled that it is implicit in the constitutional Separation of Powers, which assigns discrete powers and rights to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government."
"presidents since George Washington have claimed the right to withhold information from Congress and the courts."
LOL I will say you are beginning to get it.. but now I am going to ask you to show us where the phrase Separation of Powers or Checks and Balances are used in our Constitution? U.S. Constitution - Table of Contents - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.netQuote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Yes, our Founders intentionally created a system of Checks and Balances that were to result in a Separation of Powers, but various Presidents have committed acts that are unlawful when they exceed their Constitutional Authority when trying to imply they held What They Call Executive Privilege (EP). Please read what is found here to understand a bit more about what I am saying. Constitutional Topic: Separation of Powers - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net and at Separation of Powers: Checks & Balances - Article I U.S Constitution - FindLaw
To understand more of what the Founders were thinking, we can only look to the Federalist Papers, as they are the only real written documentation that tends to explain the thoughts and feelings about the Constitution that was being proposed. The Federalist Papers*-* *Exhibitions*-*myLOC.gov (Library of Congress)
Though a couple of court decisions have found in favor of the president on specific instances of them declaring EP and there have been instances where their attempted use of EP bit them in the butt.. Example.. Nixon..
When it comes down to it.. EP is really a constitutional fantasy.. a President can get away with it only if they can Prove that their attempt to use it is Reasonable and Proper.. Just like when the Police want to arrest someone for a crime.. they have to have Probable Cause or must be able to Articulate Reasonable Suspicion before they make the arrest or likewise can get bit in the butt for doing something that they were not allowed to do. Unlawful Imprisonment
I get equally upset when I find local Politicians attempting to use EP as a reason for DWI, Speeding, etc.. Unless State law allows it.. Just because the Constitution permits elected Congress Persons to use Congressional Privilege.. Does not give anyone else the authority and that goes for our President.
How does Holder even have the remote possibility of the protection of Executive Privilege anyways? Obama has not decried any such thing to be true, and unless he does so, there is no Executive Privilege. Unless I missed the claim that Holder has some actual claim to EP at this point. I don't recall reading anything stating he has been given any such protection at this point.
Which means Holder needs to comply legally.
Oh, trust me, you won't find what you are looking for in The Federalist Papers. The Federalist wanted to vestQuote:
Originally Posted by LkWd_Don
The President with extensive powers and argued strenuously for that. They were the major participants in
George Washington's Cabinet, and Hamilton especially wanted power to flow to The Executive; so much so he
was accused of being a monarchist. So too was George Washington himself accused of being a monarchist, though he was nothing of the sort.
Hamilton was of course the prime author of The Federalist Papers. From the URL I provided: "presidents since [including] George Washington have claimed the right to withhold information from Congress and the courts."
I'm always amused when modern day interpretations claim The Federalist Papers support a weak executive, Congressional authority, and state's rights. Even Jefferson didn't buy that line, though he once almost precipitated a civil war on the matter. Amazingly Patrick Henry stepped in on President Adams side with The Federalists, against Jefferson, and the issue
was put off for 60 years.
Well, there are indications that the Chief of STaff for the POTUS was not only aware of Fast & Furious, but may have been the one to tell the DOJ, they had "approval" to do it. So, it's important to find out what "level" the approval, etc. did go, to whom it is that truly authorized the program, and the reasons behind it, and "IF" this is a stall to protect certain people.
About time they went for the contempt, and the potential "perjury" charges that could come from it.
And when was Eric Holder elected President?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Unless and until the President asserts privilege the Attorney General should obey the law and produce. If and when the President claims privilege they can sit on what they are holding until the court rules.
Congress isn't entitled to anything and everything it demands of The Executive. Like I said, silly season is upon us.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcp1810
You must be mistaking the Anti-Federalists for the Federalist papers. The Anti-Federalists were opposed to the ratification of our Constitution where the authors of the Federalist Papers supported our Constitution and its ratification and were using the Federalist Papers to educate the People of New York about how it would protect them by being specific in what powers the Government was being given and spelling out the limits to the Congress that were being proposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Here is a link to some info about the Anti-Federalists.
Anti-Federalists