[Dave Inc.]

Bartenders can be found criminally and civilly negligent in some states if one of their patrons is too drunk and hits and kills someone. It strikes me this is the same principle. It was an irresponsible program from the get go and it backfired and worse than that, it's resulted in multiple deaths. It seems entirely appropriate that someone pay for that.

It is nothing at all like that and you know that.

[Mammoth Jones]

What's the point of oversight if you cant oversee?

[Mumei]

I'm sure if W had done the same, all defenders would be fine with it.

Mm

It does irritate me when people (or parties, for that matter) take an ostensibly principled stand against something when their party is out of power, only to turn around and defend the same practice using the same arguments the other party was using when they come to power.

Though I don't actually pay enough attention to know if any particular individual is guilty of that here.

[Gaborn]

It is nothing at all like that and you know that.

Oh really? I don't see the substantial difference. They gave hundreds of guns to criminals and waited to see what they would do with them in the HOPE they could track them.

[bengraven]

TLDR: Fast and Furious movies can no longer be made.

Oh whew, so it's good news?

I didn't read it all because of an optical condition that prevents me from reading huge blocks of text when I haven't gotten any sleep the night before.

Thank Christ, but I feel bad for Paul Walker, who's career is now over.

[eznark]

Yep, I just wanted to get it on the record.

Get what on the record?

[Blergmeister]

Bartenders can be found criminally and civilly negligent in some states if one of their patrons is too drunk and hits and kills someone.

WTF You support this?

[eznark]

Though I don't actually pay enough attention to know if any particular individual is guilty of that here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpwYh...ature=youtu.be

[PhoenixPause]

Bartenders can be found criminally and civilly negligent in some states if one of their patrons is too drunk and hits and kills someone. It strikes me this is the same principle. It was an irresponsible program from the get go and it backfired and worse than that, it's resulted in multiple deaths. It seems entirely appropriate that someone pay for that. Brucewaynegretzky - Gun running in a foreign country without that country's knowledge and you're wondering what's illegal about that?

I'm pretty sure intelligence agencies have more legal cover than bartenders, that's not a good analogy. The DOJ, FBI, etc deal with issues of life and death on a daily basis. They may not be completely above the law (like say, the CIA) but let's not forget what this policy was: it was a means of tracking cartels by giving them bugged weapons. The premise alone is quite dangerous beyond any non-government example of analogy one could possibly find.

[Chuckpebble]

Can someone shed some light on this so that the appropriate critics and defense forces can be brought in here?

[bengraven]

Woe to the quality of either the White House staff or the quality of summer movies.

Used to be we named programs STAR WARS. Now it's Fast & Furious? Oh well, probably better than the FOOTLOOSE REMAKE indoctrine.

[Gaborn]

WTF You support this?

Yes, because it's based not merely on serving someone a drink, it's based on the bartender intentionally serving someone who is drunk MORE drinks beyond a responsible point and then not making sure they get home safely. That's negligence. The bartender should cut them off before that point or make sure they have a designated driver.

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Shit just got real. Now it's a full blown scandal.
This will carry into the election. And when the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare this month, it's not looking too good for Team Obama come November.

[Lanbeast]

Yes, because it's based not merely on serving someone a drink, it's based on the bartender intentionally serving someone who is drunk MORE drinks beyond a responsible point and then not making sure they get home safely. That's negligence. The bartender should cut them off before that point or make sure they have a designated driver.

Yes and No, in my opinion.

[PhoenixPause]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpwYh...ature=youtu.be

Come on Eznark. Bush's executive privilege in that case (one of six, by the way) was in relation to the AG scandal, which was pure politics; Obama makes that point and contrasts it, arguing this is not an issue of national security or intelligence. This gun running case actually has an impact on national security in the sense that revealing documents could potentially put informants and agents in danger. Holder ok'ing this mission doesn't mean he did anything wrong, it seems more like the issue here is Issa is fishing to embarrass Holder if that was the case. Seriously, do you think the Bush and Obama administration didn't think someone could be killed by one of the guns they provided?

Compare this to previous uses of executive privileged: Clinton trying to refuse to testify in the Lewinsky case or Bush refusing to release documents pertaining to Cheney's meeting with energy executive.

Bush also issues executive privelege to stop an investigation into Pat Tillman's friendly-fire murder, citing the potential for confidential information leaking. That seems more comparable to what happened today than Obama commenting on the AG scandal.

[eznark]

Come on Eznark. Bush's executive privilege in that case (one of six, by the way) was in relation to the AG scandal, which was pure politics; Obama makes that point and contrasts it, arguing this is not an issue of national security or intelligence. This gun running case actually has an impact on national security in the sense that revealing documents could potentially put informants and agents in danger. Holder ok'ing this mission doesn't mean he did anything wrong, it seems more like the issue here is Issa is fishing to embarrass Holder if that was the case. Seriously, do you think the Bush and Obama administration didn't think someone could be killed by one of the guns they provided? Compare this to previous uses of executive privileged: Clinton trying to refuse to testify in the Lewinsky case or Bush refusing to release documents pertaining to Cheney's meeting with energy executive. Bush also issues executive privelege to stop an investigation into Pat Tillman's friendly-fire murder, citing the potential for confidential information leaking. That seems more comparable to what happened today than Obama commenting on the AG scandal.

This executive privilege was to cover his attorney generals ass and nothing more. If there had been national security issues Obama would have had the documents privileged weeks ago when Issa asked for them.

[brucewaynegretzky]

Gaborn, I'm not trusting your legal analysis here. Sorry. In the context of an attempted sting these things may very well be legal. Also, as you pointed out international gun running is at issue here. I'm not even sure any US laws would be violated. You also have completely ignored the points made about figures being protected from liability in their official capacity.

This is a textbook case of executive privilege. I'm still curious as to what would happen should Holder actually be brought up on criminal charges, but that will never happen.

I'm curious as to what you would view as a legitimate use of executive privilege. Keep in mind Dude Abides point about the distinction between state secrets and executive privilege.

[Horns]

It's all about politics with the F&F. You better believe if there was a Republican president in office while this happened the Democrats would be rallying behind an investigation.

[Death Dealer]

This executive privilege was to cover his attorney generals ass and nothing more.

Bingo. He obviously committed perjury.

[Ether_Snake]

How exactly does one "track" a gun, if it doesn't involve letting them shoot the guns in question?

[Gaborn]

Gaborn, I'm not trusting your legal analysis here. Sorry. In the context of an attempted sting these things may very well be legal. Also, as you pointed out international gun running is at issue here. I'm not even sure any US laws would be violated. You also have completely ignored the points made about figures being protected from liability in their official capacity. This is a textbook case of executive privilege. I'm still curious as to what would happen should Holder actually be brought up on criminal charges, but that will never happen. I'm curious as to what you would view as a legitimate use of executive privilege. Keep in mind Dude Abides point about the distinction between state secrets and executive privilege.

Very little, considering you're talking about people with certainly higher levels of clearance than we have. I think that executive privilege should be narrowly construed to protect people with a tangential role in an investigation from undue scrutiny. In the course of an investigation though into misconduct I believe congress should have sweeping powers and the President should not. Otherwise there is no point to members having clearance levels beyond the general public. But I do think one thing is that the government should have the right to protect any information it wishes in PRIVATE hearings just not hiding it from the people with appropriate clearance levels.

That doesn't mean I think they should have the right to instant access to EVERYTHING. Merely that in the course of an investigation Congress should have broad authority to access the relevant data and no access to things unrelated.

[Cosmic Schwung]

How exactly does one "track" a gun, if it doesn't involve letting them shoot the guns in question?

If I recall correctly, they put GPS tracking devices in the guns, but no one asked how long the batteries would last. Turned out they didn't last nearly long enough to show their final destination.

Edit: My mistake, that was a previous operation. God knows how they tried to track them this time.

[YoungHav]

now The Cartels know to sweep their guns for tracking devices.

[WeAreStarStuff]

Corrupt politicians protecting corrupt politicians. I'm shocked.

[brucewaynegretzky]

Corrupt politicians protecting corrupt politicians. I'm shocked.

Where is there corruption here?

[CcrooK]

How exactly does one "track" a gun, if it doesn't involve letting them shoot the guns in question?

Nanomachines.

[PhoenixPause]

This executive privilege was to cover his attorney generals ass and nothing more. If there had been national security issues Obama would have had the documents privileged weeks ago when Issa asked for them.

So why did Issa refuse Holder's offer to review the documents yesterday?

[Solo]

WE HON-GRY

[Death Dealer]

So why did Issa refuse Holder's offer to review the documents yesterday?

Because Holder would only agree to show him the documents if Issa agreed in advance that he would disband his inquiry.

[thefro]

Just a Republican witchhunt in an election year. Holder has already produced over 7000 documents and they keep asking him for more. What's left would jeopardize criminal prosecutions if released (and the Oversight Committee members don't all have security clearances, etc like the Intelligence Committee)

[Death Dealer]

I hope you don't really believe that and are instead just carrying the water for an administration you support politically.

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

This executive privilege was to cover his attorney generals ass and nothing more. If there had been national security issues Obama would have had the documents privileged weeks ago when Issa asked for them.

I don't think so. It's most likely to cover his or someone in the White House's ass.

[WeAreStarStuff]

Where is there corruption here?

Really?

[brucewaynegretzky]

Really?

Yeah, I see mismanagement. I don't see corruption.

[Death Dealer]

I don't think so. It's most likely to cover his or someone in the White House's ass.

I think it's obviously to protect Holder. He already testified to a bunch of things that appear to be patently false.

And the documents he doesn't want to release could prove he knew about fast and furious much earlier than what he told Congress.

Obama should have fired Holder a long time ago. And this would have blown over. Now it is turning into a major scandal and has the potential of bringing Obama into it, because he's covering for Holder.

[eznark]

So why did Issa refuse Holder's offer to review the documents yesterday?

Because it wasn't an offer to review "the" documents it was an offer to review "some" documents. Issa seems to feel that the handpicked docs he was going to be allowed to see were insufficient.

[Calamari41]

Just a Republican witchhunt in an election year. Holder has already produced over 7000 documents and they keep asking him for more. What's left would jeopardize criminal prosecutions if released (and the Oversight Committee members don't all have security clearances, etc like the Intelligence Committee)

When you get a subpoena to turn over a specific document, it doesn't matter how many documents you turn over if you still refuse to give up the document that you were subpoenaed for.

Also, you guys realize that they are asking for these documents because Holder is being accused of perjury, right? This isn't about whether gun running was moral, its about the accusation that it was illegally covered up.

You can't lie to Congress... and Holder clearly did.

[eznark]

Just a Republican witchhunt in an election year. Holder has already produced over 7000 documents and they keep asking him for more. What's left would jeopardize criminal prosecutions if released (and the Oversight Committee members don't all have security clearances, etc like the Intelligence Committee)

What does the number of documents released have to do with anything? If Nixon had released 10,000 minutes of tape could he have held onto the incriminating recordings?

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I think it's obviously to protect Holder. He already testified to a bunch of things that appear to be patently false. And the documents he doesn't want to release could prove he knew about fast and furious much earlier than what he told Congress. Obama should have fired Holder a long time ago. And this would have blown over. Now it is turning into a major scandal and has the potential of bringing Obama into it, because he's covering for Holder.

How can he claim executive privelegae for something he claims he wasn't involved in or talked about? Executive privilege is claimed when the White House thinks private communications between the president and members of his administration don't have to be shared with Congress.

As Sen. Grassley says:

“How can the president assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the president exert executive privilege over documents he’s supposedly never seen?

[WeAreStarStuff]

When you get a subpoena to turn over a specific document, it doesn't matter how many documents you turn over if you still refuse to give up the document that you were subpoenaed for. Also, you guys realize that they are asking for these documents because Holder is being accused of perjury, right? This isn't about whether gun running was moral, its about the accusation that it was illegally covered up. You can't lie to Congress... and Holder clearly did.

Ding, ding, ding.

[brucewaynegretzky]

How can he claim executive privelegae for something he claims he wasn't involved in or talked about? As Sen. Grassley says:

They're an executive agency? So now the President has to personally review every document? Grassley is being a jackass, and I'd bet he knows it. Just trying to link Obama to the scandal politically.

Ding, ding, ding.

Holder hasn't been accused of CRIMINAL perjury yet. There's an important distinction there.

[blame space]

Shit just got real. Now it's a full blown scandal. This will carry into the election. And when the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare this month, it's not looking too good for Team Obama come November.

oh brother

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

oh brother

I watch a lot of fox news.

They're an executive agency? So now the President has to personally review every document? Grassley is being a jackass, and I'd bet he knows it. Just trying to link Obama to the scandal politically.

Executive privelege is reserved for White House communications, isn't it? That's the way I understand it anyway. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. (link if possible)

[DoctorWho]

Made it better. [IMG]]

I completely understand now. Thanks.

[Kapura]

Fast and Furious is such a clusterfuck I don't even know who is in the right for this discussion. That being said, I'm glad Obama is drawing lines in the sand. The election will be won by differentiating himself from the republicans.

[eznark]

Fast and Furious is such a clusterfuck I don't even know who is in the right for this discussion. That being said, I'm glad Obama is drawing lines in the sand. The election will be won by differentiating himself from the republicans.

That's idiotic. No one should be championing concealing documents from the American public for political purposes.

[Anticitizen One]

[brucewaynegretzky]

That's idiotic. No one should be championing concealing documents from the American public for political purposes.

What about concealing documents from the American people so that people can keep doing their jobs because the American people are going to overreact to this. Just look at Gaborn. Not like he's up in arms every time a border agent dies. The American people respond to what they're told to respond to. That makes actually RUNNING government amazingly frustrating. I find that most of the people who say things like this have never worked in government.

[Tom_Cody]

The only post in this thread relevant to my interests.

[WeAreStarStuff]

That's idiotic. No one should be championing concealing documents from the American public for political purposes.

Dat two party paradigm.
People need to support The People, not any one particular political party.