The F&F Tealeaves......

[The Infidel]

How do you get caught "forgetting" something?

By lying about it and getting caught doing it.

Someone was caught lying? That sounds serious! Link?

Second retraction of Fast and Furious Assertions

Da: Wednesday, June 20, 2012

The Justice Department has retracted a second statement made to the Senate Judiciary Committee. During a hearing last week, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that his predecessor, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, had been briefed about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver. Now, the Department is retracting that statement and claiming Holder “inadvertently” made that claim to the Committee. The Department’s letter failed to apologize to former Attorney General Mukasey for the false accusation. This is the second major retraction the Justice Department has made in the last seven months. In December 2011, the Department retracted its claim that the ATF had not allowed illegally purchased guns to be trafficked to Mexico. Sen. Chuck Grassley’s letter and the Department’s response can be viewed here-1. …

Grassley made the following comment on these developments.

“This is the second time in nearly seven months that the Department has gotten its facts wrong about gunwalking. Attorney General Holder accused Attorney General Mukasey, without producing any evidence, of having been briefed on gunwalking in Wide Receiver. The case Attorney General Mukasey was briefed on, Hernandez, is fundamentally different from both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious since it involved cooperation with the Mexican government. Attorney General Holder’s retraction should have included an apology to the former Attorney General.


Sheila Jackson Lee: This F&F debacle started under Bush « Hot Air

 

[Si modo]

When the deliberative documents pertaining to internal deliberations on "how to deal with another branch and/or government agency" include internal deliberations to break law, then they forfeit the privilege of those internal deliberations.

The op-ed sorta left that not-so-minor detail out.

Except it did.

How co-equal branches deal with each other and the relative power they have over the other is fundamental to our constitution and discussions about that by lawyers are bread and butter constitutional law.

BTW, there are internal deliberations to break the law? Link?

I agree with that middle statement - it's parallel to attorney client privilege and definitely constitutional.

To answer the last line, the only burden to compel those documents is probable cause - probable cause that the internal deliberations included efforts to violate the law. Privilege is forfeited in that case. That is my understanding.

 

[Wiseacre]

This boils down to whether or not Holder knew about F&F and whether or not people in the WH knew. In Holder's case, either he did know and is now lying about it and trying to cover it up, or he didn't know but should have. I think both he and the WH did know but tried to hide it. Which is one reason why Obama has cited executive privilege.

The CNN article lays out a pretty good case as to why they evoked EP, and it's not this /\.

First of all, that article is only an opinion, which is subject to the writer's bias. He may think the reasons why Obama invoked EP is "X", but that does not discount that reason "Y" may also be in play. "Y" in this case being the president does not want certain information to be disclosed because it implicates him or some members of his staff in the F&F program. Which is my main point of contention with all this: are they hiding pertinent information about the program under the umbrella of EP? You are willing to assume they are not, but I am not. But you would not be as willing to give a repub president the same benefit of a doubt, whereas I wouldn't give it to either one.

 

[geauxtohell]

I thought "guns don't kill people"?

Are you really so daft as to think that, but for fast and furious, the Drug Cartels wouldn't have guns and wouldn't be killing innocent (and not so innocent) Mexicans and law enforcement officials?

No one has ever denied that the DOJ botched this. That doesn't equate to criminality.

GUN DO NOT KILL PEOPLE you jackass.... stop changing the issue!

Someone is lying and that IS criminality.

Since they have not been able to prove that an FF gun killed Terry, in this case, that tired nut may actually be true.

What? Hold the phones! They haven't proved it was a FF gun? Why would the side of new found honesty and accountability in government glom onto a fact that they aren't 100% sure of?

 

[geauxtohell]

By lying about it and getting caught doing it.

Someone was caught lying? That sounds serious! Link?

Second retraction of Fast and Furious Assertions

Da: Wednesday, June 20, 2012

The Justice Department has retracted a second statement made to the Senate Judiciary Committee. During a hearing last week, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that his predecessor, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, had been briefed about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver. Now, the Department is retracting that statement and claiming Holder “inadvertently” made that claim to the Committee. The Department’s letter failed to apologize to former Attorney General Mukasey for the false accusation. This is the second major retraction the Justice Department has made in the last seven months. In December 2011, the Department retracted its claim that the ATF had not allowed illegally purchased guns to be trafficked to Mexico. Sen. Chuck Grassley’s letter and the Department’s response can be viewed here-1. …

Grassley made the following comment on these developments.

“This is the second time in nearly seven months that the Department has gotten its facts wrong about gunwalking. Attorney General Holder accused Attorney General Mukasey, without producing any evidence, of having been briefed on gunwalking in Wide Receiver. The case Attorney General Mukasey was briefed on, Hernandez, is fundamentally different from both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious since it involved cooperation with the Mexican government. Attorney General Holder’s retraction should have included an apology to the former Attorney General.


Sheila Jackson Lee: This F&F debacle started under Bush « Hot Air

"Lying" means there was mens rea. A misstatement doesn't equate to a lie. Holder could have indeed been lying, but at this time, it is presumptive to claim he was.

 

[WillowTree]

It's amazing to behold the lengths the libtards on this board will go to champion corruption.




just remember Holder gave the mexicans guns, real guns and Terry got rubber bullets and death. that's what you're championing.

 

[geauxtohell]

When the deliberative documents pertaining to internal deliberations on "how to deal with another branch and/or government agency" include internal deliberations to break law, then they forfeit the privilege of those internal deliberations.

The op-ed sorta left that not-so-minor detail out.

Except it did.

How co-equal branches deal with each other and the relative power they have over the other is fundamental to our constitution and discussions about that by lawyers are bread and butter constitutional law.

BTW, there are internal deliberations to break the law? Link?

I agree with that middle statement - it's parallel to attorney client privilege and definitely constitutional.

To answer the last line, the only burden to compel those documents is probable cause - probable cause that the internal deliberations included efforts to violate the law. Privilege is forfeited in that case. That is my understanding.

Wait. You just claimed something existed in fact.

Now are you claiming that there is "probable cause" to believe that something existed?

 

[The Infidel]

Someone was caught lying? That sounds serious! Link?

Second retraction of Fast and Furious Assertions

Da: Wednesday, June 20, 2012

The Justice Department has retracted a second statement made to the Senate Judiciary Committee. During a hearing last week, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that his predecessor, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, had been briefed about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver. Now, the Department is retracting that statement and claiming Holder “inadvertently” made that claim to the Committee. The Department’s letter failed to apologize to former Attorney General Mukasey for the false accusation. This is the second major retraction the Justice Department has made in the last seven months. In December 2011, the Department retracted its claim that the ATF had not allowed illegally purchased guns to be trafficked to Mexico. Sen. Chuck Grassley’s letter and the Department’s response can be viewed here-1. …

Grassley made the following comment on these developments.

“This is the second time in nearly seven months that the Department has gotten its facts wrong about gunwalking. Attorney General Holder accused Attorney General Mukasey, without producing any evidence, of having been briefed on gunwalking in Wide Receiver. The case Attorney General Mukasey was briefed on, Hernandez, is fundamentally different from both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious since it involved cooperation with the Mexican government. Attorney General Holder’s retraction should have included an apology to the former Attorney General.


Sheila Jackson Lee: This F&F debacle started under Bush « Hot Air

"Lying" means there was mens rea. A misstatement doesn't equate to a lie. Holder could have indeed been lying, but at this time, it is presumptive to claim he was.

Oh fuck you.... I dont care what I say..... you are a hack and a schill for Obama and his minions, and will defend them no matter what.

You are a disgrace


I bring you proof that Attorney General Mukasey was not the one who started Fast & Furious, and this is your response... pathetic.

 

[geauxtohell]

This boils down to whether or not Holder knew about F&F and whether or not people in the WH knew. In Holder's case, either he did know and is now lying about it and trying to cover it up, or he didn't know but should have. I think both he and the WH did know but tried to hide it. Which is one reason why Obama has cited executive privilege.

The CNN article lays out a pretty good case as to why they evoked EP, and it's not this /\.

First of all, that article is only an opinion,

Admittedly. But it is the opinion of an expert.

which is subject to the writer's bias.

If it is biased, it is well reasoned and supported bias.

He may think the reasons why Obama invoked EP is "X", but that does not discount that reason "Y" may also be in play. "Y" in this case being the president does not want certain information to be disclosed because it implicates him or some members of his staff in the F&F program.

You display your bias by assuming "Y" must implicate the president. The administration claims they are trying to preserve the balance of power.

Which is my main point of contention with all this: are they hiding pertinent information about the program under the umbrella of EP? You are willing to assume they are not, but I am not. But you would not be as willing to give a repub president the same benefit of a doubt, whereas I wouldn't give it to either one.

That just devolves the argument into "You didn't whine when your side did it!" which is somewhat lame.

What laws did the Obama Administration break here?

 

[geauxtohell]

Second retraction of Fast and Furious Assertions

Da: Wednesday, June 20, 2012

The Justice Department has retracted a second statement made to the Senate Judiciary Committee. During a hearing last week, Attorney General Eric Holder claimed that his predecessor, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, had been briefed about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver. Now, the Department is retracting that statement and claiming Holder “inadvertently” made that claim to the Committee. The Department’s letter failed to apologize to former Attorney General Mukasey for the false accusation. This is the second major retraction the Justice Department has made in the last seven months. In December 2011, the Department retracted its claim that the ATF had not allowed illegally purchased guns to be trafficked to Mexico. Sen. Chuck Grassley’s letter and the Department’s response can be viewed here-1. …

Grassley made the following comment on these developments.

“This is the second time in nearly seven months that the Department has gotten its facts wrong about gunwalking. Attorney General Holder accused Attorney General Mukasey, without producing any evidence, of having been briefed on gunwalking in Wide Receiver. The case Attorney General Mukasey was briefed on, Hernandez, is fundamentally different from both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious since it involved cooperation with the Mexican government. Attorney General Holder’s retraction should have included an apology to the former Attorney General.


Sheila Jackson Lee: This F&F debacle started under Bush « Hot Air

"Lying" means there was mens rea. A misstatement doesn't equate to a lie. Holder could have indeed been lying, but at this time, it is presumptive to claim he was.

Oh fuck you.... I dont care what I say..... you are a hack and a schill for Obama and his minions, and will defend them no matter what.

You are a disgrace


I bring you proof that Attorney General Mukasey was not the one who started Fast & Furious, and this is your response... pathetic.

I realize that being called on the carpet for your hackery upsets you. Now take your ball and go home. Adults are talking.

 

[geauxtohell]

It's amazing to behold the lengths the libtards on this board will go to champion corruption.




just remember Holder gave the mexicans guns, real guns and Terry got rubber bullets and death. that's what you're championing.

So guns do kill people?

 

[Si modo]

Except it did.

How co-equal branches deal with each other and the relative power they have over the other is fundamental to our constitution and discussions about that by lawyers are bread and butter constitutional law.

BTW, there are internal deliberations to break the law? Link?

I agree with that middle statement - it's parallel to attorney client privilege and definitely constitutional.

To answer the last line, the only burden to compel those documents is probable cause - probable cause that the internal deliberations included efforts to violate the law. Privilege is forfeited in that case. That is my understanding.

Wait. You just claimed something existed in fact.

Now are you claiming that there is "probable cause" to believe that something existed?

I don't recall doing so at all. I suggest you read my comments again.

Once again, IF internal deliberations include efforts to break the law, any law, then the privilege those documents would have held is forfeited. Period.

And, to compel such documents, the authoritative body only needs probable cause that there were efforts to break the law, any law - and the law was broken, I guess should be added. Period.

That is what I said and that is my understanding of those discovery rules.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Or another take:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/opinion/a-pointless-partisan-fight.html?hp

The Republicans shamelessly turned what should be a routine matter into a pointless constitutional confrontation. And the White House responded as most administrations do at some point: it invoked executive privilege to make a political problem go away.

No blame for holder ? not giving the papers that were requested?
No blame for obama misusing executive privilege and going against his own executive order?
Executive Order 13489

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's amazing to behold the lengths the libtards on this board will go to champion corruption.




just remember Holder gave the mexicans guns, real guns and Terry got rubber bullets and death. that's what you're championing.

So guns do kill people?

No the U.S. Justice department does.

 

[The Infidel]

"Lying" means there was mens rea. A misstatement doesn't equate to a lie. Holder could have indeed been lying, but at this time, it is presumptive to claim he was.

Oh fuck you.... I dont care what I say..... you are a hack and a schill for Obama and his minions, and will defend them no matter what.

You are a disgrace


I bring you proof that Attorney General Mukasey was not the one who started Fast & Furious, and this is your response... pathetic.

I realize that being called on the carpet for your hackery upsets you. Now take your ball and go home. Adults are talking.

Ive been called on the carpet for nothing... you have been exposed for being a hack.


Well maybe not.... I think the logical thinkers here already knew it.

 

[The Infidel]

It's amazing to behold the lengths the libtards on this board will go to champion corruption.




just remember Holder gave the mexicans guns, real guns and Terry got rubber bullets and death. that's what you're championing.

So guns do kill people?

Yep they do... when they are pointed at individual and the trigger is pulled.



You jackass

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh fuck you.... I dont care what I say..... you are a hack and a schill for Obama and his minions, and will defend them no matter what.

You are a disgrace


I bring you proof that Attorney General Mukasey was not the one who started Fast & Furious, and this is your response... pathetic.

I realize that being called on the carpet for your hackery upsets you. Now take your ball and go home. Adults are talking.

Ive been called on the carpet for nothing... you have been exposed for being a hack.


Well maybe not.... I think the logical thinkers here already knew it.

Is that like him complaining about me farting while he's wearing a underwear full of shit?

 

[The Infidel]

I realize that being called on the carpet for your hackery upsets you. Now take your ball and go home. Adults are talking.

Ive been called on the carpet for nothing... you have been exposed for being a hack.


Well maybe not.... I think the logical thinkers here already knew it.

Is that like him complaining about me farting while he's wearing a underwear full of shit?

Pretty much

 

[whitehall]

Libs concept of history only goes back to the last republican administration they hated. Yeah it's true that the ATF has been out of control for decades but you can't shrug your shoulders and "blame Bush". This time they stepped in it by supplying the weapons that killed a US Border Patrol officer and possibly hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens. Is the Obama administration so tangled up in a web of deceit that they can't even comply with a simple subpoena or is the administration depending on the dwindling support by the lib majority in the media to cover their asses yet again?

 

[Si modo]

Holder perjured himself before Congress.
Congress subpoenaed F&F documents
Holder THEN wants to plead the 5th.
PROBLEM: He ALREADY testified!
President claims Exec Privilege.

Q: How do you change your already sworn testimony to pleading the 5th?

Plus. Why did Holder retract his claim that the Bush Admin had done the same thing?

Yup. When he testified, he waived.