Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (52122)	6/22/2012 2:54:12 AM
From: greatplains_guy	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

An Arrogant and Lawless Cover-Up David Limbaugh Few principles are more important to our constitutional scheme than the separation of powers, which is precisely why President Obama's bogus assertion of executive privilege to thwart Congress' investigation into Fast and Furious is so inexcusable. Executive privilege is an important safeguard against congressional overreach and to preserve the separation of powers. The inherent right of the executive to protect highly sensitive information has long been recognized, and the privilege was judicially established during the Watergate era. As such, Congress should not go on fishing expeditions against a president to score political points. But neither should a president assert the privilege to obstruct a legitimate investigation when there appears to be no colorable claim to the privilege. This trivializes the privilege and the separation of powers it is designed to protect. Legal experts agree that the privilege applies to communications to which the president or an adviser acting on his behalf is a party. But they disagree about whether it applies to internal communications within executive agencies when neither the president nor his representative were involved in those communications. As the communications for which the privilege is being asserted here were reportedly internal Justice Department communications, many view the privilege claim dubiously. But even when the privilege is applicable, it is qualified and can be overcome when Congress demonstrates it has a substantial need for the information it seeks. In this case, Congress is seeking relevant information from the Justice Department, which it has been trying to obtain for more than a year. At every turn, Attorney General Eric Holder has stonewalled and obstructed congressional investigators. He is withholding thousands of pertinent documents, using an internal investigation as cover. It was because of Holder's persistent refusal to cooperate that Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., threatened to hold him in contempt. At the last minute, President Obama, who had claimed from the outset that he had no prior knowledge of the operation, asserted the privilege on Holder's behalf, as only the president can invoke this important privilege. The attorney general has a unique responsibility as a special steward to see that the laws are fairly and equally administered, and the Justice Department is the last federal agency that should be involved in a cover-up to obstruct the legal process. Both Holder and Obama are betraying that trust by the specious assertion of privilege in this case. Fast and Furious was a reckless operation from the beginning, which must not be repeated. Congress has an interest in investigating all the facts both to prevent similar debacles in the future and to ensure that responsible officials are held accountable. Obama and Holder have assured Congress and the American people that they will get to the bottom of the facts and that the culpable parties will be held accountable. But so far they have protected, and sometimes rewarded, their political appointees high up on the food chain and punished the whistleblowers who brought this into the open. Fast and Furious was a harebrained scheme involving the sale of guns to straw purchasers with the hope that they would lead investigators to drug cartels. But because ATF agents were forbidden to track the movement of the weapons sold and Mexican authorities were kept in the dark about the operation, the only way it could have worked is for authorities to have discovered the weapons at crime scenes after crimes had been committed and people were injured or killed. Holder has been caught twice deceiving Congress, and he claimed both instances were inadvertent. His excuse for misrepresenting when he'd learned about the operation by some 10 months was that he hadn't read emails sent to him informing him of it. Congress has a substantial need to know and a duty to pursue answers to: why Holder misled Congress; why the Department of Justice lied to Congress in a Feb. 4, 2011, letter in which they denied knowledge of gunwalking when internal documents proved they knew; why Fast and Furious was conceived in the first place; why ATF didn't allow its agents to track the weapons once they were sold; why no one at Main Justice has been punished; who ultimately authorized the operation; why Mexican authorities were kept in the dark about an operation that resulted in the injury and death of hundreds of Mexican citizens; why DOJ officials approved wiretap applications if they didn't read them thoroughly enough to discover that gunwalking was involved in the operation; and whether and when Obama had any knowledge of the operation. What possible legitimate basis -- national security or otherwise -- does Obama have to deprive Congress of the requested information? This is an arrogant and lawless cover-up that appears calculated to buy this administration time until after the November election. Republicans should not back down. Though it acts like it, this defiant administration is not above the law. townhall.com

To: FJB who wrote (52122)	6/24/2012 11:11:06 PM
From: greatplains_guy	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

A Year and a Half of Lies and Obfuscation By Michael Graham, Boston Herald June 23, 2012 The two most important words in the current Obama administration scandal aren’t “Fast” or “Furious.” They are “Brian Terry.” In December 2010, Brian Terry — a former Marine and police officer turned Border Patrol agent — was working in Arizona, 11 miles from the Mexican border. He was killed in a gunfight with Mexican drug runners, and two of the AK-47s found at the scene were linked to a then-unknown program of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms called “Operation Fast and Furious.” The name is perfect, because the president wants you furious — and fast. He wants you focused on those mean ol’ House Republicans who, according to Department of Justice consultant Robert Raben, are just “doing the bidding of the National Rifle Association.” Obama wants you debating Bush-era gun programs vs. his own, the limits of presidential privilege — anything except the fact that yesterday brought us the highest four-week average of initial jobless claims for the year. For Team Obama, this story is all about politics. But for the family of Brian Terry, it’s the story of their son — murdered with guns given to killers by his own government. Yet many mainstream news consumers never heard of it until this week. According to Media Research Center, the first time NBC mentioned the story was last week. For the Terry family, it has been a year and a half of lies, obfuscation and stonewalling. They just want to know what happened to their son — the kind of son who, before he died on Dec. 14, had already bought and mailed them Christmas gifts. His brother-in-law tells the rest: “We buried him not far from the house that he was raised in just prior to Christmas day. The gifts that Brian had picked out with such thought and care began to arrive in the mail that same week. With each delivery, we felt the indescribable pain of Brian’s death.” Are Democrats like Raben right? Is finding the person responsible for arming Terry’s killers with government-issue guns really merely doing “the bidding of the NRA?” Why the hell isn’t it the “bidding” of the entire Justice Department? Of the whole White House? Instead, Democrats like our own Reps. Stephen Lynch and John Tierney have consistently voted against having Attorney General Eric Holder provide documents that could end this family’s pain. Ranking House Oversight Committee member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) famously pledged, “I will not rest” until justice is done for the Terry family. But what did he and every other Democrat on the committee do this week? They sided with Holder and voted against holding him in contempt. Tierney demeaned the effort to get the documents as “partisan political theater.” Lynch went even further, offering an amendment calling for a review of the costs of the investigation and complaining that it had dragged on. “I want to balance out the benefits of this investigation with costs being accrued,” Lynch complained. “I would remind the member we’re talking about the death of an American border patrol agent,” replied Rep. James Lankford (R-Okla.). “Brian Terry’s family deserves every penny we have spent,” added Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). I agree. Lynch does not. Michael Graham hosts an afternoon drive time talk show on 96.9 WTKK.

To: FJB who wrote (52122)	6/26/2012 3:10:24 PM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

House right to proceed with Holder contempt vote By: Human Events 6/26/2012 11:26 AM Print 5A House committee has recommended, rightly, that Attorney General Eric Holder be held in contempt for refusing to hand over documents related to the Operation Fast and Furious scandal. The June 20 vote was by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). The vote came hours after Holder cited “executive privilege” in not handing over the documents. A vote by the full House of Representatives is expected Thursday. The committee’s vote was partisan, with all 23 Republicans voting aye, and all 17 Democrats voting no. This shows the continuing blindness of Democrats to the disdain with which their party member, President Barack Obama, and his administration in general have treated the constitutional mandate for congressional oversight of the executive branch. In Fast and Furious, Holder’s Department of Justice induced U.S. gun dealers to sell guns to drug traffickers from Mexico. The traffickers then smuggled the guns across the border. Supposedly, the guns then would allow DOJ to track the activities of drug cartels. But as the Obama administration itself admits, Fast and Furious backfired when the agency lost track of the guns. An unknown number of people—possibly hundreds—have been killed by those guns in a country already rife with drug-war murders. One of those killed was U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry, whose family has been insisting that Congress get to the bottom of his murder. “It’s a sad day when the attorney general ends up with a contempt citation,” John Eastman told us; he’s a professor of constitutional law at the Chapman University School of Law. “But given what we know of the situation, it seems to be the appropriate step.” Eastman said that the “compromise” he understood was being offered by Holder was risible: Holder would turn over the requested documents—but only if Congress dropped its investigation. Yet the only reason to get the documents is to further the investigation. Holder plays hardball “Holder is playing hardball,” Eastman observed. Usually, he said, in situations like this an administration will withhold some documents, such as those involving “tactical matters,” but release the majority of the documents, “but that does not appear to be the case in this context.” The reason this matter is so important is because Issa’s committee is trying to get behind whether or not Holder knew about what was going on, and when he knew it. The timeline is important. Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee May 3, 2011 and testified, “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” But documents obtained by CBS showed that he actually knew about it in July 2010—about 10 months earlier. “The question is about illegal activity and perjury,” Eastman said. If the full House holds Holder in contempt Thursday, then a constitutional crisis could arise. “The House then would refer it to the Department of Justice for prosecution, which probably won’t get very far,” Eastman said, because Holder himself heads DOJ. But that could “lead to a series of resignations” related to the scandal. This is extraordinary.” Alternatively, “The House could go directly to the courts” to enforce a contempt citation. “But there it requires implementation by a U.S. marshal, who also is under the supervision of the DOJ.” However, Eastman believes that the matter still will be resolved short of a full constitutional crisis. Meanwhile, the November election is approaching and President Obama, no doubt, doesn’t want this scandal dominating the news cycle. The campaign of his presumptive Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, already has gone on the attack. Press Secretary Andrea Saul said in a statement, “President Obama’s pledge to run the most open and transparent administration in history has turned out to be just another broken promise.” We encourage Rep. Issa and Republicans in Congress to continue pressing their case against Holder. This isn’t just about lawyers’ briefs; it is about victims in Mexico and the U.S., including Brian Terry. Last week Human Events attended a speech given by Issa in Newport Beach, Calif. He said Congress has to get to the bottom of “Brian Terry’s mother not having a son. At some point, someone has to be held accountable for Brian Terry and hundreds of others dying.” humanevents.com