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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88808)	6/21/2012 12:25:28 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 89467

Doesn't sound like Obama wants it investigated.

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88808)

6/21/2012 12:25:50 PM

From: joseffy

Respond to of 89467

how’s that effort to keep administration officials from releasing classified information going?

So Much For Stopping the Leaks

by Arnold Ahlert Tuesday, June 19, 2012
canadafreepress.com

So, how’s that effort to keep administration officials from releasing classified information going?

Try this from Tuesday’s Washington Post:

“The United States and Israel jointly developed a sophisticated computer virus nicknamed Flame that collected critical intelligence in preparation for cyber-sabotage attacks aimed at slowing Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, according to Western officials with knowledge of the effort.”

Further on in the article we get even more:

“This is about preparing the battlefield for another type of covert action,” said one former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official, who added that Flame and Stuxnet were elements of a broader assault that continues today. “Cyber collection against the Iranian program is way further down the road than this.” (italics mine)

Covert action? This effort is now about as “covert” as the Super Bowl.

And the only thing hard to figure out is who is more reprehensible, the cheerleading press whores at the Post, who, like their fellow liberal presstitutes, never miss an opportunity to burnish the Obama administration’s “tough on terror” credentials, or the latest gaggle of unnamed “high-ranking” officials willing to sell this nation out in the process.

This latest leak, coming after the outrage expressed by members of both parties concerned with the sieve-like nature of our national security apparatus, begs the obvious question:

Is there a functioning definition of “treason” anymore?

The answer is no. Short of a nuclear cloud blossoming over an American city, one that could be directly attributed to terrorists gaining some kind of advantage based national security leaks, no one gets prosecuted for treason.

Why not? Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” According to the Legal Dictionary, aid and comfort refers to any act “that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.” (italic mine)

So far, so good. So what’s the problem? According to the same source, the clause only applies to such efforts “during time of war.” It is no secret that the Iranians have been at war with the United States since the fall of the Shah in 1979. It is also no secret that we have not declared war against them, or any of the other Islamist savages intent on destroying this nation by any means necessary. In fact the Obama administration has gone out of its way to eliminate the word “war” from the equation completely (along with “Radical Islam,” “terrorism” and “Jihadist,” fyi). Ergo, we are currently engaged in an “overseas contingency operation”—and treason gets kicked to the curb in the process.

Yet this is not the time to get bogged down in legalese. It’s time to crack down on those who can’t keep their mouths shut.Giving the mad mullahs and their atomic ambitions a heads-up on how we’re undermining them, not only makes them better prepared for the next time, but fires up their determination to procure the ultimate Middle East game-changer ASAP.

And let’s not kid ourselves. An investigation initiated by the most politically-compromised Justice Department in American history, headed by a hack Attorney General already on the block for a contempt of Congress vote, isn’t the answer. We need to appoint a special prosecutor with access to the lists of people who attended the various meeting where the leaks took place, one who can put every one of the attendees under oath and see where the inconsistencies lead. Put that appointment to a vote in both houses of Congress so Americans can see which members of Congress, if any, would be willing to shield the blabber-mouths. Five months before a national election, it’s a no-brainer.

The atrocity of 9/11 can be attributed to many things, but first and foremost among them was a colossal failure of intelligence. Thoughtful Americans should ask themselves who in their right mind would risk anything to help this nation avoid another catastrophe, given what’s occurred in recent weeks. A Pakistani doctor is serving 33 years in prison and a Saudi/British double-agent is walking around with a permanent target on his back, as “thanks” for giving us bid Laden and the most technologically advanced underwear bomb to date, respectively. Henry Kissinger once remarked the only thing worse than being America’s enemy is being America’s friend.

Isn’t it about time we changed that despicable reality?

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88808)	6/21/2012 12:32:43 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 89467

The operative question now is, what did the president know and when did he know it?

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88808)	6/21/2012 12:33:13 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 89467

the most politically-compromised Justice Department in American history, headed by a hack Attorney General

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88808)	6/21/2012 12:43:35 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 89467

The Fast and Furious scandal is turning into President Obama's Watergate By Tim Stanley June 21st, 2012 blogs.telegraph.co.uk Obama is repeating many of the mistakes that led to Nixon's resignation in 1974 Fast and furious hasn’t been discussed a lot in the mainstream media, which is why the facts can seem so preposterous when you read them for the first time. But the story is slowly unraveling and the public is catching up with the madness. On Wednesday, the The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt over his decision to withhold documents related to the “gun walking” operation – documents that President Obama tried to keep secret by invoking executive privilege. The question of why the Prez intervened in this way will surely hang over the investigation and the White House for many months to come. Be patient, conservatives. It took nearly eight months for the Watergate break in to become a national news story. But when it finally did, it toppled a President. Here’s what Fast and Furious is all about – and for the uninitiated, be prepared for a shock. In 2009, the US government instructed Arizona gun sellers illegally to sell arms to suspected criminals. Agents working for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) were then ordered not to stop the sales but to allow the arms to “walk” across the border into the arms of Mexican drug-traffickers. According to the Oversight Committee’s report, “The purpose was to wait and watch, in hope that law enforcement could identify other members of a trafficking network and build a large, complex conspiracy case…. [The ATF] initially began using the new gun-walking tactics in one of its investigations to further the Department’s strategy. The case was soon renamed ‘Operation Fast and Furious.” Tracing the arms became difficult, until they starting appearing at bloody crime scenes. Many Mexicans have died from being shot by ATF sanctioned guns, but the scandal only became public after a US federal agent, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, was killed by one of them in a fire fight. ATF whistle blowers started to come forward and the Department of Justice was implicated. It’s estimated that the US government effectively supplied 1,608 weapons to criminals, at a total value of over $1 million. Aside from putting American citizens in danger, the ATF also supplied what now amounts to a civil war within Mexico. It’s important to note that the Bush administration oversaw something similar to Fast and Furious. Called Operation Wide Receiver, it used the common tactic of “controlled delivery,” whereby agents would allow an illegal transaction to take place, closely follow the movements of the arms, and then descend on the culprits. But Fast and Furious is different because it was “uncontrolled delivery,” whereby the criminals were essentially allowed to drop off the map. Perhaps more importantly, Wide Receiver was conducted with the cooperation of the Mexican government. Fast and Furious was not. So Obama’s operation is subtly different. But just as concerning is the heavy handed way that the administration has handled criticism. Obama says that the Oversight Committee has been hi-jacked by Republicans who would rather talk about politics than creating jobs (because Obama is o-so very good at generating those). But there has been Democratic criticism too, and the Prez’s determined defence of Holder will only encourage conspiracy thinking that the scandal has hidden depths. Executive privilege is usually associated with protecting information that passes through the Oval Office. What did the documents reveal about Obama’s association with the operation? Again, it’s important to contextualise. Executive privilege has been invoked 24 times since Ronald Reagan, and attempts to over-ride it rarely reach the courts. Moreover, Holder’s request for executive privilege made no reference to White House involvement in Fast and Furious, which seems to have been run exclusively by the ATF. Nevertheless, by refusing to sack Holder or push him to come clean, Obama may have made a very Nixonian mistake. A lot of conservatives are writing at the moment that not only is Obama turning into Nixon Mark II, but Obama is much worse because no one actually got killed during Watergate. The comparison is based on the myth that Nixon ordered the Watergate break in and that’s what he eventually had to resign over. But that’s not true. Nixon’s guilt was in trying to pervert the course of justice by persuading the FBI to drop its investigation of the crime. Mistake number one, then, was to involve the White House in covering up the errors of a separate, autonomous political department. Mistake number two was that when Congress discovered that evidence about the scandal might be recorded on the White House bugging system, Nixon invoked executive privilege to protect the tapes. In both cases, it was the cover up that destroyed Nixon – not the original crime. And, forty years later almost to the day, here we have Obama making the same mistake. Perhaps it’s an act of chivalry to stand by Holder; perhaps it’s an admission of guilt. Either way, it sinks the Oval Office ever further into the swamp that is Fast and Furious. Make no mistake about: Fast and Furious was perhaps the most shameful domestic law and order operation since the Waco siege. It’s big government at its worst: big, incompetent and capable of ruining lives.

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88808)	6/21/2012 1:18:31 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 89467

Executive privilege is usually associated with protecting information that passes through the Oval Office. What did the documents reveal about Obama’s association with the operation?

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88808)	6/21/2012 1:19:15 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 89467

Obama is repeating many of the mistakes that led to Nixon's resignation in 1974

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88808)	6/21/2012 2:55:17 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

a scandal that threatens to dwarf Watergate.

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88808)	6/21/2012 2:55:40 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 89467

this “under the radar” sneak attack on the second amendment most likely had Fast and Furious at its core as part of a deliberate plot to sabotage gun rights. It is this aspect of the whole Fast and Furious controversy – the notion that it was a deliberately engineered plot by the Obama administration to curtail the second amendment – that Obama is so keen to keep under wraps by doing exactly what he attacked the previous administration for doing back in 2007 – hiding behind executive privilege to cover up a scandal that threatens to dwarf Watergate.

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88808)

6/21/2012 3:17:39 PM

From: joseffy

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467

White House Spokesman: Executive Privilege Is 'Entirely About Principle'

Jun 21, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
weeklystandard.com

At today's White House press briefing, Press Secretary Jay Carney said invoking executive privilege is "entirely about principle." The assembled reporters laughed. Watch here:

Carney also got basic facts about Fast and Furious wrong, though members of the press corps were on hand to correct him. Watch here:

Carney also maintained that the White House is not being hypocritical by invoking executive privilege, even though President Obama once criticized the practice. Watch here:

And Carney forgot the name of the slain border patrol agent who died as a result of Fast and Furious. Watch here:

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88808)	6/21/2012 4:06:09 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

On the night of December 15, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot and killed by an untraceable assault weapon that was deliberately handed to Mexican drug lords by U.S. officials via Operation Fast and Furious. Ever since, the Terry family and Americans across the nation have asked how this could have happened. And ever since, Attorney General Eric Holder has stonewalled Congress in its attempts to find these answers. Yesterday, President Obama joined this stonewalling effort, asserting executive privilege over many of the documents about the operation that Congress had subpoenaed but still had not received. Executive privilege is legitimate when properly invoked. But even then, the Supreme Court has maintained that it is not absolute. The Department of Justice (DOJ) must provide a compelling rationale for each assertion. Shielding wrongdoing has never been a qualifying rationale. Heritage legal expert and former Department of Justice counsel Todd Gaziano explains: First, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The courts held that [President] Nixon’s purported invocation of executive privilege was illegitimate, in part, for that reason. There is reason to suspect that this might be the case in the Fast and Furious cover-up and stonewalling effort. Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of them is covered by executive privilege—and more. It is now up to Congress to ascertain the specific reasoning for executive privilege with every withheld document. Even in the unlikely case it is determined that this was a proper invocation of executive privilege, the administration is still not off the hook to inform Congress of what they know. Gaziano explains further: [T]he President is required when invoking executive privilege to try to accommodate the other branches’ legitimate information needs in some other way. For example, it does not harm executive power for the President to selectively waive executive privilege in most instances, even if it hurts him politically by exposing a terrible policy failure or wrongdoing among his staff. The history of executive–congressional relations is filled with accommodations and waivers of privilege. In contrast to voluntary waivers of privilege, Watergate demonstrates that wrongful invocations of privilege can seriously damage the office of the presidency when Congress and the courts impose new constraints on the President’s discretion or power (some rightful and some not). President Obama now owns the Fast and Furious scandal. It is entirely up to him whether he wants to live up to the transparency promises he made four years ago, or further develop a shroud of secrecy that would make President Richard Nixon blush. If the stonewalling continues, and the privilege is not waived, it will be up to the American people and the media to demand the reasoning for the cover-up. It is also time for the media to begin responsibly covering this scandal. For more than 16 months, only a handful of reporters have appropriately researched the facts and sought answers. Most members of the national media would not even acknowledge the existence of the scandal. Reportedly, NBC Nightly News ran its first story on the scandal just this past Tuesday. The national media must now follow the lead of their colleagues CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson or Townhall’s Katie Pavlich and investigate the specific facts and details of the operation and administration involvement. Attkisson, as you may remember, was screamed and cussed at by White House spokesman Eric Schultz in October for asking questions about Operation Fast and Furious. Answers must be demanded. When was the first time President Obama was briefed on this operation? Given his previous conflicting testimony, when in fact did Attorney General Eric Holder become involved? What exactly did he know and when did he know it? Despite the fact that Mexico was left in the dark by the Obama administration, this was still an international operation. If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must approve the Keystone pipeline, wouldn’t she also be consulted on this cross-border operation? Liberals will try and pretend this operation that began in mid-2009 is connected to former President George W. Bush’s administration. The media should challenge this false assertion. Operation Wide Receiver in 2006 did not remotely resemble Fast and Furious, as National Review’s Andrew McCarthy has ably examined. Mexico helped coordinate it, and there was traceable controlled delivery. Even Holder admitted in testimony that you cannot “equate the two.” We will also hear that this is “election-year politics.” The problem with that refrain is that this investigation has been ongoing since early 2011, well before campaign season started. It has been Attorney General Holder’s evasiveness that has dragged this process closer to Election Day. If it were not for conservative media outlets, bloggers, a few dogged reporters and the steadfastness of House Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), this troubling scandal would have been buried long ago. A brave American border agent is dead. At least 200 Mexicans have been slaughtered with these weapons. Drug violence on the border remains unabated. Now, President Obama is attempting to conceal the facts of what happened. This is an opportunity for Congress and the media to demand sunlight.

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88808)	6/21/2012 4:13:02 PM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 89467

"A brave American border agent is dead. At least 200 Mexicans have been slaughtered with these weapons. Drug violence on the border remains unabated." for what ? just so Obama could play a game trying to scare the american people into getting rid of the 2nd amendment. That's all you libs do, use scare tactics, like global warming

To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (88808)	6/21/2012 5:59:27 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales. PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent. ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information. On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious: "Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks." More Fast and Furious coverage: Memos contradict Holder on Fast and Furious Agent: I was ordered to let guns "walk" into Mexico Gunwalking scandal uncovered at ATF On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case." This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles." The Gun Dealers' Quandary Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to. Sometimes it was against the gun dealer's own best judgment. Read the email In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items." Read the email ATF's group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there's nothing to worry about. "We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail." Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated. "I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands...I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country." "It's like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back," says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. "It's a circular way of thinking." The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them. The "Demand Letter 3" Debate The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that's unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes. Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they "have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico." The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine. On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to "commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs." Reaction Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we've learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It's pretty clear that the problem isn't lack of burdensome reporting requirements." On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us. "In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News. cbsnews.com