TexasCHLforum.com

WOW, this one caught me by surprise.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 47012.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This leads me to believe that the White House either knew about and approved the operation, or they were actively involved in trying to cover it up.

comp73 wrote:WOW, this one caught me by surprise.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 47012.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This leads me to believe that the White House either knew about and approved the operation, or they were actively involved in trying to cover it up.

Or both

How can Holder claim "Executive Privilege" on behalf of Obama for an operation both claim they knew nothing about?

RPB wrote:
How can Holder claim "Executive Privilege" on behalf of Obama for an operation both claim they knew nothing about?

Right. What's the hold up on the documents? If they were within the law and it was an above board operation, then they shouldn't have anything TO hide.

So much for Obama's new "transparent" ways.

Holder's ops got cops killed. Watergate pales in comparison.

I'm not surprised. It was only a matter of time. I also predict that The Obamanation will pardon him before he leaves office.

smoothoperator wrote:Holder's ops got cops killed. Watergate pales in comparison.

Absolutely! Where is the media/press that drove Nixon from the White House for his knowledge of, and involvement in, the Watergtate capers?

He apparently does think that he is "The Chosen One" and that he is above the law. He most definitely does think the American voters are still stupid. For the life of me, I don't see how any thinking American citizen could vote for this clown a second time. The current POTUS and his minions may best Ulysses S. Grant's administrations in the "Most Corrupt Ever" category.

It's days and situations like this that make me glad to have had more days behind me than I have before me. Good luck, y'all.

smoothoperator wrote:Holder's ops got cops killed. Watergate pales in comparison.

Cop, but possibly as many as 200+ citizens of another country. They are international arms smugglers.

This issue won't even scratch Obama.

I just hope enough of our citizens do the right thing and vote this dude out of office.

C-dub wrote:

smoothoperator wrote:Holder's ops got cops killed. Watergate pales in comparison.

Cop, but possibly as many as 200+ citizens of another country. They are international arms smugglers.

I apologize. I forgot about Jaime Zapata. There were two LEOs killed as a result of this. Smoothoperator was correct.

Government officials always tell us that we should not object to their intrusions on our privacy if we aren't doing anything wrong. Well, what about them? If Obama and Holder did nothing wrong, then they should not object to having that fact come out. Their stonewalling just gives me reason to believe that the whole F&F debacle was crooked from the beginning.

Just for the record, as the Executive Privilege gets battered and bruised on this forum, this is apparently the first and only time President Obama has, reluctantly, I really believe, advanced the privilege. George W. Bush exerted the privilege 6 times during his 8 years in office. Another president named George, Washington, that is, was the first to exert such a privilege had by the president to avoid publishing to the world his advisor's private advice, bound to restrain and affect that advice if not privileged.

To do their duties as they and the new president saw them, the new administration's lawyers were stuck with defending at least one of W's exertions when they entered office.

This is not intended as a comment on the whys and wherefores, rightness or wrongness, of Fast and Furious. I simply want to observe the almost unanimous bias or lack of understanding of the real issue, by the members, who I personally do not remember calling our our prior presidents to task for similar cases -- one of which led to the resignation of a president to avoid impeachment.

Jim
Just the messenger

57Coastie wrote:Just for the record, as the Executive Privilege gets battered and bruised on this forum, this is apparently the first and only time President Obama has, reluctantly, I really believe, advanced the privilege. George W. Bush exerted the privilege 6 times during his 8 years in office. Another president named George, Washington, that is, was the first to exert such a privilege had by the president to avoid publishing to the world his advisor's private advice, bound to restrain and affect that advice if not privileged.

To do their duties as they and the new president saw them, the new administration's lawyers were stuck with defending at least one of W's exertions when they entered office.

This is not intended as a comment on the whys and wherefores, rightness or wrongness, of Fast and Furious. I simply want to observe the almost unanimous bias or lack of understanding of the real issue, by the members, who I personally do not remember calling our our prior presidents to task for similar cases -- one of which led to the resignation of a president to avoid impeachment.

Jim
Just the messenger

And cue the stock phrase..."Its Bush's fault"...

57Coastie wrote:Just for the record, as the Executive Privilege gets battered and bruised on this forum, this is apparently the first and only time President Obama has, reluctantly, I really believe, advanced the privilege. George W. Bush exerted the privilege 6 times during his 8 years in office. Another president named George, Washington, that is, was the first to exert such a privilege had by the president to avoid publishing to the world his advisor's private advice, bound to restrain and affect that advice if not privileged.

To do their duties as they and the new president saw them, the new administration's lawyers were stuck with defending at least one of W's exertions when they entered office.

This is not intended as a comment on the whys and wherefores, rightness or wrongness, of Fast and Furious. I simply want to observe the almost unanimous bias or lack of understanding of the real issue, by the members, who I personally do not remember calling our our prior presidents to task for similar cases -- one of which led to the resignation of a president to avoid impeachment.

Jim
Just the messenger

And just for the sake of bi-partizenship, Clinton exerted the privilege 14 times in his 8 years, and was the first to lose since Nixon when the Federal judge ruled that his aids could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.

And just for the sake of bi-partizenship, Clinton exerted the privilege 14 times in his 8 years, and was the first to lose since Nixon when the Federal judge ruled that his aids could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal. [/quote]

From what I understand, both Clinton and Bush exerted executive privilege a number of times, but many of those were either retracted or overturned by a court.