Obama team: 'Fast and Furious' documents are privileged

Quote from TRNT : This is like saying "Americans are atheist." Of course both would be untruths.

Was that a moment of unintended honesty? I think we have a winner!

Quote from andyfico : Was that a moment of unintended honesty? I think we have a winner!

Of course we do. Admission is the first step to recovery.

Quote from TRNT : Of course we do. Admission is the first step to recovery.

I thought it was acceptance and the first step to acceptance is understanding.
For your sake, I hope I'm wrong.

Quote from Rebound : And you just believe that Isaa has 7600 blank documents. From Issa's own website, he specifically states what he's after: "Having already obtained these documents, the contempt effort will focus on the Justice Department’s refusal to turn over documents from after February 4, 2011 – the date the Justice Department first denied accusations that reckless conduct occurred in Fast and Furious." These are documents from long after the case and investigation ended.

A former Democrat governor of New Mexico on the show with Issa told me Issa has 7600 documents.

And on the show, Issa also said the above. That the contempt charges are mainly about information and testimony hid from/lied about. Holder and company gave Congress the runaround.

As often happens, it's not the original failure that causes the biggest ruckus. It's the cover up.

Quote from 124nic8 : Why would I listen to low level agents who were not privy to all the plans?

Quote from hsjpatman : Because they're "professionals"

Quote from TRNT : In your.....err.....mind you can think two congressmen merely talking to ach pther about impeachment is considered "conducting impeachment." But unless the house votes positively on it, or at least comes to a vote in the whole house, you are just wet dreaming. So who did the impeachment the last time? Come on, tell us. You will not choke.

I think that you may need to review the distinctions between the "impeachment" process, "impeached," and "convicted by impeachment." Your "expert" definition aside, in particular, note the text above regarding the impeachment process:

"Impeachment proceedings may be commenced in the House of Representatives by
a Member declaring a charge of impeachment on his or her own initiative..."

At the time that Kucinich submitted the Articles of Impeachment (H. Res. 1258) and the later similar resolution (H. Res 1345, actually with 11 co-sponsors btw)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/b...s1258/text
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/b...s1345/text

and they were passed to the Judiciary Committee, that constitutes initiation of impeachment proceedings. Quite a bit more than "two congressmen merely talking to each other about impeachment" (i.e., versus Kucinich "talking about" doing the same re Obama and Lybia) Because they did not progress from committee does not mean that the impeachment process was not started.

If the house "votes positively on it" that would be impeached.

When the Senate votes to convict, that would be convicted by impeachment.

Since the impeachment process applies to Federal officials beyond the President, technically, the correct answer would be neither D or R. It would be the impeachment process initiated by the Judicial Conference of the United States (see text above re initiation of the process by non-members of the House) by submitting it's certification, the equivalent of Kucinich's articles of impeachment, to the Speaker of the House Pelosi, then referred to the Judiciary Committee chaired by Conyers (D-MI), against Porteous, who was subsequently impeached 3/2010 and convicted 12/2010, :

http://blog.nola.com/news_impact/...rteous.pdf

In any case, I'm not going to derail this thread any further by entertaining your tangent. So you can now declare victory and rock on.

Quote from Mike A. : I think that you may need to review the distinctions between the "impeachment" process, "impeached," and "convicted by impeachment." Your "expert" definition aside, in particular, note the text above regarding the impeachment process: "Impeachment proceedings may be commenced in the House of Representatives by a Member declaring a charge of impeachment on his or her own initiative..." At the time that Kucinich submitted the Articles of Impeachment (H. Res. 1258) and the later similar resolution (H. Res 1345, actually with 11 co-sponsors btw) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/b...s1258/text http://www.govtrack.us/congress/b...s1345/text and they were passed to the Judiciary Committee, that constitutes initiation of impeachment proceedings. Quite a bit more than "two congressmen merely talking to each other about impeachment" (i.e., versus Kucinich "talking about" doing the same re Obama and Lybia) Because they did not progress from committee does not mean that the impeachment process was not started. If the house "votes positively on it" that would be impeached. When the Senate votes to convict, that would be convicted by impeachment. Since the impeachment process applies to Federal officials beyond the President, technically, the correct answer would be neither D or R. It would be the impeachment process initiated by the Judicial Conference of the United States (see text above re initiation of the process by non-members of the House) by submitting it's certification, the equivalent of Kucinich's articles of impeachment, to the Speaker of the House Pelosi, then referred to the Judiciary Committee chaired by Conyers (D-MI), against Porteous, who was subsequently impeached 3/2010 and convicted 12/2010, : http://blog.nola.com/news_impact/...rteous.pdf In any case, I'm not going to derail this thread any further by entertaining your tangent. So you can now declare victory and rock on.

Another wall of nonsensical nonsense.

1. The term "convicted by impeachment" sounded very awkward to me. So I googled it. It did not get even a single exact hit.

2. Any lone congressman can propose imeachment. It does not mean Dems or republicans (as a group) have done the same thing. If a subcommittee approves such proposal and sends is to the full house and if the full house then considers and votes on the proposal, then you can claim, say, dem-controlled house attempted to impeach the president.

So again, which party was it that attempted to impeach a president last? Do tell us. I promise you will not choke on it.

Yup, you guys are right. Impeach President Obama over this. Good move; the American public will think that's a grand idea.

Quote from Rebound : Yup, you guys are right. Impeach President Obama over this. Good move; the American public will think that's a grand idea.

Nope, they largely wouldn't, and I doubt it's going to happen.

Obama is probably within his rights to put up the presidential super shield, even if it's just to protect his bud.

I just wish so many weren't perfectly OK with whatever scummy move "their guy" makes.....

Quote from TRNT : Another wall of nonsensical nonsense. 1. The term "convicted by impeachment" sounded very awkward to me. So I googled it. It did not get even a single exact hit.

Your Google Kung Fu is weak grasshopper. Only several thousand results come up for that exact term even excluding references to less relevant use. lol

Convicted by impeachment, i.e., convicted as a result of the impeachment process (and as unique versus other criminal convictions.)

Selecting an example of use by a Federal judge in a decision that appears in actual case law:

Quote : Just before the Senate took up the House's charges [against Alcee Hastings], Judge Hastings brought suit against the Senate and some of its officers seeking to enjoin his impeachment trial on double jeopardy grounds, among others. District Judge Gerhard Gesell rejected Hastings' double jeopardy contention and dismissed the action. Judge Gesell reasoned as follows: "Impeachment trials are sui generis: in several instances in the Constitution, impeachment is distinguished from criminal proceedings. The accused has no right to a jury, and the President may not pardon a person convicted by impeachment...." Hastings v. United States Senate, 716 F. Supp. 38, 41 (D.D.C. 1989)

Beyond that I'm not going to play your dumb game again.

Quote from Mike A. : Beyond that I'm not going to play your dumb game again.

Beyond that this is the part that you chose to run away from:

Quote : 2. Any lone congressman can propose imeachment. It does not mean Dems or republicans (as a group) have done the same thing. If a subcommittee approves such proposal and sends is to the full house and if the full house then considers and votes on the proposal, then you can claim, say, dem-controlled house attempted to impeach the president. So again, which party was it that attempted to impeach a president last? Do tell us. I promise you will not choke on it.

Btw, you could have left that part intact in your quote and not respond to it. It is very clear why you did not.

Quote from TRNT : Beyond that this is the part that you chose to run away from: Btw, you could have left that part intact in your quote and not respond to it. It is very clear why you did not.

Still playing your games I see. Mike A is right to stand strong.

Quote from andyfico : What is important or unimportant still won't change the fact that you are still wrong. If you want to leave it at that, fine. Otherwise you can provide evidence for your claim.

Quote : George Washington [go.com] The early groundwork for an executive claim to secrecy was laid by the nation's first president, in response to the first investigation mounted by the House of Representatives. It came after the U.S. Army's defeat by American Indians in the Battle of the Wabash in 1791 in what is now Ohio. President George Washington and his aides decided not to hand over any papers or materials Congress requested, arguing that the branches of government ought to be separate.

Yes, GW did relent, but he invoked executive privilege first, so you've been pwned.

Quote from Danman114 : Your own article not only says that GW didn't invoke it (it didn't exist as a term then), but it also says that he gave Congress the documents they were looking for. Did you even read the article you supplied as your backup? Congress - "Give us the documents we want." GW - "No. We have a right to private conversations." Congress - "No you don't." GW - "OK, here you go." Fantastic.

Step #2 was an invocation of executive privilege.

We don't really know what negotiations led to GW relenting.

Just because he relented does not mean he didn't invoke exec privilege.

Quote from 124nic8 : Yes, GW did relent, but he invoked executive privilege first, so you've been pwned.

Yay Nicky!! You actually provided evidence for one of your claims for once like a big boy should. Gold star for you!! Oh wait, he dropped his executive privilege claim? I might have to take that star back. Nah I guess you still get an A for effort.