Finally, Obama can say that he tried to allow for less gun control but the overall increased violence on the border (that seeps into the us) has forced his hand and he will then institute more stringent gun laws.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922899)

The craziness is punctuated by ads for impotence drugs, CDs that teach you how to get-rich-by-flipping-houses, gold, and services for tax cheats. Seriously, that's easily 90% of the advertising clients.

The whole industry is impotent, dumb men appealing to impotent, lazy, gullible, dishonest men. The demographic is depressingly huge though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922468)

Also, the sheer stupidity you hear when listening to limbaugh or the like for only an hour is astounding.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922477)

If it's been policy for that long, why is there a rush to blame this on Obama?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922488)

I'm not a shitlib, but I'm having difficulty seeing how this was some sort of huge failure on Obama's part.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922562)

Nothing except for the recent announcement, issued on behalf of the sitting President of the United States, that all of the documents Congress is seeking in connection with its investigation into this policy/program are being withheld on the basis of Executive Privilege.

Either he was involved with it and can claim Executive Privilege over these documents (and should rightfully be subject to intense public scrutiny for its failure), or he wasn't and in spite of being a fucking former Constitutional Law professor he's now trying to assert a very narrow privilege to shield documents that clearly are not protected.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922576)

There's no "maybe" about that, but as a strictly legal matter Obama can't have it both ways. Either he was involved with the program and can potentially claim the privilege now or he wasn't and he can't.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922609)

Let me ask you a question: do you have any idea what the term 'Executive Privilege' actually means as a legal matter, or are you just sort of going off the cuff here and giving us your personal opinion about what you think it should mean, like the white Rastafarian on the streetcorning bitching about how his pot use is, like, totally protected under the First Amendment, mon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922605)

Just because Holder approved something that is in retrospect a bit boneheaded doesn't mean we should till up the seeds we've planted.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922612)

But why the outrage? Why are the NRA and Ted Nugent making this seem like a gun control issue?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922646)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922714)

Bro you're talking to a guy who CLEARLY doesn't watch Breaking Bad.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922773)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922815)

Solid defense, I'll be sure to raise it next time I'm prosecuted for selling the Crips a box of handguns with the serial numbers filed off. Sounds like a legal winner to me.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922832)

some of these people have seriously lost their minds trying to apologize for anything the Obama administration does. This unquestioned loyalty is mind-boggling.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922840)

Seriously. It's really appalling.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922872)

Lol@at confessing ignorance and then calling me a dolt/flame. get a clue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922931)

Seriously read up before you come to xoxo and defend something you admit you don't even understand. Some of us actually spend our professional lives analyzing risk.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922976)

* bangs head against wall *

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923015)

HE's NOT CONTINUING, RETARD

he's starting back up a program his predecessor ABANDONED because it was achieving unintended consequences. The Obama administration sees those unintended consequences as potentially politically favorable, and so, with notice of what those consequences are, re-launched and souped up the program that initially nobody back in 2006 predicted at least publicly would result in such a disaster.

imagine a hypothetical pacifistic scientist who in the course of his work discovered something that had vast and deadly destructive military applications and thus he abandons the work out of fear that Pandora's box would be opened if he were to continue. Then somebody else comes along later and discovers his findings and "continues" the work with the purpose of achieving those exact military applications.

let me preempt you and say don't misunderstand me and strawman and say I'm trying to equate bush to a pacifistic either, fuckwad. Likewise, the above analogy would be giving Obama as the second guy much too much credit. He's doing this for personal political gain, not nationalistic power.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923023)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923284)

PS: Holder, Obama's AG, has repeatedly denied knowledge relating to activities conducted under this program at various points when he had a legal duty to speak truthfully in the past, and the Congressional investigation is now trying to go back and determine what he actually knew and when he knew it. Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with either the arguable merits of the program as it was run under Obama or anything the Bush Administration did at all.

You're really not letting your profound ignorance on this topic stop you from authoritatively weighing in and dismissing everyone else as idiots, huh?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922992)

(Guy who doesn't think it's doltish to come in acting like a MFE when he doesn't know shit... just as long as in between the posts where he opines authoritatively he slips in a few oblique admissions that he doesn't actually know what he's talking about)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923037)

The program was bad, everyone admits it. But accountability here is merely firing people and the GOP see an opportunity to get Obama because he didn't fire Holder.

It's the same program done under Bush just larger and with some hindsight. But at its base level it's clearly stupid. The DOJ shouldn't have started it at any time. Their reconciliation is focusing on Holder since he's Obama's man.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922973)

"i.e. it's a witch hunt"

Yes, how stupid and petty of Congress/the American people to be concerned that a high-ranking federal official might have straight up lied about his knowledge of a controversial government-sanctioned program while he was under oath. Who the fuck would possibly care about that, or think that if true, that sort of (illegal) behavior is deeply troubling and casts strong doubt on his fitness to serve as one of the most powerful lawyers in America... let alone even retain his bar membership? What a shameful partisan witch hunt, you are clearly so objective about all of this bro.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923013)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923068)

Yeah poor Nixon... goddamn Democrats and their ill-conceived pointless witch hunts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923073)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923108)

"Holder lied, only one guy died"

What's the big deal bro, turn off the heatrocks and let these whiny reptards go hibernate already

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923113)

Well hell, now that I think about it, Nixon didn't know about the break-in until after the fact... no biggie! Fucking Democrats making a big deal about nothing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923163)

It's the same reason we have the exclusionary rule and require warrants for wiretapping. We don't pursue law enforcement without any ethical boundaries.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922674)

Are you really asking why it's a big deal when we find out that the Executive Branch of the federal government was secretly selling deadly weapons to para-military groups that are comprised of psychopaths engaging in illegal activity, across national borders, that sometimes kills American civilians/law enforcement officials?

And why, to gun owners, this might be further exacerbated by the fact that the Administration under which this was carried out is made up of members of a political party that has long been openly hostile to private gun ownership and has often cited rising rates of drug-related gun violence as a prime justification for imposing tighter restrictions on gun ownership/use?

Yeah man I can't help you, I'm stumped too. Sorry.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922675)

*Spends the week trying to take away the rights of private, law-abiding American citizens to own firarms for self-protection in violation of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution*

*Spends weekends secretly selling firearms to Mexican criminals with the knowledge and expectation that they will turn around and use them to violently smuggle things across the American border in violation of countless federal laws*

"What's the big deal, bro? Fucking reptiles always getting pissed off about some ol' bullshit, man."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922762)

And as for the first one, it's a closer call. Maybe it was unethical. If they supplied, say, 0.3% of the firearms used by the dealers but in the process garnered key clues that exposed the distribution chains for smuggled drugs and weapons, then I imagine most Americans would be ok with that. I certainly would. Especially if FBI uses information to take out key links in the chain, frustrating ability of cartels to access the other 99.7% of their weapons.

I suspect that is why Mukasey and Holder both liked the idea.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922725)

"No serious person believes that"

Again, on the off chance that you're a lawyer (god help your clients if so), make sure you make that the central argument of your next MTD.

"Plaintiff's allegations are ridiculous your honor, my company would never do something like that! Trust me, there's no need for discovery here."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922786)

I am now going to furiously search for EVIDENCE that Obama is NOT engaged in the most convoluted, illogical conspiracy attempt in U.S. history.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922812)

PS: Obama was the one who raised legal questions about the scope of his own *personal* involvement in this *by invoking Executive Privilege over all of these documents*, genius. Even if only kooks were pointing figures and raising eyebrows at him before, that's certainly not the case now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922823)

It's like I am arguing with a truck driver calling into Glenn Beck's program.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922873)

My answer to that for rational, intelligent conservatives is "See Point #1, above." The government's involvement in this is res ipsa alarming, and we would be crazy not to dig into it further now that it's come to light. My answer to that for the crazier, kookier gun-nuts is "See Points #1 and #2, above." (Although presidential involvement in 'outrageous conspiracies', at least ex post, is hardly unprecedented in modern times, in case you didn't know.)

You might not be personally impressed by the import of either of those concerns, but when it comes to whether or not this Administration is legally obligated to turn over documents pursuant to Congressional subpoena, then that's not exactly the relevant legal standard for deciding the issue now is it? And when Obama himself invokes Executive Privilege - a privilege that has been *very* narrowly construed by SCOTUS w/r/t written documents, something that we can and should assume that Obama, as a former Con Law professor at a top law school, would be well aware of - and refuses to hand over the documents on that ground, I think it's objectively rational and not at all crazy to wonder why the hell he is doing that and to seek clarification instead of just going "Oh yeah of course, sure carry on we trust you bro."

Given how brilliant you seem to think you are as you dismissively equate everything that I'm saying to the loony ramblings of a 90 IQ trucker, it's amazing how you have completely failed to actually engage with, let alone rebut, any of the substance of these points (and also how you clearly had no idea what "Executive Privilege" actually was to begin with in spite of acting like a MFE on that topic, but I'm sure you were just joshing.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922920)

The subpoena issue is a different issue. I think Obama thinks Issa is a venal, contemptuous gnat and he is playing chicken with him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923006)

I don't feel strongly about the conspiracy theory stuff - I don't personally buy into it, but enough crazy shit has happened in recent history (Nixon, Iran Contra) that I wouldn't be totally mindblown if there was some element of truth to it, either. I think there are ample grounds for an investigation, I think it's more than likely that Eric Holder commited perjury, and I think Obama is acting shady for some reason or another now.

I also think that if Obama thinks that "playing chicken" with Executive Privilege in the face of a Congressional subpoena issued as part of an ongoing perjury investigation against the AG is wise or appropriate, he's far, far dumber than I would have ever guessed - both as a legal matter and as a political matter, because this just makes him look unnecessarily shady too and will make it much more difficult for him to distance himself from anything that goes down/gets uncovered.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923070)

It's a serious charge. But the crocodile tears over the guns in the hands of the cartels is just the background, not the thing itself. There could be a memo to the effect of "We need to keep program confidential because FOX will run with it if it becomes public knowledge" that Holder didn't want out there. Or maybe he did lie about it thinking the issue would go away.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923120)

Yes, Conservatives en masse tend to hate Holder for a variety of reasons, some of which I think are pretty legitimate. They might make a fuss about the background on this, but at the end of the day all that matters is that they have him between a rock and a hard place and they are on the right side of the law.

What's frustrating is that so many liberals like solace and wallace ITT - and bearing in mind that self-described liberals are the ones who are supposed to be particularly suspicious of 'authoritarian bootlickers', who are supposed to be particularly critical and questioning of those who "hold the power", etc. - seem to want to waive their hands and dismiss this all, just because Holder is Obama's man and they looooove them some Obama. All of these eye-rolling comparisons to Clinton... all of this smokescreening about how F&F started under Bush... all of the snickers at the Nugent et al freakshow... it's incredibly disingenuous, and if these fgts had any real principles they would be leading the charge to investigate Holder and nail his ass to the wall based on the mounting evidence that he lied about his knowledge of a controversial secret government program that ended up killing an American law enforcement agent, regardless of the fact that he's a Democratic appointee. Instead they reveal themselves to be mindless partisan shills, making them look all the more hypocritical when they try and pick up the banner of high-minded idealism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20923160)

Like Watergate, at this point this isn't so much about what actually happened on the ground (fucked up though that was) as it is about figuring out when the relevant political figures actually knew what, at one point, they outright denied having any knowledge about.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922622)

A shitstorm is warranted, but if you think some sort of doc is going to surface with Obama's imprimatur on it saying something like "Make sure dis AR-15 makes its way over to Carlos", you're probably going to be disappointed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922694)

"It doesn't seem lke there is any possibly untoward motivation"

You are seriously flame or stupid, there is no third alternative.

"A shitstorm is warranted"

...and if by 'a shitstorm' you mean 'a release of the requested papers to Congress or thorough and complete explanation of exactly why, as a legal matter, the invocation of Executive Privilege is warranted with regard to the requested papers', then yes. And given that neither have been forthcoming in the months that this investigation has been proceeding, anyone who isn't flame or an idiot (see above, e.g., not you) can probably see why some people are understandably MAF about the current situation.

But on the off chance that you're a lawyer, be sure to respond to the next legally legitimate RFPs that you receive that are clearly designed to fish for smoking gun documents with a terse explanation that "it's really unlikely that those sort of documents exist, so fuck off I'm not digging up any files for you." That's totally the way these things work, if you just alpha them around like that these pussy plaintiffs counsels usually feel dumb as fuck for even asking and might even settle.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922724)

the conservatards who obsess over this issue say that Obama told anti-gun people that he was working on some things "under the radar" and so F&F, coupled with the supposed cover-up, looks to them like a deep conspiracy. the invocation of executive privilege, when Obama says he learned of F&F only through the news, will make the conspiracy nuts obsess even more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922959)

And TBF is right. Clearly Obama was behind all of this since he's using executive privilege.

Just like Bush invaded Iraq for oil deals, killed Pat Tillman, and saw to the firing of federal prosecutors

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922809)

I read this post, and yet why am I so skeptical that you similarly thought that all of the inquiries into the Bush Administration's shady dealings were "a ridiculous waste of time"?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1974942&forum_id=2#20922880)