Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

BREAKING NEWS: President Obama Uses Executive Privilege to Protect Against Subpoena of Fast and Furious Docs

Major news outlets are reporting that President Obama has used executive privilege to protect Fast and Furious documents from being sent to the House Oversight Committee. The move allows the documents to be withheld from the committee even though they've been subpoenaed. Tensions have mounted recently as the House was poised to hold a vote on whether Attorney General Eric Holder was in contempt of Congress for not fulfilling the merits of the committee's subpoena. See the articles below:


Fox News:


Now, to me, we shouldn't rush to judgement. None of us are congressmen/women, and we don't know all the information. Of course, we all have opinions, and we have the right to express those opinions.

With that, in the spirit of open debate, what do you think of this news? Have you followed the Fast and Furious case? Is this an overstep of Obama's power? Is this a fair move? Please share your opinions below.


  1. Thank goodness 0bama is the most transparent president ever, with transparent now meaning secretive or opaque.

    I can't hardly blame 0bama though. If I were an incompetent miserable failure like him and the Fast & Furious program, I wouldn't want those records released either.

    This could only be a scandal if it were a Republican as the president. So, no it is not and overstepping of 0bama's power and I am sure the media will tell us it is a bold move or some BS like that.

    Amazingly though, everybody else 0bama has killed he has been proud of. Why is he not so proud here?

  2. Back in 2007 then Senator Barack Hussein 0bama was not much pf a fan of Executive Privilege.

    Oh well, he is the most transparent president we have ever had and I guess he is entitled to flip flop, er, I mean evolve on the matter.

  3. Love it Slim! Couldn't have said it better myself.

    Every American needs to ask, "why wouldn't he want those records released?" If he has nothing to hide, let them out. Republicans would look like fools if the were squeaky clean. It makes him look afraid, and it's a tyrannical move to use an exclusive power only you have to cover yours and your buddy's butts.

    "So, no it is not and overstepping of 0bama's power and I am sure the media will tell us it is a bold move or some BS like that." was the best thing I've ever heard you say. MSNBC will say how courageous this was in t-minus 10, 9...

  4. President Obama said he knew nothing about Fast and Furious. When the President invokes the executive privelege on this issue, it tells me that the lies on Fast and Furious go all the way to the White House. What's there to hide? This is NOT the transparancy in government that Obama promised. This smells like a cover-up. 18 months was more than a sufficient amount of time to produce the Fast and Furious documents Congress requested. If there was nothing to hide, produce the documents. The executive privilege invokes nothing but contempt for the Obama administration caught in a lie.

  5. An American Border Patrol Officer lost his life, killed with one of the guns allowed by the Fast and Furious program of the Obama administration. An American life was lost and Congress owes it to the American people and that Border Patrol Officer's family to seek justice. No one is immune from justice, not even those in the White House.

  6. Well said! I couldn't agree with you more.

  7. He sounds more and more like bush every day.
    2 names 1 party......

  8. Hello everyone... It's been a while. I've spent the last couple of months doings hard time (tee ball for the youngest and baseball and karate for the oldest... thank god baseball season has ended - and it ended with a championship for my boy's team).

    OK, enough with the pleasantries. I am surpprised that there is not more anger and debate over this (although a debate would necessitate arguments from both sides and I just don't see it here). I, as some of you likely know, am a HUGE proponent of open government and I believe in very limited executive privilege. The documents in question belong to me (and all of you) and, therefore, executive privilege is nothing but theft, in my opinion. I thought the same when Bush/Cheney did it and I don't play partisan politics. It's not OK to hide my property from me (again, with very few exceptions). This kind of stuff makes my blood boil.. God I wish Ron Paul would become President!!!

    1. Whatsamattausa! Good afternoon, long time, no chat. How have you been? It sounds like you've been well. All those activities seem like fun, positive ones. And congrats to your son for winning the championship!

      I actually do wish there was more debate on this, but it doesn't surprise me. I want there to be more debate so I can learn more about it, and so I can learn what people think. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know much (maybe that's why a lot of people don't debate this, too). I do, however, have the privilege of carpooling with a great lawyer every day, and, of course, we've talked about it.

      With regards to the executive privilege, he did help me understand a few things. First, it only applies IF there is involvement. For example, if there were documents being subpoenaed from me by you, Obama can't use this privilege because he isn't involved in this. If he tried to execute it, it would be thrown out because there is no relation. For Fast and Furious, the same applies. It's a double-edged sword. By using executive privilege, Obama gets to protect these documents. By doing this, however, (and it still standing without getting thrown out), he is basically saying that he has personal involvement. Again, if he wasn't involved, there is nothing "executive" in nature to exact the privilege. I though that take was interesting. Of course, this is from a carpool conversation, so who knows how accurate my representation of it is.

      The other thing I found out is that the Constitution does NOT talk of an executive privilege. It's simply been something that was implied. For all the Ron Paul traffic we get on here, I'm surprised there is no outrage on this side of the argument.

      You bring up an outstanding point. You're 100% right; these are the people's documents. Now I understand that with certain situations (covert military operations, for example), John Q. Public shouldn't be permitted to know the secret ins and outs of the government. But to me, this is different. Plus, if Obama truly wanted to promote a "transparent" government (I also agree with you here), why go down the path of hiding things with this blanket move? If he was involved, or there was something nefarious, it leads us to believe that hiding information is necessary. If not (especially since the democrats charge this investigation is a political move), and there is nothing bad at all and Holder and Obama had no knowledge of this, why not show the documents. If Holder is right, don't you think that would make the GOP look really stupid?

      I do really like your take. I hope more Ron Paul supporters can stop by.

      Glad to hear from you Whatsamattausa! Stay cool wherever you are!

    2. LME -

      Thanks for the congrats for my son. The activities are good and positive... thinking about taking them rock climbing this weekend (an old favorite pastime of mine) to see what they think about that.

      Interesting about executive privilege. I wonder, though, what the appeal process is. As an example, I have been involved in a number of lawsuits in NJ because a borough failed to provide public documents. In some cases, a judge (or an appointee) would review the documents to determine if they are eligible for withholding/redaction. I would imagine there is a similar process at the Presidential level. There must be a verification system in place. I'm also curious as to 'involvement' means. If it simply means he was a party to an email, I'd cc the President on every email I would ever send in the hopes that EP would be exercised if I did something wrong.

      All I know is that, if my boss wanted my email, he could get it. Being as how the people are the governments boss, we should be entitled to the documents (less what you and I agree should be protected for national security or other reasons). It makes me think of this quote by my man Thomas Jefferson:

      "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

      When the government gets to pick and choose what is protected, that gives reason to fear the government. Public access of those documents puts the fear in the government and creates a stronger foundation for liberty!

      You stay cool as well LME!

    3. You are right. You're welcome.

      "He's either part of it or he's not," Rep. Trey Gowdy, a feisty Republican lawmaker from South Carolina, challenged during Wednesday's committee meeting on Holder. "If (Obama's) part of it, then we've had a series of witnesses that have misled this committee. And if he's not part of it, then he's got no business asserting executive privilege."

      Read more:

    4. Holy crap HHbppled (goofy name, made me laugh!) - you beat me by like 15 seconds with that quote, I swear!