AAPL stock: $440.35 ( -2.58 ) *Cached every 60 seconds. For live updating, Click Here |
| Tips and Deals ---- 'Friendly' Political Ranting |
You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
| Re: Justification of current Executive Privilege? Date: June 20, 2012 03:10PM |
He's using it as a weapon against Issa's refusal to be reasonable. Issa is an idealogue who uses everything he can as a political weapon. Let Issa suck it is what I say.
"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2012 03:11PM by davester.
"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2012 03:11PM by davester.
| Re: Justification of current Executive Privilege? Date: June 20, 2012 03:21PM |
Quote
davester
He's using it as a weapon against Issa's refusal to be reasonable. Issa is an idealogue who uses everything he can as a political weapon. Let Issa suck it is what I say.
Issa is asking for hundreds of thousands of sheets of paper because he is hungry to find something, anything that he can claim as a scandal. It's a big fat waste of the country's time and money.
"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 20, 2012 03:39PM |
Quote
samintx
I need to be convinced this is justified especially since in the past our President has talked against Executive Perviledge.
So you think the American people deserve to know what's going on.
There are those that believe it's none of our business, especially in an election year.
[www.freethegrapes.org]
norwegian wood reality TV
[www.youtube.com]
| Re: Justification of current Executive Privilege? Date: June 20, 2012 05:02PM |
Yep, this is going to get messy.
Terry's family and the American people deserve to know who was responsible for this goat roping.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
Terry's family and the American people deserve to know who was responsible for this goat roping.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 20, 2012 07:06PM |
Can you say Nixon tapes? The tapes did not disclose planning the Watergate break in, but they did reveal Nixon's complicity in the attempt to COVER IT UP. He tried to claim executive privilege in order to with hold the tapes, but the court ruled against him.
Where's the transparency Obama promised?
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
Where's the transparency Obama promised?
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 21, 2012 08:54AM |
Holder has be caught red handed lying to the congressional committee. He agreed Tuesday to turn over more documents, but on Wednesday Obama intervened with his executive order. It seems obvious to me that there is something in those documents that Obama does not want the committee to see. He has had over a year to issue his executive privilege. What took him so long?
Obama could have sat on the side lines and let Holder go down in flames, but he didn't. Based on past performances Obama has a history of throwing anyone under the bus that may damage his image, what makes Holder the exception? I can't see anything in this investigation that touches on 1) the military 2) foreign affairs 3) national security. Obama just made this "all about Obama"
Unless there is some compromise, this is going to stretch out through the election and the cloud of doubt will still linger. Call it the eau de Oval Office.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
Obama could have sat on the side lines and let Holder go down in flames, but he didn't. Based on past performances Obama has a history of throwing anyone under the bus that may damage his image, what makes Holder the exception? I can't see anything in this investigation that touches on 1) the military 2) foreign affairs 3) national security. Obama just made this "all about Obama"
Unless there is some compromise, this is going to stretch out through the election and the cloud of doubt will still linger. Call it the eau de Oval Office.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 21, 2012 10:04AM |
Holder said he never heard of FF before Feb 4, 2011 when in fact Issa had emails showing that he received a briefing a in 2010. Holder has "retracted" 3 statements that he made to the committee that were lies he got caught in.
Holder negotiated... He would provide all the requested documents, but only if Issa would stop the investigation. What kind of "negotiation" is that? Kinda like telling a prosecutor "I'll confess, but you must stop the trial".
Pam, the buck stops with DoJ. ATF and the Az. Attorney WORK for DoJ. Somebody's got to be held responsible and to-date no one has been. Those who appear responsible have had their jobs shifted around and the whistle blowers castigated. Brian Terry is dead because someone screwed up. His family is calling for justice but it appears the Department of JUSTICE knows no justice. You need to step away from Media Matters and catch up on what the facts are. I posted last week that this was going to get messy and it certainly has. I know you defenders of the Obama gang want this to go away, but it is too late now.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2012 10:07AM by swampy.
Holder negotiated... He would provide all the requested documents, but only if Issa would stop the investigation. What kind of "negotiation" is that? Kinda like telling a prosecutor "I'll confess, but you must stop the trial".
Pam, the buck stops with DoJ. ATF and the Az. Attorney WORK for DoJ. Somebody's got to be held responsible and to-date no one has been. Those who appear responsible have had their jobs shifted around and the whistle blowers castigated. Brian Terry is dead because someone screwed up. His family is calling for justice but it appears the Department of JUSTICE knows no justice. You need to step away from Media Matters and catch up on what the facts are. I posted last week that this was going to get messy and it certainly has. I know you defenders of the Obama gang want this to go away, but it is too late now.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2012 10:07AM by swampy.
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 21, 2012 11:00AM |
Asking Swampy to answer questions is a fools errand. Her responses have little to do with reality
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 21, 2012 11:12AM |
Sweep it all under you magic carpet all you want, but Obama has stepped into the cow pie and his shiney wing tips stink to high heaven.
You have given no justification for WHY he wants the documents blocked. He's either part of it or he's not. if he's part of it then the committee has been lied to since day one. If he's not, then he had no business claiming executive privilege.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
You have given no justification for WHY he wants the documents blocked. He's either part of it or he's not. if he's part of it then the committee has been lied to since day one. If he's not, then he had no business claiming executive privilege.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 21, 2012 01:16PM |
[abcnews.go.com]
The use of executive privilege to protect internal discussions and deliberations can be traced back to George Washington. However, it was the Supreme Court's 1974 ruling in the Nixon Watergate scandal that established executive privilege as a legal right and set forth its appropriate uses. Since Nixon, executive privilege has been used in every administration, although some presidents invoked the power more frequently than others.
* Ronald Reagan invoked executive privilege three times during his tenure as President, and is often credited with ushering in a new era of government secrecy by limiting Freedom of Information Act requests and imposing severe punishments on whistleblowers.
However, during the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan waived executive privilege, making his documents, diaries and entire staff available for congressional scrutiny.
* President Bill Clinton claimed executive privilege a record 14 times, most notably during the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, when Clinton tried to block investigators from asking his aides to testify. A Federal judge struck down Clinton's claim, ruling that administration aides could be called to testify before Congress.
Clinton came under scrutiny for what many saw as a misuse of executive privilege to protect him and his aides form embarrassment when no national security or other public interest was at stake.
* President George W. Bush claimed executive privilege six times, including a notable case in which Bush tried to block a General Accounting Office investigation into Vice President Dick Cheney's meeting with energy executives.
Bush also claimed executive privilege in 2007 to block a congressional subpoena of his aide Karl Rove, who was called to testify in a case in which several federal prosecutors were fired. The administration asserted Rove was constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony.
Critics of the Bush administration said at the time that the use of executive privilege should not exempt the President and his staff from participating in investigations that do not threaten the public interest.
[www.giyf.com]
The use of executive privilege to protect internal discussions and deliberations can be traced back to George Washington. However, it was the Supreme Court's 1974 ruling in the Nixon Watergate scandal that established executive privilege as a legal right and set forth its appropriate uses. Since Nixon, executive privilege has been used in every administration, although some presidents invoked the power more frequently than others.
* Ronald Reagan invoked executive privilege three times during his tenure as President, and is often credited with ushering in a new era of government secrecy by limiting Freedom of Information Act requests and imposing severe punishments on whistleblowers.
However, during the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan waived executive privilege, making his documents, diaries and entire staff available for congressional scrutiny.
* President Bill Clinton claimed executive privilege a record 14 times, most notably during the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, when Clinton tried to block investigators from asking his aides to testify. A Federal judge struck down Clinton's claim, ruling that administration aides could be called to testify before Congress.
Clinton came under scrutiny for what many saw as a misuse of executive privilege to protect him and his aides form embarrassment when no national security or other public interest was at stake.
* President George W. Bush claimed executive privilege six times, including a notable case in which Bush tried to block a General Accounting Office investigation into Vice President Dick Cheney's meeting with energy executives.
Bush also claimed executive privilege in 2007 to block a congressional subpoena of his aide Karl Rove, who was called to testify in a case in which several federal prosecutors were fired. The administration asserted Rove was constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony.
Critics of the Bush administration said at the time that the use of executive privilege should not exempt the President and his staff from participating in investigations that do not threaten the public interest.
[www.giyf.com]
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 21, 2012 01:31PM |
Pam, you do know that DoJ was never a part of the Constitution. It was created 100 years ago BY CONGRESS and is funded BY CONGRESS and is overseen BY CONGRESS. The AG., though appointed by the president, must be approved BY CONGRESS.
There were 140,000 documents that DoJ had that pertained to FF. Holder only provided 7000. Within those 7000 was evidence that Holder/DoJ lied to the committee. That is purgery. Purgery is a crime. Executive privilege does not cover evidence of the commission of a crime. Actually, Issa has gone easy on Holder and allowed him to recant his testimony. In what other investigation has a witness been allowed to recant direct testimony without facing purgery?
The Dems call it fishing. I say grab your poles, get in the boat and let's go fishing and if Obama wants to invite himself along he better plan to bring his own lunch.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
There were 140,000 documents that DoJ had that pertained to FF. Holder only provided 7000. Within those 7000 was evidence that Holder/DoJ lied to the committee. That is purgery. Purgery is a crime. Executive privilege does not cover evidence of the commission of a crime. Actually, Issa has gone easy on Holder and allowed him to recant his testimony. In what other investigation has a witness been allowed to recant direct testimony without facing purgery?
The Dems call it fishing. I say grab your poles, get in the boat and let's go fishing and if Obama wants to invite himself along he better plan to bring his own lunch.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 21, 2012 01:31PM |
Thanks, decay. We cannot help those that refuse to see reality and just make up their own.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2012 01:33PM by john dough.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2012 01:33PM by john dough.
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 21, 2012 01:44PM |
Decay, I don't need a history lesson on invoking presidential privilege. Has nothing to do with this discussion. I have nothing against the maneuver. It's perfectly legitimate. But, as the court ruled in 1974 against Nixon, it cannot be used to protect a crime or the coverup of a crime. Lying under oath is a crime. Holder (and others fromDoJ) lied and the committee caught him doing it and therefore should receive all the documents they requested in order to discover all that Holder was lying to cover.
You know Holder could have submitted all the requested documents fully redacted of any defense, foreign policy or national security issues, but no, he was too arrogant.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
You know Holder could have submitted all the requested documents fully redacted of any defense, foreign policy or national security issues, but no, he was too arrogant.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 21, 2012 01:49PM |
Obama may be implicated.?.... That's what the Dems are afraid of.
Obama called for GWB to "come clean and get it over with". Now the shoe is on the other foot and the O is sitting in the hot seat.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
Obama called for GWB to "come clean and get it over with". Now the shoe is on the other foot and the O is sitting in the hot seat.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 21, 2012 02:00PM |
Quote
Avenger
Every item that decay listed has to to do with what happened at the White House. What does FF have to to do with the President?May be Obama is correct in invoking EP because he knows he is implicated.
EP extends to the whole Executive Branch.
Obama could quite possibly know nothing. You know, just like Bush.
[www.freethegrapes.org]
norwegian wood reality TV
[www.youtube.com]
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 21, 2012 02:06PM |
The privilege may extend, but not for cover ups.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 21, 2012 02:21PM |
I'm glad the Administration isn't buying into this NRA inspired witch-hunt.
Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.
Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.
Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.
Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.
| Re: Justification of current Executive Priviledge? Date: June 21, 2012 03:34PM |
Rachel Maddow sums it up best: there are those who believe that what Fox News says is actually news and then there are the rest of us who have a healthy diet of what really is happening
[crooksandliars.com]
[crooksandliars.com]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.