30 total posts
This is the first use of executive privilege...
"This is the first use of executive privilege for withholding documents by Mr Obama. Former Presidents George W Bush and Bill Clinton used the privilege six and 14 times respectively during their eight-year terms."
I see you're getting desperate.
.....whether Obama will refuse to appear before Congress unless Biden is sitting next to him, and then only in a closed session with no cameras and no transcript.
Let me put it this way.
If Nixon had a son he would look like Barack Obama.
No, not me. It's Obama and Eric Holder who are becoming desperate. Obama needs to start practicing his delivery of "I am not a crook!" speech. Of course it may all come to nothing if he loses the election since there will be a desire to push it under the rug and move on. If he gets re-elected, then it will be the next 4 years.
The Administration side of this is.....
.....that "the committee" is demanding documents that they know Holder cannot legally produce, and then claiming he's obstructing by not producing them.
If he'd upheld other laws
they'd not be tripping him over this. Since he refused to uphold DOMA and some other laws, now he's getting the treatment.
So was the President involved in "Fast & Furious"?
"As John Boehner points out, Obama can't claim executive privilege unless the White House is involved in Fast and Furious.
On the heels of President Obama's decision to shield Department of Justice documents under the doctrine of executive privilege, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner wondered if White House officials were being involved in a cover-up.
"Until now, everyone believed that the decisions regarding 'Fast and Furious' were confined to the Department of Justice," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement.
"The White House decision to invoke executive privilege implies that White House officials were either involved in the 'Fast and Furious' operation or the cover-up that followed."
but not this President.
Some people disagree, Diana...
Of course FixedNews disagrees, that's its mandate from
Roger Ailes, a notably unbiased person.
Some "news" sources shouldn't be cited because of their pre-determined bias. NewsMax, The Washington Star, FixedNews, Breitbart, etc etc etc.
I have cited From the Left only once.
Then ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC
also shouldn't be cited because of their obvious bias, Rob. Take for instance, NBC....in a year and a half since the Fast and Furious story first broke because of Brian Terry's murder, pretty much at the feet of the ATF and DOJ, NBC has reported one instance and that was for about 15 seconds. Evidently protecting the BO administration at all costs was more important a priority for NBC than the death of a border agent was worthy to report about.
Are you acknowledging....
....that Fox News is biased?
Yes or no, without invoking the names of any other networks.
RE: one instance and that was for about 15 seconds
You're exaggerating for effect, correct?
And there's an illegal break-in at Republican National Headq
uarters that nobody has heard about, and a collection of Cubans referred to as Plumbers are running for cover. Great analogy. Except for having nothing in common they're exactly the same.
Who's playing G. Gordon Loopy??
I think a story
about how our government was involved in the death of a war veteran and border agent (possibly two, which is also being investigated) is far worse than any Watergate instance....a coverup is a coverup and no matter who is in the Oval Office, all should be prosecuted for their involvement. Nixon deserved to be disgraced...just as Holder deserves that same fame/fate/shame. If a President can be outed, justifiably, for covering up a break-in, and a baseball player can be prosecuted/charged with lying to Congress TWICE....then an Attorney General can bite the dust for helping to kill people, doncha think? Do you think that anybody else who gives a written statement to Congress denying involvement would be able to 'yank' it back (and retract a statement made under oath about a former Attorney General because it wasn't true)?
The government wasn't "involved"....
.....in the death of that agent. Nobody set out to kill anyone. At worst his death was the result of incompetence. Watergate, the coverup, the Ellsburg burglary, all of those were deliberately committed felonies.
If we're going to prosecute people for incompetence, then let's get out the subpoenas for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
How can you possibly believe
that the government wasn't involved in the killing of Terry and Supata (sp) when they authorized the sale of guns to criminals in the first place? If you try to compare this program with the Wide Receiver program started under Bush, you will end up on the losing end of that argument because only 300 guns were involved in that program, nobody got killed, and ALL of the guns were recovered before Bush dropped the program. THIS administration made the decision to expand that program, under a new name, and never tracked the guns at all. That isn't incompetence....it's negligence at best. If you want to make a real comparison, think of the driver of a get-away car for a bank robbery where one of the cohorts in the crime kills somebody in the bank without the driver's knowledge. He didn't pull the trigger but he gets charged with the same murder charge.
And your statement of "let's get out the subpoenas for Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield" is ridiculous....there is no "LET'S" because YOU have no say in anything here and I personally get a little tired of your constantly trying to insinuate yourself into OUR government as if you have any abilities to do anything in that.
Your bank robber analogy is absurd
The getaway driver is still knowingly participating in a bank robbery.
The US government did not conspire to kill anyone. Nixon's gang DID conspire to commit a series of felonies and then try to cover them up.
And why exactly do you think I have no right to insinuate myself into my own government? This ought to be good.
First, an apology
I was reading something JP posted at the same time I was responding to your post and that comment of mine was meant for him, not you.
Second, the bank robbery analogy is accurate. Our government didn't knowingly set out to kill a border agent anymore than the driver of the bank robby did, but they DID know those guns would be used by cartels to kill others, whether innocent victims or other criminals doesn't matter. This government allowed guns that THEY provided be used to commit crimes. How does that NOT make them just as guilty of those crimes, Josh?
Thanks, apology accepted
I wondered if that was what it was.
The US government has been in the business of selling guns to less than honorable people for ages. Does Iran/Contra ring a bell? It was a stupid plan that should never have been implemented. When the Attorney General learned of it, he ordered an investigation and publicly denounced the operation as "fundamentally flawed." It was never his baby.
Let's be clear -- what is being requested by Congress are documents related to how Holder's department responded to Congress regarding their (supposed) oversight of this program and a letter written by the Assistant Attorney General in which he incorrectly denied that the ATF did what they did.
The Attorney General's office was not involved in the operation itself.
I'll make a small wager
with you, Josh....it will eventually turn out that Holder and his immediate underlings who have been transferred to other positions rather than fired already, were up to their necks in this operation....but it will be stalled off with court crap now until their bud in chief falls on his face in the election. OR BO will throw them all under the bus just before the votes so he can again 'look like a leader'........hoping that will make his base happy. Nothing is going to work, and heads will roll, including BO's.
RE: How can you possibly believe - New! by TONI H - 6/21
How can you possibly believe - New!
by TONI H - 6/21/12 9:15 AM
In Reply to: The government wasn't "involved".... by Josh K
that the government wasn't involved in the killing of Terry and Supata
Exactly which part of your "misdirected" response was supposed to be directed at MY post? and which part of MY posts?
IF you manufacture/sell a gun you are responsible for all crimes committed with that gun?
Does Holder get an atta' boy for all the Mexican Drug Cartel that were killed with the other guns that "went missing"?
RE: a baseball player can be prosecuted/charged with lying
a baseball player can be prosecuted/charged with lying to Congress TWICE
and here I thought that your praise of Clements being found Not Guilty was a condemnation of him even being charged for lying.
NOW you think they should charge someone/Holder for lying.
Which side of the fence will you be on, IF there is a trial, and Holder is found Not Guilty?
was found not guilty, rightly so, because the prosecutor's witnesses were not credible, even a little bit. I want Holder held accountable via a trial because he deliberately lied to Congress, refused to give subpoena-type documents for a year, retracted two statements (one written and one verbal) which no other under-oath witness would have ever been allowed to do, among other things....and there are very credible witnesses, including whistleblowers about this program. IF there is a trial, Holder will not be found not guilty....in fact, he will probably end up being thrown under the bus at the last minute prior to the election in November. He will be the sacrificial lamb for the 'good' of the current president....AND Rahm Emanual just might also end up being a part of this because he was still in DC at the beginning of F&F.
don't forget the kitchen sink
just toss any old thing into a thread.
HEY!!!!........don't bite MY head off
Toni mentioned baseball player FIRST.
YEAH!!! that's what I feel like sometimes
But I can take it