' a very Nixonian mistake'

[bigrebnc1775]

Not even close. First off, no evidence exists that the top level of the administration is covering anything up. What we do know is there's an on-going investigation by the Inspector General, which was started by Holder as some of the facts came to his attention. Congress wants to interfere with an ongoing investigation and documents relating to what options the DOJ and WH might consider. Over 7,000 documents were already given to Issa's committee. He's now demanding that memos regarding discussion and advisement be handed over. Sorry man, but that doesn't cut it.

If you want a closer example of a Watergate like scheme, I suggest looking at how Bush covered up the mass firing of US attorneys. Do you really believe that Bush would not be personally involved with a decision like that?

It's all moot since obama used executive privilege he used it because he knew about fast and the furious.

He used it because there's an ongoing investigation and the documents being demanded include advise he was given by personal staff. Just like the executive privilege Bush invoked after the attorney firing. There isn't a hint of evidence that the use of executive privilege in this case is being used to cover-up a crime, by a sitting president.

It's stupid to try to equate this to Watergate. It doesn't even meet the standard of Blowjob gate.

1. executive privilege can only be used when revealing information that would jeopardize national security. No national security is here unless obama is saying he knew about fast and the furious.

2. Nixon vs US disagrees with you.

 

[Dick Tuck]

I guess you can't really expect much from a UK blog to understand Watergate. The issue in Watergate was whether executive privilege could be used to cover-up a crime by a sitting president, after sworn testimony showed a preponderance of evidence that there was. Even there, Nixon's tapes were not turned over to congress. Rather a Federal Judge decided what transcripts from those tapes were relevant to the impeachment case being made. The judge put in all those "explitive deleteds" if you recall.

Now if you can show a similar example of something like the Bork Cox Sacking here, I'd be interested.

The courts have consistently held that executive privilege is not absolute and can be “overcome by an adequate showing of need.” This is a flexible standard and does not lend itself to clear predictions about whether a particular assertion of executive privilege will be upheld, but the courts have provided some guidelines to govern claims of executive privilege. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Nixon, for example, that a claim of executive privilege will normally be defeated when the privileged information is needed to provide evidence in a criminal trial—although the strong presumption against revealing information that would jeopardize national security would control even in this instance.
Executive Privilege 101

In other words
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5484891-post1.html

Who's claiming executive privilege is absolute. It's certainly given strong deference by the courts, unless there's substantial evidence that it's being used to cover-up a crime. Since there's an ongoing IG investigation going on now, that's a hard case to make.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I guess you can't really expect much from a UK blog to understand Watergate. The issue in Watergate was whether executive privilege could be used to cover-up a crime by a sitting president, after sworn testimony showed a preponderance of evidence that there was. Even there, Nixon's tapes were not turned over to congress. Rather a Federal Judge decided what transcripts from those tapes were relevant to the impeachment case being made. The judge put in all those "explitive deleteds" if you recall.

Now if you can show a similar example of something like the Bork Cox Sacking here, I'd be interested.

The courts have consistently held that executive privilege is not absolute and can be “overcome by an adequate showing of need.” This is a flexible standard and does not lend itself to clear predictions about whether a particular assertion of executive privilege will be upheld, but the courts have provided some guidelines to govern claims of executive privilege. The Supreme Court held in United States v. Nixon, for example, that a claim of executive privilege will normally be defeated when the privileged information is needed to provide evidence in a criminal trial—although the strong presumption against revealing information that would jeopardize national security would control even in this instance.
Executive Privilege 101

In other words
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5484891-post1.html

Who's claiming executive privilege is absolute. It's certainly given strong deference by the courts, unless there's substantial evidence that it's being used to cover-up a crime. Since there's an ongoing IG investigation going on now, that's a hard case to make.

seems obama is since he misused it. jeopardize national security fast and the furious had nothing to do with national security

 

[Dick Tuck]

It's all moot since obama used executive privilege he used it because he knew about fast and the furious.

He used it because there's an ongoing investigation and the documents being demanded include advise he was given by personal staff. Just like the executive privilege Bush invoked after the attorney firing. There isn't a hint of evidence that the use of executive privilege in this case is being used to cover-up a crime, by a sitting president.

It's stupid to try to equate this to Watergate. It doesn't even meet the standard of Blowjob gate.

1. executive privilege can only be used when revealing information that would jeopardize national security. No national security is here unless obama is saying he knew about fast and the furious.

2. Nixon vs US disagrees with you.

Absolute bullshit. Executive privilege can be invoked to protect documents giving advice from advisers. You haven't forgot that Bush got away with it on the US Attorney firings? Have you.

The facts in Nixon v US were a sitting president using executive privilege to attempt to cover up his own crime. That's not the case here.

I'd also suggest that known facts of "Fast and Furious" are a national security issue, that I'd like to see gotten to the bottom of. I'd prefer to get my information from the IG report, and not a whore like Issa.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

'Nixon’s guilt was in trying to pervert the course of justice by persuading the FBI to drop its investigation of the crime.

Mistake number one, then, was to involve the White House in covering up the errors of a separate, autonomous political department. Mistake number two was that when Congress discovered that evidence about the scandal might be recorded on the White House bugging system, Nixon invoked executive privilege to protect the tapes. In both cases, it was the cover up that destroyed Tricky Dick – not the original crime.

And, forty years later almost to the day, here we have Obama making the same mistake. '

The Fast and Furious scandal is turning into President Obama's Watergate – Telegraph Blogs



Works for me. Whatever it takes to remove this asshole from office.

I heard someone say Barack Hussein Millhouse Nixon Obama yesterday

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He used it because there's an ongoing investigation and the documents being demanded include advise he was given by personal staff. Just like the executive privilege Bush invoked after the attorney firing. There isn't a hint of evidence that the use of executive privilege in this case is being used to cover-up a crime, by a sitting president.

It's stupid to try to equate this to Watergate. It doesn't even meet the standard of Blowjob gate.

1. executive privilege can only be used when revealing information that would jeopardize national security. No national security is here unless obama is saying he knew about fast and the furious.

2. Nixon vs US disagrees with you.

Absolute bullshit. Executive privilege can be invoked to protect documents giving advice from advisers. You haven't forgot that Bush got away with it on the US Attorney firings? Have you.

The facts in Nixon v US were a sitting president using executive privilege to attempt to cover up his own crime. That's not the case here.

I'd also suggest that known facts of "Fast and Furious" are a national security issue, that I'd like to see gotten to the bottom of. I'd prefer to get my information from the IG report, and not a whore like Issa.

Dude if you would read what I posted you would not be saying bull shit./

executive privilege can only be used when revealing information that would jeopardize national security. No national security is here unless obama is saying he knew about fast and the furious.

That is a fact. I provided the link already suggest you go back and read it.

 

[thanatos144]

'Nixon’s guilt was in trying to pervert the course of justice by persuading the FBI to drop its investigation of the crime.

Mistake number one, then, was to involve the White House in covering up the errors of a separate, autonomous political department. Mistake number two was that when Congress discovered that evidence about the scandal might be recorded on the White House bugging system, Nixon invoked executive privilege to protect the tapes. In both cases, it was the cover up that destroyed Tricky Dick – not the original crime.

And, forty years later almost to the day, here we have Obama making the same mistake. '

The Fast and Furious scandal is turning into President Obama's Watergate – Telegraph Blogs



Works for me. Whatever it takes to remove this asshole from office.

Not even close. First off, no evidence exists that the top level of the administration is covering anything up. What we do know is there's an on-going investigation by the Inspector General, which was started by Holder as some of the facts came to his attention. Congress wants to interfere with an ongoing investigation and documents relating to what options the DOJ and WH might consider. Over 7,000 documents were already given to Issa's committee. He's now demanding that memos regarding discussion and advisement be handed over. Sorry man, but that doesn't cut it.

If you want a closer example of a Watergate like scheme, I suggest looking at how Bush covered up the mass firing of US attorneys. Do you really believe that Bush would not be personally involved with a decision like that?

If this was remotely true why do they need to hide the files?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

'Nixon’s guilt was in trying to pervert the course of justice by persuading the FBI to drop its investigation of the crime.

Mistake number one, then, was to involve the White House in covering up the errors of a separate, autonomous political department. Mistake number two was that when Congress discovered that evidence about the scandal might be recorded on the White House bugging system, Nixon invoked executive privilege to protect the tapes. In both cases, it was the cover up that destroyed Tricky Dick – not the original crime.

And, forty years later almost to the day, here we have Obama making the same mistake. '

The Fast and Furious scandal is turning into President Obama's Watergate – Telegraph Blogs



Works for me. Whatever it takes to remove this asshole from office.

Not even close. First off, no evidence exists that the top level of the administration is covering anything up. What we do know is there's an on-going investigation by the Inspector General, which was started by Holder as some of the facts came to his attention. Congress wants to interfere with an ongoing investigation and documents relating to what options the DOJ and WH might consider. Over 7,000 documents were already given to Issa's committee. He's now demanding that memos regarding discussion and advisement be handed over. Sorry man, but that doesn't cut it.

If you want a closer example of a Watergate like scheme, I suggest looking at how Bush covered up the mass firing of US attorneys. Do you really believe that Bush would not be personally involved with a decision like that?

If this was remotely true why do they need to hide the files?

Also if this was remotely true executive priveledge would NOT apply .

 

[bigrebnc1775]

'Nixon’s guilt was in trying to pervert the course of justice by persuading the FBI to drop its investigation of the crime.

Mistake number one, then, was to involve the White House in covering up the errors of a separate, autonomous political department. Mistake number two was that when Congress discovered that evidence about the scandal might be recorded on the White House bugging system, Nixon invoked executive privilege to protect the tapes. In both cases, it was the cover up that destroyed Tricky Dick – not the original crime.

And, forty years later almost to the day, here we have Obama making the same mistake. '

The Fast and Furious scandal is turning into President Obama's Watergate – Telegraph Blogs



Works for me. Whatever it takes to remove this asshole from office.

I heard someone say Barack Hussein Millhouse Nixon Obama yesterday

Like father like son

 

[Old Rocks]

By the present polls, looks most of America does not give a shit about this. Just another political show. And anyone with any kind of memory knows that executive privelege has been invoked multiple times by most Presidents.

During the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower resisted demands by U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin and others for testimony and personnel records of federal officials. Eisenhower insisted, according to Stephen E. Ambrose (in Eisenhower: Soldier and President, 1991) that "it is not in the public interest that any... conversations or communications, or any documents or reproductions" relating to advice from "any executive branch official whatsoever be disclosed." The administration denied over forty Congressional requests.

Richard Nixon used executive privilege as a stonewalling technique as the Senate Watergate Committee investigation deepened. He claimed executive privilege to prevent aides from testifying and to withhold tapes he made of his White House conversations. When Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski attempted to follow up on a federal subpoena for specific tapes, Nixon again refused, and the legal challenge was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court (see Presidents and the Judiciary-The Judiciary Influences the Presidency). Bill Clinton also invoked executive privilege in a case that was decided by the Supreme Court (see the question on Clinton v. Jones in Presidents and the Judiciary-The Judiciary Influences the Presidency).

During the George W. Bush administration, the question of executive privilege arose when Comptroller General David Walker, head of the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office, announced he would sue Vice President Dick Cheney to obtain information about the National Energy Policy Development Group Cheney had chaired. Since the GAO is an arm of Congress, the administration contended that its efforts to obtain information about discussions within the executive branch violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Bush claimed executive privilege to avoid having his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, testify before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), citing separation of the executive and legislative branches of government. After public and political pressure, Bush relented.

The first time Bush used executive privilege was to keep Congress from seeing documents of prosecutors' decision-making in federal cases ranging from a decades-old Boston murder to a Clinton-era fund-raising probe.


Read more: What are some examples of presidents using executive privilege?: Information from Answers.com

 

[SniperFire]

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Those are perfect.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By the present polls, looks most of America does not give a shit about this. Just another political show. And anyone with any kind of memory knows that executive privelege has been invoked multiple times by most Presidents.

During the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower resisted demands by U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin and others for testimony and personnel records of federal officials. Eisenhower insisted, according to Stephen E. Ambrose (in Eisenhower: Soldier and President, 1991) that "it is not in the public interest that any... conversations or communications, or any documents or reproductions" relating to advice from "any executive branch official whatsoever be disclosed." The administration denied over forty Congressional requests.

Richard Nixon used executive privilege as a stonewalling technique as the Senate Watergate Committee investigation deepened. He claimed executive privilege to prevent aides from testifying and to withhold tapes he made of his White House conversations. When Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski attempted to follow up on a federal subpoena for specific tapes, Nixon again refused, and the legal challenge was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court (see Presidents and the Judiciary-The Judiciary Influences the Presidency). Bill Clinton also invoked executive privilege in a case that was decided by the Supreme Court (see the question on Clinton v. Jones in Presidents and the Judiciary-The Judiciary Influences the Presidency).

During the George W. Bush administration, the question of executive privilege arose when Comptroller General David Walker, head of the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office, announced he would sue Vice President Dick Cheney to obtain information about the National Energy Policy Development Group Cheney had chaired. Since the GAO is an arm of Congress, the administration contended that its efforts to obtain information about discussions within the executive branch violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Bush claimed executive privilege to avoid having his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, testify before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), citing separation of the executive and legislative branches of government. After public and political pressure, Bush relented.

The first time Bush used executive privilege was to keep Congress from seeing documents of prosecutors' decision-making in federal cases ranging from a decades-old Boston murder to a Clinton-era fund-raising probe.


Read more: What are some examples of presidents using executive privilege?: Information from Answers.com

Americans care if they hear about it. The media except for fox did all they could do to cover this story up. obama did this to himself by using executive privileged like nixon I suspect he he's done.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Those are perfect.

I have too wait 24 hours blah blah blah.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

By the present polls, looks most of America does not give a shit about this. Just another political show. And anyone with any kind of memory knows that executive privelege has been invoked multiple times by most Presidents.

During the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower resisted demands by U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin and others for testimony and personnel records of federal officials. Eisenhower insisted, according to Stephen E. Ambrose (in Eisenhower: Soldier and President, 1991) that "it is not in the public interest that any... conversations or communications, or any documents or reproductions" relating to advice from "any executive branch official whatsoever be disclosed." The administration denied over forty Congressional requests.

Richard Nixon used executive privilege as a stonewalling technique as the Senate Watergate Committee investigation deepened. He claimed executive privilege to prevent aides from testifying and to withhold tapes he made of his White House conversations. When Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski attempted to follow up on a federal subpoena for specific tapes, Nixon again refused, and the legal challenge was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court (see Presidents and the Judiciary-The Judiciary Influences the Presidency). Bill Clinton also invoked executive privilege in a case that was decided by the Supreme Court (see the question on Clinton v. Jones in Presidents and the Judiciary-The Judiciary Influences the Presidency).

During the George W. Bush administration, the question of executive privilege arose when Comptroller General David Walker, head of the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office, announced he would sue Vice President Dick Cheney to obtain information about the National Energy Policy Development Group Cheney had chaired. Since the GAO is an arm of Congress, the administration contended that its efforts to obtain information about discussions within the executive branch violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Bush claimed executive privilege to avoid having his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, testify before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), citing separation of the executive and legislative branches of government. After public and political pressure, Bush relented.

The first time Bush used executive privilege was to keep Congress from seeing documents of prosecutors' decision-making in federal cases ranging from a decades-old Boston murder to a Clinton-era fund-raising probe.


Read more: What are some examples of presidents using executive privilege?: Information from Answers.com

Americans care if they hear about it. The media except for fox did all they could do to cover this story up. obama did this to himself by using executive privileged like nixon I suspect he he's done.

That isn't true, NBC covered it for 30 seconds in the last 7 days (as of yesterday morning)

Oh wait....that backs up your point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

24 rep cool down in effect.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By the present polls, looks most of America does not give a shit about this. Just another political show. And anyone with any kind of memory knows that executive privelege has been invoked multiple times by most Presidents.

During the 1950s, President Dwight D. Eisenhower resisted demands by U.S. senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin and others for testimony and personnel records of federal officials. Eisenhower insisted, according to Stephen E. Ambrose (in Eisenhower: Soldier and President, 1991) that "it is not in the public interest that any... conversations or communications, or any documents or reproductions" relating to advice from "any executive branch official whatsoever be disclosed." The administration denied over forty Congressional requests.

Richard Nixon used executive privilege as a stonewalling technique as the Senate Watergate Committee investigation deepened. He claimed executive privilege to prevent aides from testifying and to withhold tapes he made of his White House conversations. When Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski attempted to follow up on a federal subpoena for specific tapes, Nixon again refused, and the legal challenge was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court (see Presidents and the Judiciary-The Judiciary Influences the Presidency). Bill Clinton also invoked executive privilege in a case that was decided by the Supreme Court (see the question on Clinton v. Jones in Presidents and the Judiciary-The Judiciary Influences the Presidency).

During the George W. Bush administration, the question of executive privilege arose when Comptroller General David Walker, head of the nonpartisan Government Accounting Office, announced he would sue Vice President Dick Cheney to obtain information about the National Energy Policy Development Group Cheney had chaired. Since the GAO is an arm of Congress, the administration contended that its efforts to obtain information about discussions within the executive branch violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Bush claimed executive privilege to avoid having his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, testify before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), citing separation of the executive and legislative branches of government. After public and political pressure, Bush relented.

The first time Bush used executive privilege was to keep Congress from seeing documents of prosecutors' decision-making in federal cases ranging from a decades-old Boston murder to a Clinton-era fund-raising probe.


Read more: What are some examples of presidents using executive privilege?: Information from Answers.com

Americans care if they hear about it. The media except for fox did all they could do to cover this story up. obama did this to himself by using executive privileged like nixon I suspect he he's done.

That isn't true, NBC covered it for 30 seconds in the last 7 days (as of yesterday morning)

OK I stand corrected

 

[SniperFire]

Congress has the responsibility to us to provide oversight of government agencies.

Holder and others have testified repeatedly that Obama had nothing to do with / no knowledge of 'fast and furious.'

For Obama to be able to exercise 'executive privilege' to block Congressional oversight on any government agency at anytime, regardless of his involvement, is to allow a POTUS the power to block any Congressional oversight.

Left, Right and everyone else should be appalled at this, and it should not be permitted to stand.

 

[Inthemiddle]

So far, this is the first time Obama has claimed Executive Privilege. I don't really see that as offending his transparency as President. Bush claimed EP six times, Clinton a whooping 14 times. So far, Obama is still on track to invoke EP the least amount of any President in two decades. If Obama wins re-election and never invokes EP again, he will be the least EP invoking President since Eisenhower.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So far, this is the first time Obama has claimed Executive Privilege. I don't really see that as offending his transparency as President. Bush claimed EP six times, Clinton a whooping 14 times. So far, Obama is still on track to invoke EP the least amount of any President in two decades. If Obama wins re-election and never invokes EP again, he will be the least EP invoking President since Eisenhower.

How many times what president used Executive Privilege is moot at this point for over a year holder and the white house has stated that obama did not have any knowledge of the program called fast and the furious. Since obama has used Executive Privilege he's saying he knew about it. So what did obama know and what is obama hiding. Also Executive Privilege only use is to information that would harm national security a secret. Since fast and the furious has nothing to do with national security obama misused it.
IT'S ALL MOOT NOW.