Judge Napolitano on ‘Fast and Furious’ Documents: Executive Privilege Only Applies If

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree. Nixon looked horrible also in the Watergate mess by insisting on withholding documents until SCOTUS told him to cough em up, and the rest is history.

You do understand that Nixon was refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by a district judge relevant to a criminal investigation, don't you? That is slightly different than a subpoena issued by Congress.

A subpoena issued by a Court is no less a subpoena and no more a subpoena requiring compliance than one issued by Congress.

I think you are wrong. A subpoena issued by a court has to comply with all the laws and with the courts' interpretation of the laws and the constitution, a subpoena issued by Congress only has to fall under the purview of Congress regarding its power to legislate. The Supreme Court even ruled in Eastland v United States Serviceman's fund that they are not subject to judicial review.

 

[Liability]

Executive Privilege is a claim by the Executive that some secrets need to be kept (on a separation of powers basis, often times) in order for the Executive Branch to be able to operate pursuant to its Constitutional duties.

Who visited V.P. Cheney -- to discuss energy policy possibilities -- need not have been information known to President Bush in order for the Executive Branch to assert the claim.

Similarly, IF there is a valid claim to be made, I would guess that the President need not have personally known about F&F to assert the privilege claim, now. HOWEVER, that's a big "if."

We all already know that the fucking DoJ came up with that hare-brained scheme.

So what is the big "need" for confidentiality?

And even if there is some need for confidentiality, why should that be asserted as against CONGRESS learning the details? Congresscritters often get clearance to learn state secrets. Who says the President can pick and choose when they may or may not be permitted to learn of such a major (and deadly) fuck up? If the privilege can be asserted at all, what is the Constitutional CHECK on it?

Or are our lib friends NOW claiming that it is somehow proper for the Executive Branch to act without a legislative branch check? Seems to me that not that long ago they were frothing at the lips over any such notion. Of course, that was boooooosh....

 

[The T]

Completely wrong.

The Supreme Court has no ability to do anything about a Congressional subpoena.

that is until the Congress goes to the Court to Force it by a case against the POTUS.

Does Obama wish to go that far?

Historically, SCOTUS does not involve itself in political issues involving the other branches because the Constitution does not give it jurisdiction. All three branches are equal, and any branch can, in theory, ignore the others if it doesn't like what they are doing. It could get really complicated really fast if one branch set itself up as the arbiter between the other tow.

And i don't really disagree...but my contention is how far does Obama wish to take this so the truth will be known?

We have a dead US Agent, and who knows how many Mexican Citizens?

Has Obama and Holder overstepped thier bounds...AND if by introducing covert weapons BY this Government over the border could be in my mind tentamount to a declaration of WAR because Mexican citizens died for no good reason.

See where this is leading?

 

[Liability]

Completely wrong.

The Supreme Court has no ability to do anything about a Congressional subpoena.

I don't think it's COMPLETELY wrong. But I agree that it's wrong. SCOTUS might be able to issue an order. It does seem to be a Constitutional matter ripe for resolution by that supposedly neutral branch.

However, it is NOT only SCOTUS which can act.

Congress can act, too.

It's called an impeachment inquiry. Congress is not obligated to sit with its collective thumb up its ass and accept this bullshit from the Executive branch.

Checks. Balances.

The only examples I am aware of when SCOTUS ordered the Executive branch to comply with a subpoena involved subpoenas issued by courts that followed established laws. Congressional subpoenas are a fabricated rule that allows Congress to investigate without involving the courts, and are not subject to review by the courts.

The claim of Executive Privilege itself is a fabricated claim that allows the President to refue to comply with perfectly LAWFUL Congressional subpoenas.

He can assert it, but he cannot be the sole judge of it. And it need not be SCOTUS that decides. Congress can do that for itself and SCOTUS has no power to prevent it.

 

[oreo]

Judge Napolitano on ‘Fast and Furious’ Documents: Executive Privilege Only Applies If the President Was Personally Involved | Fox News Insider

UN FREAKING BELIEVABLE: We have hundreds if not thousands of corpses in Mexico dead from these guns--(not just one U.S. border patrol agent)--and Obama after 18 months of congressional investigation--worms out with Executive Privilege--just as congress was going to find Eric Holder Attorney General of the United States in contempt for not delivering documents on this program.

Obama--is HIDING SOMETHING.
--and knowing Obama it's to protect his OWN ASS.

 

[The T]

I'm trying to understand why Obama is suddenly sticking his neck out to protect Holder after all these years of tossing people under the bus.

Simple, really. Holder has something that obama wants kept quiet.

Knowing past actions of this administration? NOT out of the realm of possibility.

 

[oreo]

Napolitano has an opinion, and it is in error.

Are you saying executive privilege covers a janitor in in the basement of the Treasury building?

EP covers what the President says it does until the SCOTUS tells him it doesn't.

The Congress has no jurisdiction over a President and his exercise of EP.

Why did Obama wait 18 months or the VERY DAY--that congress was going to find Eric Holder in contempt for not delivering these documents?

Obama and Eric Holder have something to hide is why there is now an executive order--as they would be implicated into fast and furious with these documents. And all along or over the last 18 months they have denied knowing anything about it.

 

[paulitician]

How bout that 'Hope & Change?'

 

[Dr.Drock]

Has anyone ever actually seen Jake disagree with anything Obama has said or done?

 

[The T]

Has anyone ever actually seen Jake disagree with anything Obama has said or done?

Nope.

 

[Clementine]

I'm trying to understand why Obama is suddenly sticking his neck out to protect Holder after all these years of tossing people under the bus.

I wondered the same thing, but realize that Obama's number one priority is himself. Therefore, I think he's doing this to protect himself.

 

[Polk]

The Judge doesn't know that law?
Yes he does, that is why he was a Judge.
He read the law and that is not an opinion.
You can only do what the President did this morning only if he was personally involved.
Holder stated to congress that the President was not involved.

He was a low-level appeals court judge in New Jersey. That doesn't make him an expert on every area of law ever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Has anyone ever actually seen Jake disagree with anything Obama has said or done?

I can't think of an example.

 

[Polk]

And while we're at it, Issa is a clown. His kangaroo court of a committee is a joke. He's saying Holder is violating the law by not handing over the documents, but they're many of the documents he's demanding are ones Holder is prohibited by law from handing over.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And while we're at it, Issa is a clown. His kangaroo court of a committee is a joke. He's saying Holder is violating the law by not handing over the documents, but they're many of the documents he's demanding are ones Holder is prohibited by law from handing over.

What law prohibits Holder from handing over documents to Congress?

 

[Polk]

And while we're at it, Issa is a clown. His kangaroo court of a committee is a joke. He's saying Holder is violating the law by not handing over the documents, but they're many of the documents he's demanding are ones Holder is prohibited by law from handing over.

What law prohibits Holder from handing over documents to Congress?

Many of the documents Issa wants pertain to on-going investigations.

 

[paulitician]

What did Obama know, and when did he know it? Will we ever know? Stay tuned.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you saying executive privilege covers a janitor in in the basement of the Treasury building?

EP covers what the President says it does until the SCOTUS tells him it doesn't.

The Congress has no jurisdiction over a President and his exercise of EP.

So, if the President claims Executive Privilege to have you brought to the White House so he can bone you up the ass... that's ok, because EP covers whatever he says it covers... right?

EP covers whatever privilege in communication that the President says it does.

Why are you concerned with anal sex, Conservative?

Is that your interp of privileged communication?

 

[Trajan]

Napolitano has an opinion, and it is in error.

didn't holder already testify that this wasn't a WH op or there was no communication with the WH on F&F?

how can you protect something you're not supposed to know about?

and why wait almost a year after the documents were asked for?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Napolitano has an opinion, and it is in error.

didn't holder already testify that this wasn't a WH op or there was no communication with the WH on F&F?

how can you protect something you're not supposed to know about?

and why wait almost a year after the documents were asked for?

SCOTUS will determine that if asked by Congress.