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

[skookerasbil]

People in here have the political IQ of a small soap dish. Dumbasses think its all about a legal issue. Its a perception problem asssssssssssssssssholes!!!


Mr Transparent fAiL. Swirls of controversy. Media now forced to tell the world about F&F...........whispers of cover up. Only the k00k left thinks this is good news. And in the next few days comes the nuclear bomb from the SCOTUS. Stinky job #'s. Putin spitting in Obama's eye.


Yup........ahhhhh ( draws a toke on a ciggy in classic Denis Leary fashion)


The news is awesome these days for the Dums.

 

[Too Tall]

I heard the best one tonight on CNBC.

Fast and furious is Watergate with a body count.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Transparency? The far right flacks are unhappy? The rest of America does not care what you think.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the claim here is, the President can't invoke executive privilege unless he was personally involved?

So if you people insist he can't, you're conceding that he wasn't involved.

1) If he did, he's worried about something or has some involvement to some degree (that degree is unknown)
2) He chastised Bush about the very same thing
3) If he is not involved or does not have knowledge, this pretty much either shows him to be as dumb as a box of rocks or desperate in trying to save one of his cronies at any cost

You're an idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Didn't Bush invoke executive privilege to keep Rove from having to testify in the attorney firings?

 

[Too Tall]

Far right extremism lunacy is on the rise here.

BHO can withhold documents under EP. Holder is subject only to his boss, not Congress. If SCOTUS gets involved, then BHO can be forced to order Holder to submit to Congress's direction.

But until then, Congress can piss into the hat.

You are correct and this is a precedent.

The Clinton administration invoked executive privilege on fourteen occasions.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first President since Nixon to assert executive privilege and lose in court, when a Federal judge ruled that Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.

 

[DiamondDave]

So the claim here is, the President can't invoke executive privilege unless he was personally involved?

So if you people insist he can't, you're conceding that he wasn't involved.

1) If he did, he's worried about something or has some involvement to some degree (that degree is unknown)
2) He chastised Bush about the very same thing
3) If he is not involved or does not have knowledge, this pretty much either shows him to be as dumb as a box of rocks or desperate in trying to save one of his cronies at any cost

You're an idiot.

No... you would be for making your assumption that people were conceding that he was not involved... I showed you the logical blueprint to things it may be if he is (comment 1) or even if he is not involved (comment 3).. and used comment 2 to remind you of what Obamalama said about executive privilege in the recent past

You can thank me later, winger

 

[NYcarbineer]

Executive privilege covers the executive BRANCH, not just the president.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1) If he did, he's worried about something or has some involvement to some degree (that degree is unknown)
2) He chastised Bush about the very same thing
3) If he is not involved or does not have knowledge, this pretty much either shows him to be as dumb as a box of rocks or desperate in trying to save one of his cronies at any cost

You're an idiot.

No... you would be for making your assumption that people were conceding that he was not involved... I showed you the logical blueprint to things it may be if he is (comment 1) or even if he is not involved (comment 3).. and used comment 2 to remind you of what Obamalama said about executive privilege in the recent past

You can thank me later, winger

Your post was Obama hating gibberish.

 

[Too Tall]

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?

Wrong!

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

 

[DiamondDave]

Executive privilege covers the executive BRANCH, not just the president.

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

 

[DiamondDave]

You're an idiot.

No... you would be for making your assumption that people were conceding that he was not involved... I showed you the logical blueprint to things it may be if he is (comment 1) or even if he is not involved (comment 3).. and used comment 2 to remind you of what Obamalama said about executive privilege in the recent past

You can thank me later, winger

Your post was Obama hating gibberish.

Do I support Obamalama?? Hell no

Does not take away from anything I showed you...

Either he invoked it because he is/was involved or informed in some way, and that degree would have to be determined... or he is dumber than a box of rocks or is going to cover a cronie no matter the cost...

 

[The T]

No... you would be for making your assumption that people were conceding that he was not involved... I showed you the logical blueprint to things it may be if he is (comment 1) or even if he is not involved (comment 3).. and used comment 2 to remind you of what Obamalama said about executive privilege in the recent past

You can thank me later, winger

Your post was Obama hating gibberish.

Do I support Obamalama?? Hell no

Does not take away from anything I showed you...

Either he invoked it because he is/was involved or informed in some way, and that degree would have to be determined... or he is dumber than a box of rocks or is going to cover a cronie no matter the cost...

And when it comes between him or Holder?

Holder will become the latest in a long string of speedbumps.

 

[GoneBezerk]

If Romney has any balls, he can put Holder and Obamination in FEDERAL PRISON.

 

[DiamondDave]

Your post was Obama hating gibberish.

Do I support Obamalama?? Hell no

Does not take away from anything I showed you...

Either he invoked it because he is/was involved or informed in some way, and that degree would have to be determined... or he is dumber than a box of rocks or is going to cover a cronie no matter the cost...

And when it comes between him or Holder?

Holder will become the latest in a long string of speedbumps.

That is a distinct possibility... I personally think that Holder will be thrown under the bus or made to be the sacrificial lamb.. because I fully believe that as evidenced by this action, Obamalama at minimum knew of the program and knew of the coverup/lies... and to save his own skin, Obamalama would not hesitate to set an 'example' of holder and Holder may very well end up in prison.. In the least, I think Holder's career as a lawyer and in politics is over

 

[The T]

Do I support Obamalama?? Hell no

Does not take away from anything I showed you...

Either he invoked it because he is/was involved or informed in some way, and that degree would have to be determined... or he is dumber than a box of rocks or is going to cover a cronie no matter the cost...

And when it comes between him or Holder?

Holder will become the latest in a long string of speedbumps.

That is a distinct possibility... I personally think that Holder will be thrown under the bus or made to be the sacrificial lamb.. because I fully believe that as evidenced by this action, Obamalama at minimum knew of the program and knew of the coverup/lies... and to save his own skin, Obamalama would not hesitate to set an 'example' of holder and Holder may very well end up in prison.. In the least, I think Holder's career as a lawyer and in politics is over

I agree...and here's the deal in my mind for the EP...

With Bush and his program (which was discontinued) had consent of the Mexican Government...I don't see this with F&F...which is serious.

Weapons went over the border from US to enemies of the Mexican Government and resulted in INNOCENTS getting killed without thier consent IS an act of WAR, is it not?

In any case? This is a lose-lose for Obama.

 

[Polk]

If Romney has any balls, he can put Holder and Obamination in FEDERAL PRISON.

We have been suffering from a critical show trial shortage the last few years.

 

[Too Tall]

Didn't Bush invoke executive privilege to keep Rove from having to testify in the attorney firings?

The answer is yes, and here is what Obama had to say about it:

CNN’S LARRY KING: Do you favor executive privilege or should Karl Rove and others in that like position be forced to testify before the House or Senate?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think we’ll — we’ll determine over the next several weeks how this administration responds to the very appropriate call by Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to have these individuals come in and testify. You know, there’s been a tendency on the part of this administration to — to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there’s something a little shaky that’s taking place. And I think, you know, the administration would be best served by coming clean on this. There doesn’t seem to be any national security issues involved with the U.S. attorney question. There doesn’t seem to be any justification for not offering up some clear, plausible rationale for why these — these U.S. attorneys were targeted when, by all assessments, they were doing an outstanding job. I think the American people deserve to know what was going on there.

Of course, that was then, this is now. Obama keeps on flip-flo.............evolving.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All presidents flip flop, it's what they do.

Obama can evoke EP and that's the end to it until Congress either impeaches (no chance) or goes to federal court.

 

[Claudette]

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....

Thats my question.

Why all of a sudden is anything about FF confidential??

Hell. Its been on the news for months.

What is Barry's administration hiding? Or is it about Barry trying to protect Holder.

Loads of questions.