On WHAT HONEST basis does Admin make CLAIM of Exec. Priv.?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

On WHAT HONEST basis does the Obama Administration make the CLAIM of Executive Privilege over the Fast and Furious papers, notes and e-mails?

I don't think they HAVE any HONEST basis to invoke Executive Privilege.

Why won't the President 'splain his action, in detail?

Isn't it "curious" how little the national media seems interested in pressing him on it?

Maybe they are afraid of appearing "rude?"

EP is based on the Constitution:

Executive privilege, the right of the President to withhold certain information sought by another branch of government, was first claimed by President Jefferson in response to a subpoena from John Marshall in the famous treason trial of Aaron Burr. The Supreme Court's first major pronouncement on the issue, however, did not come until 1974 in United States v Richard Nixon. The case involved the refusal of President Nixon to turn over to Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski several hours of Oval Office tapes believed to concern the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up. Although the Court unanimously concluded that the Constitution does indeed contain an executive privilege, the Court said the privilege was "presumptive" and not absolute. Balancing the interests in the Nixon case, the Court found the privilege not to extend to the requested Watergate tapes.

Separation of Powers Under the United States Constitution

Thus, EP does exist per the Constitution, the president may withhold information without justifying why to the other Branch of government in question, in this case the Legislative Branch. If House republicans want to compel the Obama Administration to turn over privileged documents, there must be evidence it is in the National interest and that indeed a crime has taken place, as in the Nixon case.

The onus is on House republicans to demonstrate a compelling reason to force the WH to surrender privileged information, it is not incumbent upon the Executive to justify why he’s invoking EP.

The problem for House republicans is they’re engaged in a fishing expedition and partisan witch-hunt, they are motivated by politics only, not the law or justice.

If House republicans have such evidence, they need to turn it over to a Federal judge to review, and, if sufficient, order the WH to release the documents in question.

Why have House republicans failed to provide evidence of wrong-doing to a Federal judge?

 

[francoHFW]

Pubs refuse a good work/ss ID card. THEY love illegals, dupe. So easy to distract the dupes with useless, unconstitutional laws and useless, un-American fences.

 

[Liability]

On WHAT HONEST basis does the Obama Administration make the CLAIM of Executive Privilege over the Fast and Furious papers, notes and e-mails?

I don't think they HAVE any HONEST basis to invoke Executive Privilege.

Why won't the President 'splain his action, in detail?

Isn't it "curious" how little the national media seems interested in pressing him on it?

Maybe they are afraid of appearing "rude?"

EP is based on the Constitution:

Executive privilege, the right of the President to withhold certain information sought by another branch of government, was first claimed by President Jefferson in response to a subpoena from John Marshall in the famous treason trial of Aaron Burr. The Supreme Court's first major pronouncement on the issue, however, did not come until 1974 in United States v Richard Nixon. The case involved the refusal of President Nixon to turn over to Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski several hours of Oval Office tapes believed to concern the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up. Although the Court unanimously concluded that the Constitution does indeed contain an executive privilege, the Court said the privilege was "presumptive" and not absolute. Balancing the interests in the Nixon case, the Court found the privilege not to extend to the requested Watergate tapes.

Separation of Powers Under the United States Constitution

Thus, EP does exist per the Constitution, the president may withhold information without justifying why to the other Branch of government in question, in this case the Legislative Branch. If House republicans want to compel the Obama Administration to turn over privileged documents, there must be evidence it is in the National interest and that indeed a crime has taken place, as in the Nixon case.

The onus is on House republicans to demonstrate a compelling reason to force the WH to surrender privileged information, it is not incumbent upon the Executive to justify why he’s invoking EP.

The problem for House republicans is they’re engaged in a fishing expedition and partisan witch-hunt, they are motivated by politics only, not the law or justice.

If House republicans have such evidence, they need to turn it over to a Federal judge to review, and, if sufficient, order the WH to release the documents in question.

Why have House republicans failed to provide evidence of wrong-doing to a Federal judge?

So much for the Adam_Clayton_Jones amateur hour. Let's get real, instead.

Executive Privilege is not referenced at all in the Constitution.

It exists as an invention and it has received an imprimatur for the Supreme Court as an implicit power which means it is one which is necessarily implied by virtue of the grants of power and authority which are spelled out in the Constitution.

Nobody is asking if EP is as fictional as a unicorn.

The QUESTION that is asked, here, is on what particular basis did THIS President invoke it in THIS case?

And that we can only speculate about since Pres. Obama has failed to offer ANY explanation for his invocation of EP in this matter at all.

 

[Liability]

And I suppose you do?

Compared to the shit you've spewed, obviously.

You add nothing.

At least I don't need AM radio to tell me what to think....and no...I don't watch MSNBC either....other than Ratigan on occasion.

I don't require AM radio or any network or cable news outlet or any clusterfuck of lemmings on the interwebs to tell me what to think. You are a pre-canned talking pointless.

You can't even answer questions YOU pose (pretending that you know what you're talking about).

You are a phony.

 

[Liability]

How about all of those other instances of EP? Di all those other presidents give explanations for invoking it? Go check...I'll wait here.

DO your own homework, bitch.

What ABOUT the other claims of EP?

Do you think you have something worth while to offer regarding them?

You don't even know diddly shit about them, stupid.

You are mouthing idiot liberal hurried talking pointlesses.

And it shows.

No...you and your ilk are making the claim that Obama owes you an explanation. So...is it required that an explanation be given, (as if there would be one that Obama COULD give that you assholes would accept)....or is it a fucking PRIVILEGE of being the EXECUTIVE?

The President DOES owe an explanation.

You and your idiot ilk choose to pretend he doesn't but you can't back that shit up.

It is a privilege but it is not a privilege that has to be accepted. It is not absolute. It can be challenged. And since there is obviously no valid basis for the invocation of EP in THIS matter, it is not at all surprising that this President would choose to dispense with offering any explanation. He is every bit as much of a hack as you are.

 

[ClosedCaption]

DO your own homework, bitch.

What ABOUT the other claims of EP?

Do you think you have something worth while to offer regarding them?

You don't even know diddly shit about them, stupid.

You are mouthing idiot liberal hurried talking pointlesses.

And it shows.

No...you and your ilk are making the claim that Obama owes you an explanation. So...is it required that an explanation be given, (as if there would be one that Obama COULD give that you assholes would accept)....or is it a fucking PRIVILEGE of being the EXECUTIVE?

The President DOES owe an explanation.

You and your idiot ilk choose to pretend he doesn't but you can't back that shit up.

It is a privilege but it is not a privilege that has to be accepted. It is not absolute. It can be challenged. And since there is obviously no valid basis for the invocation of EP in THIS matter, it is not at all surprising that this President would choose to dispense with offering any explanation. He is every bit as much of a hack as you are.

priv·i·lege
   [priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] Show IPA noun, verb, priv·i·leged, priv·i·leg·ing.
noun
1.
a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2.
a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3.
a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4.
the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5.
any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.


In short the president owes you diddly. He owes you nothing much less an explanation you accept.

 

[Liability]

No...you and your ilk are making the claim that Obama owes you an explanation. So...is it required that an explanation be given, (as if there would be one that Obama COULD give that you assholes would accept)....or is it a fucking PRIVILEGE of being the EXECUTIVE?

The President DOES owe an explanation.

You and your idiot ilk choose to pretend he doesn't but you can't back that shit up.

It is a privilege but it is not a privilege that has to be accepted. It is not absolute. It can be challenged. And since there is obviously no valid basis for the invocation of EP in THIS matter, it is not at all surprising that this President would choose to dispense with offering any explanation. He is every bit as much of a hack as you are.

priv·i·lege
   [priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] Show IPA noun, verb, priv·i·leged, priv·i·leg·ing.
noun
1.
a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2.
a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3.
a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4.
the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5.
any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

Again, since you are studiously slow:

It is not enough to merely CLAIM a privilege.

Nixon tried that.

Didn't work.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

On WHAT HONEST basis does the Obama Administration make the CLAIM of Executive Privilege over the Fast and Furious papers, notes and e-mails?

I don't think they HAVE any HONEST basis to invoke Executive Privilege.

Why won't the President 'splain his action, in detail?

Isn't it "curious" how little the national media seems interested in pressing him on it?

Maybe they are afraid of appearing "rude?"

EP is based on the Constitution:

Executive privilege, the right of the President to withhold certain information sought by another branch of government, was first claimed by President Jefferson in response to a subpoena from John Marshall in the famous treason trial of Aaron Burr. The Supreme Court's first major pronouncement on the issue, however, did not come until 1974 in United States v Richard Nixon. The case involved the refusal of President Nixon to turn over to Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski several hours of Oval Office tapes believed to concern the Watergate break-in and subsequent cover-up. Although the Court unanimously concluded that the Constitution does indeed contain an executive privilege, the Court said the privilege was "presumptive" and not absolute. Balancing the interests in the Nixon case, the Court found the privilege not to extend to the requested Watergate tapes.

Separation of Powers Under the United States Constitution

Thus, EP does exist per the Constitution, the president may withhold information without justifying why to the other Branch of government in question, in this case the Legislative Branch. If House republicans want to compel the Obama Administration to turn over privileged documents, there must be evidence it is in the National interest and that indeed a crime has taken place, as in the Nixon case.

The onus is on House republicans to demonstrate a compelling reason to force the WH to surrender privileged information, it is not incumbent upon the Executive to justify why he’s invoking EP.

The problem for House republicans is they’re engaged in a fishing expedition and partisan witch-hunt, they are motivated by politics only, not the law or justice.

If House republicans have such evidence, they need to turn it over to a Federal judge to review, and, if sufficient, order the WH to release the documents in question.

Why have House republicans failed to provide evidence of wrong-doing to a Federal judge?

So much for the Adam_Clayton_Jones amateur hour. Let's get real, instead.

Executive Privilege is not referenced at all in the Constitution.

It exists as an invention and it has received an imprimatur for the Supreme Court as an implicit power which means it is one which is necessarily implied by virtue of the grants of power and authority which are spelled out in the Constitution.

Nobody is asking if EP is as fictional as a unicorn.

The QUESTION that is asked, here, is on what particular basis did THIS President invoke it in THIS case?

And that we can only speculate about since Pres. Obama has failed to offer ANY explanation for his invocation of EP in this matter at all.

So true.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The President DOES owe an explanation.

You and your idiot ilk choose to pretend he doesn't but you can't back that shit up.

It is a privilege but it is not a privilege that has to be accepted. It is not absolute. It can be challenged. And since there is obviously no valid basis for the invocation of EP in THIS matter, it is not at all surprising that this President would choose to dispense with offering any explanation. He is every bit as much of a hack as you are.

priv·i·lege
   [priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] Show IPA noun, verb, priv·i·leged, priv·i·leg·ing.
noun
1.
a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2.
a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3.
a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4.
the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5.
any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

Again, since you are studiously slow:

It is not enough to merely CLAIM a privilege.

Nixon tried that.

Didn't work.

It should be challenged but will it be challenged before the election? If not it won't matter because obama will be gone. Which gives the next president the same BS steps to do the same thing.

I don't if it's a republican president that does this that I will be like the democrats a=nd defend him for doing it.

 

[Steelplate]

DO your own homework, bitch.

What ABOUT the other claims of EP?

Do you think you have something worth while to offer regarding them?

You don't even know diddly shit about them, stupid.

You are mouthing idiot liberal hurried talking pointlesses.

And it shows.

No...you and your ilk are making the claim that Obama owes you an explanation. So...is it required that an explanation be given, (as if there would be one that Obama COULD give that you assholes would accept)....or is it a fucking PRIVILEGE of being the EXECUTIVE?

The President DOES owe an explanation.

You and your idiot ilk choose to pretend he doesn't but you can't back that shit up.

It is a privilege but it is not a privilege that has to be accepted. It is not absolute. It can be challenged. And since there is obviously no valid basis for the invocation of EP in THIS matter, it is not at all surprising that this President would choose to dispense with offering any explanation. He is every bit as much of a hack as you are.

There's no valid basis for the inquisition...other than Issa scoring points with radicals like yourself. It was a failed sting operation...period. It's your AM radio boys that are making this out to be some evil conspiracy.

 

[Liability]

priv·i·lege
   [priv-uh-lij, priv-lij] Show IPA noun, verb, priv·i·leged, priv·i·leg·ing.
noun
1.
a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.
2.
a special right, immunity, or exemption granted to persons in authority or office to free them from certain obligations or liabilities: the privilege of a senator to speak in Congress without danger of a libel suit.
3.
a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.
4.
the principle or condition of enjoying special rights or immunities.
5.
any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people.

Again, since you are studiously slow:

It is not enough to merely CLAIM a privilege.

Nixon tried that.

Didn't work.

It should be challenged but will it be challenged before the election? If not it won't matter because obama will be gone. Which gives the next president the same BS steps to do the same thing.

I don't if it's a republican president that does this that I will be like the democrats a=nd defend him for doing it.

The timing of the whole thing sucks. The Administration didn't bother with aserting EP until THIS late in the "game" for obvious reasons.

My guess is that the claim will not be challenged in time to make any political difference in terms of the election. But if The ONE pulls off a miracle and gets re-elected, then you can expect the prospect of some real fireworks to bog him down through-out the first year or so of his second term.

 

[Liability]

No...you and your ilk are making the claim that Obama owes you an explanation. So...is it required that an explanation be given, (as if there would be one that Obama COULD give that you assholes would accept)....or is it a fucking PRIVILEGE of being the EXECUTIVE?

The President DOES owe an explanation.

You and your idiot ilk choose to pretend he doesn't but you can't back that shit up.

It is a privilege but it is not a privilege that has to be accepted. It is not absolute. It can be challenged. And since there is obviously no valid basis for the invocation of EP in THIS matter, it is not at all surprising that this President would choose to dispense with offering any explanation. He is every bit as much of a hack as you are.

There's no valid basis for the inquisition...other than Issa scoring points with radicals like yourself. It was a failed sting operation...period. It's your AM radio boys that are making this out to be some evil conspiracy.

Yours is not to say what is a valid basis for the investigation.

In fact, there's fucking GREAT reasons for the investigation as the Holder cover-up efforts seem to prove.

Partisan shits like you just don't like it when the truth leaks out against your wishes.

Tough shit. Eat it, ya partisan hack fuckface.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again, since you are studiously slow:

It is not enough to merely CLAIM a privilege.

Nixon tried that.

Didn't work.

It should be challenged but will it be challenged before the election? If not it won't matter because obama will be gone. Which gives the next president the same BS steps to do the same thing.

I don't if it's a republican president that does this that I will be like the democrats a=nd defend him for doing it.

The timing of the whole thing sucks. The Administration didn't bother with aserting EP until THIS late in the "game" for obvious reasons.

My guess is that the claim will not be challenged in time to make any political difference in terms of the election. But if The ONE pulls off a miracle and gets re-elected, then you can expect the prospect of some real fireworks to bog him down through-out the first year or so of his second term.

That will only work if the Republicans retain the house and obama wins by a very small margin

 

[Liability]

It should be challenged but will it be challenged before the election? If not it won't matter because obama will be gone. Which gives the next president the same BS steps to do the same thing.

I don't if it's a republican president that does this that I will be like the democrats a=nd defend him for doing it.

The timing of the whole thing sucks. The Administration didn't bother with aserting EP until THIS late in the "game" for obvious reasons.

My guess is that the claim will not be challenged in time to make any political difference in terms of the election. But if The ONE pulls off a miracle and gets re-elected, then you can expect the prospect of some real fireworks to bog him down through-out the first year or so of his second term.

That will only work if the Republicans retain the house and obama wins by a very small margin

I think you mean RECLAIM the House or retain the Senate. And no matter how much the President wins re-election by, if that horrible thing happens, then he damn well needs for the House to go Democrat, which is pretty unlikely OR for the Senate to STAY firmly Democrat.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The President DOES owe an explanation.

You and your idiot ilk choose to pretend he doesn't but you can't back that shit up.

It is a privilege but it is not a privilege that has to be accepted. It is not absolute. It can be challenged. And since there is obviously no valid basis for the invocation of EP in THIS matter, it is not at all surprising that this President would choose to dispense with offering any explanation. He is every bit as much of a hack as you are.

There's no valid basis for the inquisition...other than Issa scoring points with radicals like yourself. It was a failed sting operation...period. It's your AM radio boys that are making this out to be some evil conspiracy.

Yours is not to say what is a valid basis for the investigation.

In fact, there's fucking GREAT reasons for the investigation as the Holder cover-up efforts seem to prove.

Partisan shits like you just don't like it when the truth leaks out against your wishes.

Tough shit. Eat it, ya partisan hack fuckface.

I tell you the only thing holder is covering up is that someone may have joked about it or might have be the plan but someone mention using fast and the furious for getting support for gun control. What other reason would there be for a cover up?

 

[jillian]

He is dead isn't he? Yes, and Jillian doesn't care. All she cares about is giving the finger to Issa.

You wouldn't give two shits for Brian Terry's life if you still had control of your own bowels.

BTW, you lie a lot.

i think they're just giving the finger to issa.

now... do i agree with them doing that?

no.

the left are making it political, all they want is to give Issa the finger!

yah... the left "made it political" aftr issa decided to use his office to do nothing but spend our money on politicking...

man, you're sad.

and a liar.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The documents in dispute are “deliberative process” memos that have traditionally been protected by Democratic and Republican administrations so that the White House staff can freely discuss sensitive matters without being influenced by the fear that their internal debates will be made public, administration officials said.

Yeah, so traditionally all parties have protected these docs but now...something is different. Oh right, one guy died

Executive privilege poses tricky situation for Obama - The Washington Post

At the bottom:

But he acknowledged that the documents in dispute could contain “significant information” that may explain why Holder reversed himself and declared the Fast and Furious program “fundamentally flawed” after initially standing by it.

So am I understanding this right? The repubs want these memos because they want to know why they liked it at first and then didnt after a border agent was killed?

Oh and Liability was cool with all other claims of executive privilege except Nixon because it was explained? Makes sense...not

 

[Liability]

The documents in dispute are “deliberative process” memos that have traditionally been protected by Democratic and Republican administrations so that the White House staff can freely discuss sensitive matters without being influenced by the fear that their internal debates will be made public, administration officials said.

Yeah, so traditionally all parties have protected these docs but now...something is different. Oh right, one guy died

Executive privilege poses tricky situation for Obama - The Washington Post

At the bottom:

But he acknowledged that the documents in dispute could contain “significant information” that may explain why Holder reversed himself and declared the Fast and Furious program “fundamentally flawed” after initially standing by it.

So am I understanding this right? The repubs want these memos because they want to know why they liked it at first and then didnt after a border agent was killed?

Oh and Liability was cool with all other claims of executive privilege except Nixon because it was explained? Makes sense...not

As for your first unsourced "quote," I appreciate your reliance on Wiki, you twit.

As for the balance of your dishonest post, you still aren't man enough to admit the basic fact:

OTHER Presidents explained their reasons. The incumbent Imbecile in Chief has not.

YOU have the burden, ya dipshit, of demonstrating that any other particular claim of EP was either not explained at all or that the explanation given was false.

You have offered nothing. No surprise.

You remain a transparently dishonest hack.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I too want to know what national security secrets are so important that he has to hide behind EP in this situation.

Then they wouldn't be secrets anymore.

And WHY are theySecrets? SCARED that the Mexicans will see that Obama launched a SECRET WAR against the Mexican people without the CONSENT of the Mexican Government?

Well, the scenario that infidel was asking about would be one of national security secrets. He's basically saying that he wants national security secrets to be revealed to the public, so that he can decide whether those national security concerns are more important than Congressional Republicans getting their way. The point is that national security secrets aren't something that are just coughed up because someone wants them to be, least of all because the one of the parties has a political ax to grind.

In any event, this situation has nothing to do with national security secrets in the first place. Executive Privilege isn't about protecting national security secrets. It's about preserving the ability of the President to receive unfettered advise from his advisers, outside of the public political arena.

Also, let's be honest. Obama isn't waging a secret war against the Mexican people. If anything. Though I wouldn't mind an overt war with Mexico to stop the endless flow of illegal immigrants they send to us.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I didn't say he did. Every president since raygun has invoked executive privilege. Liability and you give all of them a pass. I guess youve never noticed until Obama did it.

Since Truman. And Truman could be said to have invoked it, de facto, even if not explicitly.