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

[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.

The HONEST answer would have been to admit that the fucking invocation in THIS case has NO bearing at all on National Security.

Actually, what I said was perfectly honest. If we reveal national security secrets, they are no longer secrets. But you're right too, this has nothing to do with national security, EP has nothing to do with national security. It's about preserving the ability of the President to receive unfettered advice from his advisers, without it becoming subject to the public political arena.

 

[Liability]

The closest we get to the REASON for the President's decision to invoke Executive Privilege is the request letter from Holder to the President asking for the invocation of EP AND then, later, some unnamed Administration official supposedly saying the following:

White House Reaction on Fast and Furious Executive Privilege

By Ed Henry

Published June 20, 2012 | FoxNews.com

A senior administration official tells Fox News that Attorney General Holder asked the president Tuesday to invoke executive privilege and the president completely agreed that it was warranted in this case.

"The reason is the president believes the documents in question are "not anything material to [the] Fast and Furious [investigation]." Instead these documents are "internal deliberations within the Justice Dept" about how the administration planned to respond to congressional investigators and media inquiries about Fast and Furious - not the actual Fast and Furious investigation itself, per the same senior administration official.

"The president feels strongly this is a protected group of documents" because it falls under the principle of internal deliberations and advice within administration, noted the senior administration official. Presidents in both parties have asserted this same privilege.

see, OBAMA ASSERTS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OVER JUSTICE DEPT DOCUMENTS IN 'FAST AND FURIOUS' - 'Fast And Furious' - Fox Nation

and see also, White House Reaction on Fast and Furious Executive Privilege - Fox News

Congress asks for documents. There is internal discussion in DoJ on -- what? -- whether or not to comply? That is the kind of internal deliberations that merit the President's invocation of EP?

Really?

And you libs say "that's fine by us?"

 

[Liability]

Then they wouldn't be secrets anymore.

The HONEST answer would have been to admit that the fucking invocation in THIS case has NO bearing at all on National Security.

Actually, what I said was perfectly honest. If we reveal national security secrets, they are no longer secrets. But you're right too, this has nothing to do with national security, EP has nothing to do with national security. It's about preserving the ability of the President to receive unfettered advice from his advisers, without it becoming subject to the public political arena.

No. What you said wasn't honest. You spoke of "secrets" and the type of EP used in THIS matter is not a national security or state secret kind of EP claim.

But that aside: this invocation also appears to have NOTHING to do with the President getting unfettered advice. I would support that just as I did when some Democratics in Congress chose to try to subpoena Vice President Cheney's office meeting logs.

But HERE the stuff getting covered up by the bogus CLAIM of EP are internal discussions within DoJ not involving the President at all. About the issue of compliance WITH Congressional subpoenas.

You know what? There MIGHT be some fair argument to be made that the Congressional subpoenas were overly broad. Maybe. But even if there is some valid objection to the scope of the Congressional subpoena, the proper remedy is not the dishonest invocation of Executive Privilege.

 

[Steelplate]

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.

It's not for you to say that the president needs to give YOU an explanation.

You just don't like it when someone doesn't agree with you. Funny how Issa kept asking for shit...Holder kept complying...and finally as an act of desperation, Issa asked for shit that apparently, he had no business asking for....they refused and now it's a cover up in the AM Radio world. Perhaps if Issa didn't go "full retard" and realized that he didn't have anything...he could have saved himself the embarrassment, and Obama invoking EP.

 

[Liability]

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.

It's not for you to say that the president needs to give YOU an explanation.

Sure it is. Welcome to America. We here expect our leader to explain his actions to us. In fact, we often demand it, sometimes though our other elected officials.

And I didn't say to ME, you putz. I said to the American People. Other Presidents have. Why not this one? In what way is He so fucking special and above it? Clue: in no way. Deal with it.

You just don't like it when someone doesn't agree with you.

That's a stupid third grade level "argument," you enema nozzle. I don't care that a shitface like you doesn't agree. I do find it hilarious how inept you remain at explaining any coherent basis for your knee-jerk "disagreement" though.

Funny how Issa kept asking for shit...Holder kept complying...and finally as an act of desperation, Issa asked for shit that apparently, he had no business asking for....they refused and now it's a cover up in the AM Radio world. Perhaps if Issa didn't go "full retard" and realized that he didn't have anything...he could have saved himself the embarrassment, and Obama invoking EP.

Nice try. But the facts are not with you. IF, as Holder claimed, he had no knowledge of the F&F operation when a Federal Agent got blown away by the very thugs to whom the Administration had walked some of the guns, he should have had no fucking reason not to share everything he could lay his gloves on with the Congressional investigators. It's only now that maybe the investigation is going to find out that he had knowledge of the imbecile operation a whole lot sooner than he admitted (under oath to Congress) that he asks Papa to help him out with a bullshit claim of EP.

And you insist on lapping that shit right up.

Since you are clearly adverse to honesty, I'll show you how it's done. I can see how maybe (possibly) some of what the House Committee demanded by way of subpoena was a bit overly broad. I have already conceded (maybe in another thread, I don't know) that there COULD be some arguable grounds to contest the breadth and scope of the subpoena. But the proper way to go about that is NOT to invoke Executive Privilege when there is clearly NOTHING that warrants the invocation of that privilege.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

It's not for you to say that the president needs to give YOU an explanation.

You just don't like it when someone doesn't agree with you. Funny how Issa kept asking for shit...Holder kept complying...and finally as an act of desperation, Issa asked for shit that apparently, he had no business asking for....they refused and now it's a cover up in the AM Radio world. Perhaps if Issa didn't go "full retard" and realized that he didn't have anything...he could have saved himself the embarrassment, and Obama invoking EP.

Holder kept dragging his feet and lied twice.
Take your political blinders off for 30 seconds what justification did obama have protecting documents that he was not supposed to have any knowledge of? Did it work for Nixon?

 

[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

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

What a fucking dumbass. Lets pause here...I post quote. I post link. You cant read it's in the fucking link crybaby.

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

Theres that crying victim shit again

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.

Next week when they say why. You'll start another thread kicking and screaming how you dont like the answer you're given. Stop pretending that any answer will be a good one for you. If you stood for or against Executive Privilege that would be one thing. Then you would be talking about something solid. This bullshit invisible measure demanded by you of what you determine to be honest would be like the story of Sisyphus.

 

[Inthemiddle]

No. What you said wasn't honest.

So you're saying that if secrets are revealed they will still be secrets?

You spoke of "secrets" and the type of EP used in THIS matter is not a national security or state secret kind of EP claim.

How many "types" of EP do you think there are? BTW, I'm not the one who brought up the idea of national security secrets. I was merely responding to that bit.

But that aside: this invocation also appears to have NOTHING to do with the President getting unfettered advice. I would support that just as I did when some Democratics in Congress chose to try to subpoena Vice President Cheney's office meeting logs.

What makes you think that?

But HERE the stuff getting covered up by the bogus CLAIM of EP are internal discussions within DoJ not involving the President at all. About the issue of compliance WITH Congressional subpoenas.

And how is that the case? The subpoena wants documents regarding the reason why the Feb 2011 letter was withdrawn. On what basis can you say that President Obama wasn't involved in that whatsoever?

 

[Liability]

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:



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.

What a fucking dumbass. Lets pause here...I post quote. I post link. You cant read it's in the fucking link crybaby.

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

Theres that crying victim shit again

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.

Next week when they say why. You'll start another thread kicking and screaming how you dont like the answer you're given. Stop pretending that any answer will be a good one for you. If you stood for or against Executive Privilege that would be one thing. Then you would be talking about something solid. This bullshit invisible measure demanded by you of what you determine to be honest would be like the story of Sisyphus.

Closed minded:

There was a link in your post to the first quote, but since it's bullshit, it appears highly probable that it, in turn, relied on crap from Wiki.

Take your meds, bitch. Your whining is deafening.

To note your dishonesty is not crying, you bed wetting lump of crap. It is merely noting that you are dishonest. Again, enough of your whining. Our poor ears.

What makes you pretend to believe that the fucking mopey President will bother to explain his bogus invocation of Executive Privilege next week? Stop making your bullshit up on the fly like that. It only underscores what a dishonest derp you are.

And by the way, when I want stage directions from a lying lib piece of crap, I would go to other more coherent USMB libs. You aren't even on the list, bitch.

It IS possible that the President may someday offer an honest explanation for his bullshit invocation of Executive Privilege. But you'd have to be an even bigger asshole than you already are (i.e., galactic sized) to expect an honest explanation ANY time soon. You aren't even honest enough to see that we already know he has no honest explanation other than "coverup."

 

[Katzndogz]

The basis is that if executive privilege can be used for some matters, it can be used for all matters. If it can be used to protect matters of national security, it can be used to tell you to eat your broccoli.

 

[Liability]

No. What you said wasn't honest.

So you're saying that if secrets are revealed they will still be secrets?

Try not to be so obviously dishonest, stupid. If the alleged secret gets revealed, you mindless hack derp, you will discover that there never was ANY national secret involved. Revealing a false claim of "secrecy needed for national security" is NOT the revelation of an actual "secret," you schmuck.

You spoke of "secrets" and the type of EP used in THIS matter is not a national security or state secret kind of EP claim.

How many "types" of EP do you think there are? BTW, I'm not the one who brought up the idea of national security secrets. I was merely responding to that bit.

I think -- in fact, I KNOW, that there are TWO types of EP claims. Why don't YOU know as much?

But that aside: this invocation also appears to have NOTHING to do with the President getting unfettered advice. I would support that just as I did when some Democratics in Congress chose to try to subpoena Vice President Cheney's office meeting logs.

What makes you think that?

KNOW that. (A) The President was not supposedly even in the loop. So it could not have involved him getting ANY advice at all. And (B) the AG was allegedly not even in the loop, so it could not have involved HIS getting advice (to later be shared with the President), either.

But HERE the stuff getting covered up by the bogus CLAIM of EP are internal discussions within DoJ not involving the President at all. About the issue of compliance WITH Congressional subpoenas.

And how is that the case? The subpoena wants documents regarding the reason why the Feb 2011 letter was withdrawn. On what basis can you say that President Obama wasn't involved in that whatsoever?

He had not been advised of it yet. And why would there be a valid claim of privilege ANYWAY over the question of how or whether to respond to a Congressional subpoena involving matters in which the President and the AG had not been in the decision making loop?

 

[regent]

Washington used it first and the usual explanation is that if executive discussions were to be made public it would prevent an open and honest debate of the issues.

 

[J.E.D]

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

Translation: Republican executive privilege = legitimate; Democrat executive privilege = cover-up.

You know the right has lost its collective mind when such blatant hypocrisy passes as legitimate criticism within their circle.

And that's the problem with their arguments that they'll never get: what passes for a legitimate argument among them doesn't pass the sniff test among the rest of the civilized world.

 

[Liability]

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

Translation: Republican executive privilege = legitimate; Democrat executive privilege = cover-up.

You know the right has lost its collective mind when such blatant hypocrisy passes as legitimate criticism within their circle.

And that's the problem with their arguments that they'll never get: what passes for a legitimate argument among them doesn't pass the sniff test among the rest of the civilized world.

Your dishonest and intentionally mis-translated translation has no value since it is based on your lie, stupid shit.

No.

The Obama invocation of "Executive Privilege" is dishonest since it is not premised on national security for which the Executive is responsible NOR is it based (nor could it be based) on the need for unfiltered communication inasmuch as it involved communications that did not involve either the President OR his AG.

Furthermore you useless dishonest hack, the prior invocations of Executive Privilege WERE explained BY the Presidents invoking the claim. The dope presently infesting the Oval Office couldn't be bothered to do even that. For good reason. As WE all already know, he knows too that he cannot justify it this time.

He is a liar and a coverup artist And you are a sycophantic apologist for his lawlessness.

 

[Liability]

Washington used it first and the usual explanation is that if executive discussions were to be made public it would prevent an open and honest debate of the issues.

We know. We have long since covered that history lesson.

The question now is: how can it be invoked by The ONE in this case since he had not been part of the loop in the planning of implementation of F&F?

 

[HUGGY]

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

Translation: Republican executive privilege = legitimate; Democrat executive privilege = cover-up.

You know the right has lost its collective mind when such blatant hypocrisy passes as legitimate criticism within their circle.

And that's the problem with their arguments that they'll never get: what passes for a legitimate argument among them doesn't pass the sniff test among the rest of the civilized world.

Your dishonest and intentionally mis-translated translation has no value since it is based on your lie, stupid shit.

No.

The Obama invocation of "Executive Privilege" is dishonest since it is not premised on national security for which the Executive is responsible NOR is it based (nor could it be based) on the need for unfiltered communication inasmuch as it involved communications that did not involve either the President OR his AG.

Furthermore you useless dishonest hack, the prior invocations of Executive Privilege WERE explained BY the Presidents invoking the claim. The dope presently infesting the Oval Office couldn't be bothered to do even that. For good reason. As WE all already know, he knows too that he cannot justify it this time.

He is a liar and a coverup artist And you are a sycophantic apologist for his lawlessness.

Really? Really? What was the Bush administration's reasoning for disregaurding the House sub committee request for information of the Harriet Meyers U S attourney firings?

Huh counselor? 200 days of executive priviledge without a single page of documents?

Holder has released THOUSANDS of pages of documents. Just what exactly was the "national security" implications in hiding Harriet Meyers behind executive priviledge?

Most if not all law is based on precident.... well there is your precious precident shyster...

 

[Bloodline]

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?"

How transparent!

Executive Priveledge was used by

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
Harry Truman
Dwight Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Bill Clinton (14 times)
George W. Bush (6 times)

And now of course Obama for the first time.

Why all the fuss all of a sudden?

Maybe because you just hate your president and are constantly looking for a reason to bash him? Of course if he had a Rep. in front of his name then you would think he shits ice cream huh?

That's called blind party loyalty!

 

[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?"

How transparent!

Executive Priveledge was used by

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
Harry Truman
Dwight Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Bill Clinton (14 times)
George W. Bush (6 times)

And now of course Obama for the first time.

Why all the fuss all of a sudden?

Maybe because you just hate your president and are constantly looking for a reason to bash him? Of course if he had a Rep. in front of his name then you would think he shits ice cream huh?

That's called blind party loyalty!

Try not to be so stupid.

Once AGAIN: the issue is not whether it has ever been used before or not.

The issue REMAINS whether THIS invocation has any honest basis.

It does not.

 

[The Infidel]

Translation: Republican executive privilege = legitimate; Democrat executive privilege = cover-up.

You know the right has lost its collective mind when such blatant hypocrisy passes as legitimate criticism within their circle.

And that's the problem with their arguments that they'll never get: what passes for a legitimate argument among them doesn't pass the sniff test among the rest of the civilized world.

Your dishonest and intentionally mis-translated translation has no value since it is based on your lie, stupid shit.

No.

The Obama invocation of "Executive Privilege" is dishonest since it is not premised on national security for which the Executive is responsible NOR is it based (nor could it be based) on the need for unfiltered communication inasmuch as it involved communications that did not involve either the President OR his AG.

Furthermore you useless dishonest hack, the prior invocations of Executive Privilege WERE explained BY the Presidents invoking the claim. The dope presently infesting the Oval Office couldn't be bothered to do even that. For good reason. As WE all already know, he knows too that he cannot justify it this time.

He is a liar and a coverup artist And you are a sycophantic apologist for his lawlessness.

Really? Really? What was the Bush administration's reasoning for disregaurding the House sub committee request for information of the Harriet Meyers U S attourney firings?

Huh counselor? 200 days of executive priviledge without a single page of documents?

Holder has released THOUSANDS of pages of documents. Just what exactly was the "national security" implications in hiding Harriet Meyers behind executive priviledge?

Most if not all law is based on precident.... well there is your precious precident shyster...

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?"

How transparent!

Executive Priveledge was used by

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
Harry Truman
Dwight Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Bill Clinton (14 times)
George W. Bush (6 times)

And now of course Obama for the first time.

Why all the fuss all of a sudden?

Maybe because you just hate your president and are constantly looking for a reason to bash him? Of course if he had a Rep. in front of his name then you would think he shits ice cream huh?

That's called blind party loyalty!

fuck you and your boosh did it too shit.

 

[Liability]

Translation: Republican executive privilege = legitimate; Democrat executive privilege = cover-up.

You know the right has lost its collective mind when such blatant hypocrisy passes as legitimate criticism within their circle.

And that's the problem with their arguments that they'll never get: what passes for a legitimate argument among them doesn't pass the sniff test among the rest of the civilized world.

Your dishonest and intentionally mis-translated translation has no value since it is based on your lie, stupid shit.

No.

The Obama invocation of "Executive Privilege" is dishonest since it is not premised on national security for which the Executive is responsible NOR is it based (nor could it be based) on the need for unfiltered communication inasmuch as it involved communications that did not involve either the President OR his AG.

Furthermore you useless dishonest hack, the prior invocations of Executive Privilege WERE explained BY the Presidents invoking the claim. The dope presently infesting the Oval Office couldn't be bothered to do even that. For good reason. As WE all already know, he knows too that he cannot justify it this time.

He is a liar and a coverup artist And you are a sycophantic apologist for his lawlessness.

Really? Really? What was the Bush administration's reasoning for disregaurding the House sub committee request for information of the Harriet Meyers U S attourney firings?

Huh counselor? 200 days of executive priviledge without a single page of documents?

Holder has released THOUSANDS of pages of documents. Just what exactly was the "national security" implications in hiding Harriet Meyers behind executive priviledge?

Most if not all law is based on precident.... well there is your precious precident shyster...

Smugly: I realize you aren't all that bright, but let's see if you can't try to focus.

There are 2 different bases for invoking Executive Privilege, you twit.

First would be national security concerns involving the province of the Executive Branch. Not applicable to the Harriet Myers stuff nor applicable to the invocation this time either.

Second is the claim that in order to obtain honest and undiluted opinions, the communications of the President's advisers to the President MUST remain confidential. That COULD work here IF the communications at issue involved anything including the President. But they did not.

So, Smugly, try again when you finally get your brain into gear.