Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Do you think the ACA would have been passed by Congress if the word TAX had been used in place of the words INDIVIDUAL MANDATE ?
I call it FRAUD, but that's just me.
He is clearly covering something up here.
It seems most likely (to me) that he is trying to prevent further harm to his AG.
But even so, he's not getting pressed AT ALL on the alleged "basis" for his invocation of Executive Privilege.
And it quite clear that he has no valid basis to make the claim.
Why does he get a free ride on this?
i think it amuses the rightwing extremists to opine that they're "hiding something". i think they're just giving the finger to issa.
now... do i agree with them doing that?
no. but someone needed to remind issa that he isn't the biggest fish in the pond. so i wouldn't rend my clothing over it either.
Poor old dead Brian Terry and his parents. The democrats just want to give the finger to Issa and they won't rend any clothing over that. wow! that's just so friggin American ain't it?
thats rather low you are using Terry as a political football in order to score points in bashing Obama.
well not that low of you.
The dumbfuck libs here need to explain the DoJ letter to Congress full of lies that had to be retracted.
So if you are under investigation by Congress, the FBI, the local police, etc....would you send them a fraudulent letter then try to retract it later saying it was a mistake???? Uh, that is a crime....
Key word being honest because the bar has to be so high that Obama could never reach it. For example, no explanation from Obama will be considered honest. But he excuses all the other presidents because....because, uh...he can't explain.
Disclosure of documents and an accountability to why the DOJ lied for 10 months would work for starters.
For starters? What's the next act? Asking if he had sex with somebody?
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 hes invoking EP.
The problem for House republicans is theyre 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?
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.
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!
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.
Liabaility tries desperately to justify his utter hypocrisy. The right has gone full bonkers. Even previously reasonable right-wingers like Liability have completely lost their minds. Is it due to to Obama's recent Supreme Court victories, or is it just that you can't take it anymore?
Many presidents have invoked executive privilege. Bush did it to keep from exposing the people behind the outing of a fucking covert CIA operative. And you want to now cry foul? Give me a fucking break, pal. You're being a hypocrite and you're throwing a damn fit. It's not pretty.
It is good to see JoeyKaka admit his current status.
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.
Do you think the ACA would have been passed by Congress if the word TAX had been used in place of the words INDIVIDUAL MANDATE ?
I call it FRAUD, but that's just me.
Of course not. The GOP wouldn't even agree to a 10:1 spending cuts to tax increase deal. But you're barking up the wrong tree. The Congress persons who passed the bill defined the mandate as a penalty; chief justice Roberts redefined it as a tax. Talk to him.
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.
You know this how? For a guy that probably has a comb over you should refrain from splitting hairs.
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.
You know this how? For a guy that probably has a comb over you should refrain from splitting hairs.
I know it because of what Holder swore to under oath, you mutt.
And why do you keep insisting on worrying about my appearance, anyway?
Are you actually gay? If not, stop acting so swishy.
You know this how? For a guy that probably has a comb over you should refrain from splitting hairs.
I know it because of what Holder swore to under oath, you mutt.
And why do you keep insisting on worrying about my appearance, anyway?
Are you actually gay? If not, stop acting so swishy.
Whoah there pilgrim.. That was the first time I ever speculated on your appearance. It just struck me that every NY lawyer I ever saw was folically challenged. So I casts the bait and lo and behold I gets a bite.. Bingo! Musta struck a nerve. Note to fish: Don't hit the lure so hard and it won't sting so much when ya get hooked!
I know it because of what Holder swore to under oath, you mutt.
And why do you keep insisting on worrying about my appearance, anyway?
Are you actually gay? If not, stop acting so swishy.
Whoah there pilgrim.. That was the first time I ever speculated on your appearance. It just struck me that every NY lawyer I ever saw was folically challenged. So I casts the bait and lo and behold I gets a bite.. Bingo! Musta struck a nerve. Note to fish: Don't hit the lure so hard and it won't sting so much when ya get hooked!
No no. Be honest. I recall you in the past also speculating about my penis.
I am actually going way gray, but am in need of a haircut, not a comb-over.
Not that there'd be anything wrong with that.
I sense projection here.
Are you feeling inadequate? Is that it?
Anyway: Nice evasion.
Focus on the inconsequential side-show instead of having to man up and admit you were wrong on the actual point.
Shameful.
You could be Chief Justice!
Whoah there pilgrim.. That was the first time I ever speculated on your appearance. It just struck me that every NY lawyer I ever saw was folically challenged. So I casts the bait and lo and behold I gets a bite.. Bingo! Musta struck a nerve. Note to fish: Don't hit the lure so hard and it won't sting so much when ya get hooked!
No no. Be honest. I recall you in the past also speculating about my penis.
I am actually going way gray, but am in need of a haircut, not a comb-over.
Not that there'd be anything wrong with that.
I sense projection here.
Are you feeling inadequate? Is that it?
Anyway: Nice evasion.
Focus on the inconsequential side-show instead of having to man up and admit you were wrong on the actual point.
Shameful.
You could be Chief Justice!
Me? No way ...it's a stupid gig. How'd he get to be "chief" justice again? Seems a bit strange that just because he happens to be the replacement du jour he gets the cat bird seat while others have already put in thier time.. That whole proccess leaves me scratching my head.
Anyway... the Holder thing was badly misshandled by Issa. He obviously used it as a political red herring but his timing was stupid. In a week no one will even care one way or the other. Holder will still have plenty of time to yell at the states doing the voter suppression which any honest person would agree that ...that is why the drama has been unfolding in the manner it has been.
Holder didn't do anything wrong in regards to the gun surveilance programs. Maybe the delays in providing warrants when asked for by the ATF could be scrutinized more closely. Apparently some on going gun purchasing tracking got lost in the time it took to get authorization to close in on some of these guys.
All in all I'm a little dissapointed we didn't get to benefit much from your legal expertise in this affair.
