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.
Well, based on the Nixon precedent, the answer is Yes. Where there is communication that relates to a possible criminal matter, or misdoings, then all communication is fair game. As well Congress subpoened Bush's records investigating "torture."One basic question is, How can Obama both invoke Executive Privelege to cover communications AND claim there were no communications? Either there were communications on the matter or there weren't.
The second question is why libs deflect to: Republicans lie more. Boosh! Cheney! And other red herrings. We aren't discussing those things. We are discussing the actions of this president. There doesn't need to be "proof" here. There needs to be reasonable inference. The reasonable inference of a claim of EP is that there is communication to be covered. The reasonable inference of the WH saying there was no communication is that there is no need for EP. The reasonable inference of the WH claiming both things simulataneously is that someone is lying about one of those things.
The question is, do the president's enemies get to sort through all his communications in the Oval Office?
Doesn't matter if they are sorting through everything because he says there was "no" communication or some communication. The issue is, do the president's enemies get to go through all his communications on whatever ground they can think up next?
Executive Privilege says, no, they don't. That's private. I agree.
No more true words have ever been spoken.I don't understand this term "reasoned debate."Is it reasoned debate to claim your opponents are terrorists for legally and politically disagreeing with your political side?
Is it reasoned debate for a sitting President to use as a defense from a scandal " I did not know what my appointees were doing because the Government is to big?"
Is it reasoned debate to make a statement that the President and the Attorney General had no knowledge of a scandal but then claim executive Privilege to hide the documents that would either prove or disprove the statement? As I understand Executive Privilege it is to protect sensitive communications between the President and his appointees. If the claim is NO COMMUNICATION occurred how can the President use the Privilege?
Except when its Dick Cheney meeting with energy companies discussing the administrations energy policy.One basic question is, How can Obama both invoke Executive Privelege to cover communications AND claim there were no communications? Either there were communications on the matter or there weren't.
The second question is why libs deflect to: Republicans lie more. Boosh! Cheney! And other red herrings. We aren't discussing those things. We are discussing the actions of this president. There doesn't need to be "proof" here. There needs to be reasonable inference. The reasonable inference of a claim of EP is that there is communication to be covered. The reasonable inference of the WH saying there was no communication is that there is no need for EP. The reasonable inference of the WH claiming both things simulataneously is that someone is lying about one of those things.
The question is, do the president's enemies get to sort through all his communications in the Oval Office?
Doesn't matter if they are sorting through everything because he says there was "no" communication or some communication. The issue is, do the president's enemies get to go through all his communications on whatever ground they can think up next?
Executive Privilege says, no, they don't. That's private. I agree.
Except when its Dick Cheney meeting with energy companies discussing the administrations energy policy.One basic question is, How can Obama both invoke Executive Privelege to cover communications AND claim there were no communications? Either there were communications on the matter or there weren't.
The second question is why libs deflect to: Republicans lie more. Boosh! Cheney! And other red herrings. We aren't discussing those things. We are discussing the actions of this president. There doesn't need to be "proof" here. There needs to be reasonable inference. The reasonable inference of a claim of EP is that there is communication to be covered. The reasonable inference of the WH saying there was no communication is that there is no need for EP. The reasonable inference of the WH claiming both things simulataneously is that someone is lying about one of those things.
The question is, do the president's enemies get to sort through all his communications in the Oval Office?
Doesn't matter if they are sorting through everything because he says there was "no" communication or some communication. The issue is, do the president's enemies get to go through all his communications on whatever ground they can think up next?
Executive Privilege says, no, they don't. That's private. I agree.
You missed the point. Well done.Except when its Dick Cheney meeting with energy companies discussing the administrations energy policy.The question is, do the president's enemies get to sort through all his communications in the Oval Office?
Doesn't matter if they are sorting through everything because he says there was "no" communication or some communication. The issue is, do the president's enemies get to go through all his communications on whatever ground they can think up next?
Executive Privilege says, no, they don't. That's private. I agree.
Bless you for bringing that in.. When the Govt decides it's gonna formulate an energy policy, I WANT that policy based on what the corporate secret research and plans indicate. And if the govt doesn't want to look like the inept bumbling fools they usually are --- they will respect the "corporate proprietary" nature of the info that they recieve...
You missed the point. Well done.Except when its Dick Cheney meeting with energy companies discussing the administrations energy policy.
Bless you for bringing that in.. When the Govt decides it's gonna formulate an energy policy, I WANT that policy based on what the corporate secret research and plans indicate. And if the govt doesn't want to look like the inept bumbling fools they usually are --- they will respect the "corporate proprietary" nature of the info that they recieve...
Correct. It is OK when The Obama uses it, but it was not when Cheney did.MAYBE i did.. You called the guy on his hypocrisy of supporting EPriv only when HIS guy uses it.You missed the point. Well done.Bless you for bringing that in.. When the Govt decides it's gonna formulate an energy policy, I WANT that policy based on what the corporate secret research and plans indicate. And if the govt doesn't want to look like the inept bumbling fools they usually are --- they will respect the "corporate proprietary" nature of the info that they recieve...
[Sigh]
This country is dysfunctional.
You do know that since the chart in question is not based on EVERY statement made by both sides during the time period, there is selection bias at play?
Meaningless chart is meaningless.
Of course, only the charts that favor Republicans are meaningful!
(Like the ones that showed Romney was going to win.)
You didnt answer the question because you dont like the answer.
Nice attempted dodge.
One basic question is, How can Obama both invoke Executive Privelege to cover communications AND claim there were no communications? Either there were communications on the matter or there weren't.
The second question is why libs deflect to: Republicans lie more. Boosh! Cheney! And other red herrings. We aren't discussing those things. We are discussing the actions of this president. There doesn't need to be "proof" here. There needs to be reasonable inference. The reasonable inference of a claim of EP is that there is communication to be covered. The reasonable inference of the WH saying there was no communication is that there is no need for EP. The reasonable inference of the WH claiming both things simulataneously is that someone is lying about one of those things.
The question is, do the president's enemies get to sort through all his communications in the Oval Office?
Doesn't matter if they are sorting through everything because he says there was "no" communication or some communication. The issue is, do the president's enemies get to go through all his communications on whatever ground they can think up next?
Executive Privilege says, no, they don't. That's private. I agree.
Oh, it's obvious the whole Executive Privilege crap is simply a way to attack the party in power. WHATEVER comes up, the other side calls it a crime and says they now just HAVE TO launch a fishing expedition to see what they can "get on" the party in the White House.
It's like everybody who gets into the White House now has to be impeached.
[Sigh]
This country is dysfunctional.
One basic question is, How can Obama both invoke Executive Privelege to cover communications AND claim there were no communications? Either there were communications on the matter or there weren't.
The second question is why libs deflect to: Republicans lie more. Boosh! Cheney! And other red herrings. We aren't discussing those things. We are discussing the actions of this president. There doesn't need to be "proof" here. There needs to be reasonable inference. The reasonable inference of a claim of EP is that there is communication to be covered. The reasonable inference of the WH saying there was no communication is that there is no need for EP. The reasonable inference of the WH claiming both things simulataneously is that someone is lying about one of those things.
The question is, do the president's enemies get to sort through all his communications in the Oval Office?
Doesn't matter if they are sorting through everything because he says there was "no" communication or some communication. The issue is, do the president's enemies get to go through all his communications on whatever ground they can think up next?
Executive Privilege says, no, they don't. That's private. I agree.
The president should not have private communications in his official duties, end of discussion.
Discussion of military operations should be made pulblic?One basic question is, How can Obama both invoke Executive Privelege to cover communications AND claim there were no communications? Either there were communications on the matter or there weren't.
The second question is why libs deflect to: Republicans lie more. Boosh! Cheney! And other red herrings. We aren't discussing those things. We are discussing the actions of this president. There doesn't need to be "proof" here. There needs to be reasonable inference. The reasonable inference of a claim of EP is that there is communication to be covered. The reasonable inference of the WH saying there was no communication is that there is no need for EP. The reasonable inference of the WH claiming both things simulataneously is that someone is lying about one of those things.
The question is, do the president's enemies get to sort through all his communications in the Oval Office?
Doesn't matter if they are sorting through everything because he says there was "no" communication or some communication. The issue is, do the president's enemies get to go through all his communications on whatever ground they can think up next?
Executive Privilege says, no, they don't. That's private. I agree.
The president should not have private communications in his official duties, end of discussion.
The question is, do the president's enemies get to sort through all his communications in the Oval Office?
Doesn't matter if they are sorting through everything because he says there was "no" communication or some communication. The issue is, do the president's enemies get to go through all his communications on whatever ground they can think up next?
Executive Privilege says, no, they don't. That's private. I agree.
The president should not have private communications in his official duties, end of discussion.
I disagree. I think it is crucial that he have private communications with some people, for many reasons. Obviously when the topic is some illegal, unethical or shady operation then investigators have the right to examine those communications. But honest debate cannot take place in any administration where the possibility of public scrutiny is always present.
Discussion of military operations should be made pulblic?The question is, do the president's enemies get to sort through all his communications in the Oval Office?
Doesn't matter if they are sorting through everything because he says there was "no" communication or some communication. The issue is, do the president's enemies get to go through all his communications on whatever ground they can think up next?
Executive Privilege says, no, they don't. That's private. I agree.
The president should not have private communications in his official duties, end of discussion.
Real time? If not, then how long after?
Since you both made essentially the same point, I will respond to you both in one post.
There is a difference between things that are legitimately secret and private communications. The president cannot claim that his discussions with the military are private, even if he can claim they are secret. If he is acting in his office as the president he cannot argue that the communication is private.
I was critical of Bush and I'm critical of Obama. I didn't start criticizing Bush until about a year and a half into his first term. I withdrew my support for Obama around the same time in his first term. I criticized both Presidents for their actions in office.Is it reasonable to criticize others for not being critical of Bush when you are not critical of Obama?
This doesnt answer the questions I asked.The president should not have private communications in his official duties, end of discussion.
I disagree. I think it is crucial that he have private communications with some people, for many reasons. Obviously when the topic is some illegal, unethical or shady operation then investigators have the right to examine those communications. But honest debate cannot take place in any administration where the possibility of public scrutiny is always present.
Discussion of military operations should be made pulblic?The president should not have private communications in his official duties, end of discussion.
Real time? If not, then how long after?
Since you both made essentially the same point, I will respond to you both in one post.
There is a difference between things that are legitimately secret and private communications. The president cannot claim that his discussions with the military are private, even if he can claim they are secret. If he is acting in his office as the president he cannot argue that the communication is private.
Since you both made essentially the same point, I will respond to you both in one post.
There is a difference between things that are legitimately secret and private communications. The president cannot claim that his discussions with the military are private, even if he can claim they are secret. If he is acting in his office as the president he cannot argue that the communication is private.
That seems like a distinction without a difference. Some things need have an assurance of privacy in order to assure best advice, not influenced by what the public might say if it came to light.
I was critical of Bush and I'm critical of Obama. I didn't start criticizing Bush until about a year and a half into his first term. I withdrew my support for Obama around the same time in his first term. I criticized both Presidents for their actions in office.Is it reasonable to criticize others for not being critical of Bush when you are not critical of Obama?
With that being said, is it reasonable to ask those on the right who are criticizing Obama on his scandals in office, where were their criticisms of the last President during his scandals in office?
As I recall, the last President had his share of scandals and was criticized quite often from the left (which was well deserved), but all you heard from the right, was crickets. For 8 years you said nothing and now, at this time, you find your voice of dissent.
For those who said nothing then, I don't care to hear now.
For those who did say something then, I'm all ears!
BTW, Obama is responsible for everything his Administration does and saying he didn't know about something, is not a legal defense. It's his job to know.
