WH Thinks It's ABOVE THE LAW?

[Steelplate]

and as for risks failures, etc...

I agree.

However...if you were going to invest a large sum of money...and you reviewed the papaerwork...and all indications are that the company was going out of business within a year....and other analysts told you the same thing...

Would you still invest the money or would you look for a better "green technology" investment?

I understand what you are saying... and I do wonder why. Perhaps there was something promising that his advisers, or he himself noticed... I don't know.

Guess we won't know either... executive privilege and all. And BTW... Executive Privilege has been going on since 1796. In fact... Bushie was the king of Executive Privilege.....

President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege to deny disclosure of sought details regarding former Attorney General Janet Reno,[2] the scandal involving Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) misuse of organized-crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi in Boston, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fundraising tactics, in December 2001.[8]

Bush invoked executive privilege "in substance" in refusing to disclose the details of Vice President Dick Cheney's meetings with energy executives, which was not appealed by the GAO. In a separate Supreme Court decision in 2004, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted "Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power 'not to be lightly invoked.' United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953).

"Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive’s claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances. These 'occasion for constitutional confrontation between the two branches' are likely to be avoided whenever possible. United States v. Nixon, supra, at 692."[9]

Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10] citing that:

The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.

On July 9, 2007, Bush again invoked executive privilege to block a congressional subpoena requiring the testimonies of Taylor and Miers. Furthermore, White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding refused to comply with a deadline set by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain its privilege claim, prove that the president personally invoked it, and provide logs of which documents were being withheld. On July 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee voted to cite Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten for contempt of Congress.[11][12]

On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.[13]

On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove. The subpoena would have required the President's Senior Advisor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Fielding claimed that "Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity...."[14]

Leahy claimed that President Bush was not involved with the employment terminations of U.S. attorneys. Furthermore, he asserted that the president's executive privilege claims protecting Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove are illegal. The Senator demanded that Bolten, Rove, Sara Taylor, and J. Scott Jennings comply "immediately" with their subpoenas, presumably to await a further review of these matters. This development paved the way for a Senate panel vote on whether to advance the citations to the full Senate. "It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort", Leahy concluded about these incidents.[15][16][17][18]

As of July 17, 2008, Rove is still claiming executive privilege to avoid a congressional subpoena. Rove's lawyer writes that his client is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony."[19]

No... I am not blaming BOOOOOSH. I am just saying that because it's a President that you don't like... you guys are doing the same thing that the Libs who "KNOW" Cain harrassed those women.

It's the exact same thing that Conservatives have been doing since that dreadful day in November 2008, when they found out Obama was going to be President.

thanks for the read...good stuff

And this has nothing to do with a President i like or dont like.

This has to do with my rights as a law abiding tax payer.

And executive privelage is outlined to cover ONLY items of national security, foreign relations and military affairs....for obvious reasons..

But to apply iot to this?

It smells very fishy. What does the WH have to hide? They made a bad investment. Big deal. What are they concerned about coming out in regard to this?

C'mon... take off the Republican hat for a second....This Administration has been through the political wringer since even before he took office. Birthers, Truthers, Tea Party exaggerations and sometimes out and out lies.. Killing Grandma... I mean... Just look through the pages of this message board, and EVERY DAY, there's something written or broadcast by someone to something new this poor fucker has done wrong.

Doesn't THAT seem fishy to you? or only the executive privilege?

 

[Jarhead]

What part of "all" of the associated documents does the WH not understand?

What do legislators not understand about "co-eval branches of government" and "executive privilege"?

well...I see YOU have limited knowledge of what executive privelage covers.

How can you cirticize legislators when you, yourself, dont know if they are in the right or the wrong?

FYI...executive privelage does not cover issues such as lendiung a private company money. Congress has a legal right to ALL documents, meeting minutes and emails.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What part of "all" of the associated documents does the WH not understand?

What do legislators not understand about "co-eval branches of government" and "executive privilege"?

well...I see YOU have limited knowledge of what executive privelage covers.

How can you cirticize legislators when you, yourself, dont know if they are in the right or the wrong?

FYI...executive privelage does not cover issues such as lendiung a private company money. Congress has a legal right to ALL documents, meeting minutes and emails.

{snap: dodo falls into the trap} You are not the judge of that, but I was waiting for some bird of little knowledge to come along. I do know that the legislators are not the judge of what is right or wrong in this matter. Look up executive privilege and co-eval branches.

Then look up the role of the federal judiciary in aribtrating these issues.

You, sir, are a dodo.

 

[AmericanFirst]

You keep watching MurdochTV & keeping us updated WillowTank

So it doesnt bother you that YOUR honest media does not feel you should know about this?

You said his media was honest? Surely you jest.

 

[Jarhead]

I understand what you are saying... and I do wonder why. Perhaps there was something promising that his advisers, or he himself noticed... I don't know.

Guess we won't know either... executive privilege and all. And BTW... Executive Privilege has been going on since 1796. In fact... Bushie was the king of Executive Privilege.....

President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege to deny disclosure of sought details regarding former Attorney General Janet Reno,[2] the scandal involving Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) misuse of organized-crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi in Boston, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fundraising tactics, in December 2001.[8]

Bush invoked executive privilege "in substance" in refusing to disclose the details of Vice President Dick Cheney's meetings with energy executives, which was not appealed by the GAO. In a separate Supreme Court decision in 2004, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted "Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power 'not to be lightly invoked.' United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953).

"Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive’s claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances. These 'occasion for constitutional confrontation between the two branches' are likely to be avoided whenever possible. United States v. Nixon, supra, at 692."[9]

Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10] citing that:

The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.

On July 9, 2007, Bush again invoked executive privilege to block a congressional subpoena requiring the testimonies of Taylor and Miers. Furthermore, White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding refused to comply with a deadline set by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain its privilege claim, prove that the president personally invoked it, and provide logs of which documents were being withheld. On July 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee voted to cite Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten for contempt of Congress.[11][12]

On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.[13]

On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove. The subpoena would have required the President's Senior Advisor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Fielding claimed that "Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity...."[14]

Leahy claimed that President Bush was not involved with the employment terminations of U.S. attorneys. Furthermore, he asserted that the president's executive privilege claims protecting Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove are illegal. The Senator demanded that Bolten, Rove, Sara Taylor, and J. Scott Jennings comply "immediately" with their subpoenas, presumably to await a further review of these matters. This development paved the way for a Senate panel vote on whether to advance the citations to the full Senate. "It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort", Leahy concluded about these incidents.[15][16][17][18]

As of July 17, 2008, Rove is still claiming executive privilege to avoid a congressional subpoena. Rove's lawyer writes that his client is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony."[19]

No... I am not blaming BOOOOOSH. I am just saying that because it's a President that you don't like... you guys are doing the same thing that the Libs who "KNOW" Cain harrassed those women.

It's the exact same thing that Conservatives have been doing since that dreadful day in November 2008, when they found out Obama was going to be President.

thanks for the read...good stuff

And this has nothing to do with a President i like or dont like.

This has to do with my rights as a law abiding tax payer.

And executive privelage is outlined to cover ONLY items of national security, foreign relations and military affairs....for obvious reasons..

But to apply iot to this?

It smells very fishy. What does the WH have to hide? They made a bad investment. Big deal. What are they concerned about coming out in regard to this?

C'mon... take off the Republican hat for a second....This Administration has been through the political wringer since even before he took office. Birthers, Truthers, Tea Party exaggerations and sometimes out and out lies.. Killing Grandma... I mean... Just look through the pages of this message board, and EVERY DAY, there's something written or broadcast by someone to something new this poor fucker has done wrong.

Doesn't THAT seem fishy to you? or only the executive privilege?

Republican hat?
I am a conservative.

I despise Boehner for the exact reason I despise Obama.

Now, that being said...

We did not force him to be president. He asked us to elect him.

EVERY president is the "poor fucker" you just described. No sympathy here. It comes with the job.

Now...that ebing said...I want to know what he is hiding regarding this loan. I have the right to know. He does not need to do a dam thing. All he needs to do is have some lowly staffer make coppies of the docs.....he can be doing president stuff in the meantime......he doesnt need to lift a finger.

So whats the big deal?

Dpont you want to know if he, or someone in the WH, or someone in congress did someth8ing unethical?

Or should we all sit around and let these politicians do as they please?

LMAO...I sometimes picture Obama and Boehner sitting in the oval office laughinb at us saying things like.,.....let them think we hate each other...its fun...in the meantime, when you and I retire, we will have benefits for life and we will be playing golf together in Aruba on a weekly baisis. Michelle wants to get together next friday. You avaiable?

 

[Jarhead]

You keep watching MurdochTV & keeping us updated WillowTank

So it doesnt bother you that YOUR honest media does not feel you should know about this?

You said his media was honest? Surely you jest.

Yes...I jest.

 

[Jarhead]

What do legislators not understand about "co-eval branches of government" and "executive privilege"?

well...I see YOU have limited knowledge of what executive privelage covers.

How can you cirticize legislators when you, yourself, dont know if they are in the right or the wrong?

FYI...executive privelage does not cover issues such as lendiung a private company money. Congress has a legal right to ALL documents, meeting minutes and emails.

{snap: dodo falls into the trap} You are not the judge of that, but I was waiting for some bird of little knowledge to come along. I do know that the legislators are not the judge of what is right or wrong in this matter. Look up executive privilege and co-eval branches.

Then look up the role of the federal judiciary in aribtrating these issues.

You, sir, are a dodo.

good luck with that.
Doesnt work with me. Try it on someone else.

 

[AmericanFirst]

the last admin set the precedent.

Still waiting on Roves emails.

Dimwits set the precedent for being crooked along time ago. Then clinton came along. Now it is worse.

 

[Conservative]

I see the words 'executive privilege' being tossed about a lot in this thread. I don;t see in the OP where the White House has claimed it, however... just that they complained the subpoena was 'over broad', and were not going to comply fully.

has Obama claimed executive privilege here? If not, then comparisons to Bush doing so area immaterial.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh please.

Not only did they ignore supoenas, they refused to take any oaths when they did testify and they classified just about everything secret.

That and they redacted an entire chapter from the 9/11 commission report that implicated the Saudis as responsible.

I'm talking strictly about ignoring subpoenas at the moment, as that was the topic initially under discussion in the OP I commented on. I am not disputing anything else you just said, mind you. I am simply asking if there were cases where the Bush White House ignored a lawful subpoena, as the Obama White House appears to be doing now.

Well it wasn't a one time thing. They did it alot.

Lawyer: Bush told ex-staff to ignore subpoena - politics - msnbc.com
Judge Rules Bush Advisers Can’t Ignore Subpoenas - NYTimes.com


Once you have an established precedent, it's extremely difficult to make the case that sort of behavior doesn't apply here.

Here's the problem with your "established precedent" argument...

The Bush White House was completely within it's legal rights when it let several US Attorney's go, as such US Attorney's serve at the convenience of the President. The attempt by Democrats to politicize the issue was without legal basis hence the decision by the White House to ignore subpoenas and let the issue be settled in court.

Contrast that to the Solyndra loan approval and the subsequent change in the order of credit. It looks very much like the interests of the US taxpayers were ignored by this Administration to reward a large campaign contributor. The letting go of those US Attorneys was not only legal...it didn't cost American taxpayers a half a billion dollars. That isn't the case with Solyndra.

 

[Jarhead]

I see the words 'executive privilege' being tossed about a lot in this thread. I don;t see in the OP where the White House has claimed it, however... just that they complained the subpoena was 'over broad', and were not going to comply fully.

has Obama claimed executive privilege here? If not, then comparisons to Bush doing so area immaterial.

yes. He claimed executive privelage. He refuses tro hand over text messages and emails reagrding the Solyndra loan.

 

[WillowTree]

I understand what you are saying... and I do wonder why. Perhaps there was something promising that his advisers, or he himself noticed... I don't know.

Guess we won't know either... executive privilege and all. And BTW... Executive Privilege has been going on since 1796. In fact... Bushie was the king of Executive Privilege.....

President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege to deny disclosure of sought details regarding former Attorney General Janet Reno,[2] the scandal involving Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) misuse of organized-crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi in Boston, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fundraising tactics, in December 2001.[8]

Bush invoked executive privilege "in substance" in refusing to disclose the details of Vice President Dick Cheney's meetings with energy executives, which was not appealed by the GAO. In a separate Supreme Court decision in 2004, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted "Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power 'not to be lightly invoked.' United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953).

"Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive’s claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances. These 'occasion for constitutional confrontation between the two branches' are likely to be avoided whenever possible. United States v. Nixon, supra, at 692."[9]

Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10] citing that:

The reason for these distinctions rests upon a bedrock presidential prerogative: for the President to perform his constitutional duties, it is imperative that he receive candid and unfettered advice and that free and open discussions and deliberations occur among his advisors and between those advisors and others within and outside the Executive Branch.

On July 9, 2007, Bush again invoked executive privilege to block a congressional subpoena requiring the testimonies of Taylor and Miers. Furthermore, White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding refused to comply with a deadline set by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain its privilege claim, prove that the president personally invoked it, and provide logs of which documents were being withheld. On July 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee voted to cite Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten for contempt of Congress.[11][12]

On July 13, less than a week after claiming executive privilege for Miers and Taylor, Counsel Fielding effectively claimed the privilege once again, this time in relation to documents related to the 2004 death of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. In a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Fielding claimed certain papers relating to discussion of the friendly-fire shooting “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and would therefore not be turned over to the committee.[13]

On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove. The subpoena would have required the President's Senior Advisor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Fielding claimed that "Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity...."[14]

Leahy claimed that President Bush was not involved with the employment terminations of U.S. attorneys. Furthermore, he asserted that the president's executive privilege claims protecting Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove are illegal. The Senator demanded that Bolten, Rove, Sara Taylor, and J. Scott Jennings comply "immediately" with their subpoenas, presumably to await a further review of these matters. This development paved the way for a Senate panel vote on whether to advance the citations to the full Senate. "It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort", Leahy concluded about these incidents.[15][16][17][18]

As of July 17, 2008, Rove is still claiming executive privilege to avoid a congressional subpoena. Rove's lawyer writes that his client is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony."[19]

No... I am not blaming BOOOOOSH. I am just saying that because it's a President that you don't like... you guys are doing the same thing that the Libs who "KNOW" Cain harrassed those women.

It's the exact same thing that Conservatives have been doing since that dreadful day in November 2008, when they found out Obama was going to be President.

thanks for the read...good stuff

And this has nothing to do with a President i like or dont like.

This has to do with my rights as a law abiding tax payer.

And executive privelage is outlined to cover ONLY items of national security, foreign relations and military affairs....for obvious reasons..

But to apply iot to this?

It smells very fishy. What does the WH have to hide? They made a bad investment. Big deal. What are they concerned about coming out in regard to this?

C'mon... take off the Republican hat for a second....This Administration has been through the political wringer since even before he took office. Birthers, Truthers, Tea Party exaggerations and sometimes out and out lies.. Killing Grandma... I mean... Just look through the pages of this message board, and EVERY DAY, there's something written or broadcast by someone to something new this poor fucker has done wrong.

Doesn't THAT seem fishy to you? or only the executive privilege?

that's rich ain't it? coming from a democrat? Who made an video depicting Paul Ryan pushing Grandma in a wheelchair off a cliff? Who was that again? Whatyasay? We can't hear ewe! cry us a fucking river whydonchya?

 

[WillowTree]

I see the words 'executive privilege' being tossed about a lot in this thread. I don;t see in the OP where the White House has claimed it, however... just that they complained the subpoena was 'over broad', and were not going to comply fully.

has Obama claimed executive privilege here? If not, then comparisons to Bush doing so area immaterial.

yes. He claimed executive privelage. He refuses tro hand over text messages and emails reagrding the Solyndra loan.

yep,, that and the fact that they even possess 85 thousand pages of documents put them asshole to eyeball in the pissing away 585 million tax payer dollars.

 

[Oldstyle]

Sooo... just out of curiosity... How many Documents are there? 85K seems like a hell of a lot of documents.

To put it the way a Conservative did a few posts ago.

Commission: We want to see all internal Documents pertaining to Solyndra.

WH: OK... let us dig 'em up.....(Time passes by)..... Ok, here ya go... 85K pages of stuff... have at it.

(Commission scours over the documents with a fine tooth comb and finds nothing)

Commission: No... We meant your real Birth Certif..... er, I mean All of the Documents!

WH: We gave them to you

Commission: You are refusing to cooperate!

With all due respect, Steel? Document "dumping" is the oldest legal trick in the book. You wait as long as you possibly can and then you give your adversary a mountain of documents through which they then have to sift looking for relevant material while you sit back and chuckle your ass off because you never included anything that was damaging in the documents you released. You then announce to the media that you are cooperating fully in the investigation as evidenced by the 85,000 pages you just handed over. Then when your opposition realizes that you gave them nothing but chaff and asks for ALL relevant material, you accuse them of wanting the Sun, the Moon and the Stars and paint them as unreasonable.

And you KNOW this is what's going on as a fact? Or is it opinion?

It's totally my opinion, Steel but I'd be willing to bet a few bucks that I'm spot on. You know that what I just described is done every day by lawyers across the country. You also seemed shocked by the "volume" of material the White House had turned over the day before the vote. I submit that the most logical explanation for them turning over 85,000 pages of material that subsequently didn't contain anything the opposition was looking for, was that the White House document dumped them.

 

[daveman]

C'mon... take off the Republican hat for a second....This Administration has been through the political wringer since even before he took office. Birthers, Truthers, Tea Party exaggerations and sometimes out and out lies.. Killing Grandma... I mean... Just look through the pages of this message board, and EVERY DAY, there's something written or broadcast by someone to something new this poor fucker has done wrong.

Doesn't THAT seem fishy to you? or only the executive privilege?

Poor Obama. It's just not right that he has to answer for his actions.

 

[daveman]

Man, this thread sure has brought out the mindless Obamabots, hasn't it?

 

[WillowTree]

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

White House Misses Deadline for Solyndra Subpoena



The White House on Thursday missed the noon deadline for responding to the Republican-approved subpoena issued last week demanding the White House turn over "all documents" pertaining to the Solyndra loan guarantee.
But while White House aides earlier told Fox News there are no plans to produce more documents on the bankrupt solar panel firm until Republicans agree to narrow the scope of their request, House Republicans issued a statement saying they expect some response from the White House by the end of the day.


Read more: White House Misses Deadline For Solyndra Subpoena | Fox News











White House spokesman Eric Schultz noted Thursday that the administration has produced more than 85,000 pages of documents to date, including 20,000 pages the day before the vote on the subpoena

Read more: White House Misses Deadline For Solyndra Subpoena | Fox News









If the WH had nothing to do with the Solyndra debacle then why would they possess 85 thousand pages of documents???? to date?????

Well then go ahead righties in the House, hold the President of the United States in Contempt of Congress.

Do it righties.

I fucking DARE you

GOOD LUCK getting the Attorney General to arrest him!

 

[Meister]

Their response is to release Nixon's testimony before the Grand Jury on Watergate.

When Obama leaves office he's gonna destroy millions of documents. He'd better hope the next prez doesn't investigate him.

I hear Sandy "Burglar" is still looking for a job.

 

[WillowTree]

meltdown on isle one. ooopaaaalaaappaaaaa paaaa/