Steelplate
Bluesman
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 Executives Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executives claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances. These 'occasionfor 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?