President Obama's Watergate moment?

[Value Buy]

Fast and the Furious
He now shows America he is not different than any other President, hiding behind Executive priviledge.
firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/20/12317893-obama-invokes-executive-privilege-over-doj-documents?lite

[Driftr]

Except didn't he previously state that he knew nothing about it? How does EP apply if he wasn't directly involved? Hmmmm....

Not sure if his 2007 thoughts on EP will copy correctly on not. Here goes.

[vandalshandle]

I don't know the details, but unless he is trying to protect government undercover people whose lives would be in danger, then Obama is seriously out of line.

[Deleted]

He is trying to protect someone in his administration

Other presidents have used this before.....but not sure if under the same circumstances

I think this hurts him politically

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2012 10:40:06 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Fast and the Furious
He now shows America he is not different than any other President, hiding behind Executive priviledge.
firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/20/12317893-obama-invokes-executive-privilege-over-doj-documents?lite

Clinton invoked EP 14 times. Bush, 7. i am having trouble getting worked up about this.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2012 10:50:10 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

He is trying to protect someone in his administration

Other presidents have used this before.....but not sure if under the same circumstances

I think this hurts him politically

it rarely hurts presidents to do this. but whatevah.

[vandalshandle]

I have been very uneasy with EP ever since that SOB Nixon was in office.

By the way, I have noticed that Nixon's name never appears in print without his title, "SOB". It is kind of like referring to attorneys by using "Esquire".

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2012 10:51:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 20, 2012 10:40:06 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Fast and the Furious
He now shows America he is not different than any other President, hiding behind Executive priviledge.
firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/20/12317893-obama-invokes-executive-privilege-over-doj-documents?lite

Clinton invoked EP 14 times. Bush, 7. i am having trouble getting worked up about this.

So.....because they did it, it's okay?

It's funny that using EP to cover something up is rarely ever frowned upon.

[workpublic]

what did the president know and when did he know it?

that takes me back. ah i feel like a teenager again.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2012 11:07:30 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 20, 2012 10:51:19 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Clinton invoked EP 14 times. Bush, 7. i am having trouble getting worked up about this.

So.....because they did it, it's okay?

of course not. it is hideous. but it is done, on average, once a year for the last (6) presidencies. want it to stop? fine by me. but i am not one to become selectively outraged, ft.

It's funny that using EP to cover something up is rarely ever frowned upon.

i am sure it is frowned upon, regularly. so is attacking foreign countries without a war resolution or even so much as a provocation. so is warrantless wiretapping against private parties, which has been done since Clinton. so is suspending habeas corpus, which was done under Lincoln, FDR, Bush and Obama.

the list is endless. do i like any of these things? of course not. i despise them. but it is no more or less wrong for them to be done under Obama than it was under all these other men. were any of the impeached for it? were any of them removed from office?

[djAdvocate]

by the way, i have found Holder to be kind of an extension of the Bush admin in terms of many civil liberties issues. i would love to see him canned, and i hope that is what happens, here.

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2012 11:18:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 20, 2012 11:07:30 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

So.....because they did it, it's okay?

of course not. it is hideous. but it is done, on average, once a year for the last (6) presidencies. want it to stop? fine by me. but i am not one to become selectively outraged, ft.

It's funny that using EP to cover something up is rarely ever frowned upon.

i am sure it is frowned upon, regularly. so is attacking foreign countries without a war resolution or even so much as a provocation. so is warrantless wiretapping against private parties, which has been done since Clinton. so is suspending habeas corpus, which was done under Lincoln, FDR, Bush and Obama.

the list is endless. do i like any of these things? of course not. i despise them. but it is no more or less wrong for them to be done under Obama than it was under all these other men. were any of the impeached for it? were any of them removed from office?

That's all well and good....but the reason it doesn't change is because to many people have the same attitude towards it as you:

"This person did it..and that person...and this and that person...so I'm not going to concern myself with it."

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2012 11:28:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

by the way, i have found Holder to be kind of an extension of the Bush admin in terms of many civil liberties issues. i would love to see him canned, and i hope that is what happens, here.

To be honest: While Obama has not even closely lived up to the "Hope & Change" hype BS, the moment I truly stopped caring for him as Americas POTUS was when the Patriot Act was re-upped.

You have control of all 3 houses and you let that POS legislation continue! Yeah...you didn't really want "Change". You just wanted Power.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2012 11:28:10 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 20, 2012 11:18:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am sure it is frowned upon, regularly. so is attacking foreign countries without a war resolution or even so much as a provocation. so is warrantless wiretapping against private parties, which has been done since Clinton. so is suspending habeas corpus, which was done under Lincoln, FDR, Bush and Obama.

the list is endless. do i like any of these things? of course not. i despise them. but it is no more or less wrong for them to be done under Obama than it was under all these other men. were any of the impeached for it? were any of them removed from office?

That's all well and good....but the reason it doesn't change is because to many people have the same attitude towards it as you:

"This person did it..and that person...and this and that person...so I'm not going to concern myself with it."

ok, if i implied i was not concerned, i apologize. i AM concerned. but i was also concerned when Bush did it. i was concerned when Clinton did it. i was concerned when Reagan did it. nothing every happened because of that concern, ft. NOTHING. instead, we went after Clinton for a $100k land deal and lying about sex.

forgive me for having no faith whatsoever in the US public going after a sitting president for what seem to me to be glaring indiscretions and usurptations of the constitution. it just doesn't happen. our presidents rule imperially.

i hate it.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Perhaps there is a cover-up in the works:


In requesting that Obama assert executive privilege, Holder said he is “very concerned that the compelled production to Congress of internal Executive Branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning its response to congressional oversight would have significant and damaging consequences.” This, he added, “would raise substantial separation of powers concerns and potentially create an imbalance in the relationship” between Congress and the White House.”

Holder has reason to be concerned. Rep. Issa’s Committee wants to find out whether, as part of its “deliberative process,” the Department of Justice engaged in a cover-up, including knowingly making false statements to the Commmittee, about the scandalous Fast and Furious program. To the extent that DOJ is discovered through its own documents to have done so, Holder and the administration would face significant and damaging consequences.

www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/white-house-asserts-executive-privilege-claim-to-further-dojs-fast-and-furious-cover-up.php

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2012 11:30:27 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 20, 2012 11:28:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

by the way, i have found Holder to be kind of an extension of the Bush admin in terms of many civil liberties issues. i would love to see him canned, and i hope that is what happens, here.

To be honest: While Obama has not even closely lived up to the "Hope & Change" hype BS, the moment I truly stopped caring for him as Americas POTUS was when the Patriot Act was re-upped.

bingo. but actually, he never really specified what hope and change was, so there was no reason for disillusionment. that means that anyone can read what they want into it, dude. did he give you the kind of change you wanted? of course not. but you didn't vote for him, right? neither did i. so what do we REALLY have to complain about?

You have control of all 3 houses and you let that POS legislation continue! Yeah...you didn't really want "Change". You just wanted Power.

i disagree about "just wanting power". no president runs because of one thing. did he want power? of course. all presidential candidates do.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2012 11:31:56 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Perhaps there is a cover-up in the works:


In requesting that Obama assert executive privilege, Holder said he is “very concerned that the compelled production to Congress of internal Executive Branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning its response to congressional oversight would have significant and damaging consequences.” This, he added, “would raise substantial separation of powers concerns and potentially create an imbalance in the relationship” between Congress and the White House.”

Holder has reason to be concerned. Rep. Issa’s Committee wants to find out whether, as part of its “deliberative process,” the Department of Justice engaged in a cover-up, including knowingly making false statements to the Commmittee, about the scandalous Fast and Furious program. To the extent that DOJ is discovered through its own documents to have done so, Holder and the administration would face significant and damaging consequences.

www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/06/white-house-asserts-executive-privilege-claim-to-further-dojs-fast-and-furious-cover-up.php

what are the credentials of this blogger, SF?

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2012 11:35:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 20, 2012 11:30:27 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

To be honest: While Obama has not even closely lived up to the "Hope & Change" hype BS, the moment I truly stopped caring for him as Americas POTUS was when the Patriot Act was re-upped.

bingo. but actually, he never really specified what hope and change was, so there was no reason for disillusionment. that means that anyone can read what they want into it, dude. did he give you the kind of change you wanted? of course not. but you didn't vote for him, right? neither did i. so what do we REALLY have to complain about?

You have control of all 3 houses and you let that POS legislation continue! Yeah...you didn't really want "Change". You just wanted Power.

i disagree about "just wanting power". no president runs because of one thing. did he want power? of course. all presidential candidates do.

Actually I did vote for him. Most people think I have an (R) by my name but the last time I voted for a POTUS with an (R) by his name was in 2000.

[TonyTiger]

Watergate moment, or Iran Contra moment, or both? ;D

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2012 11:42:41 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Watergate moment, or Iran Contra moment, or both? ;D

Iran Contra is a good example of the problem, actually. there were multiple criminal actions taking place in that enterprise, and lots of people got indicted, canned, put on trial, etc.

how do we think of Reagan, now? was he impeached?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2012 11:39:08 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 20, 2012 11:35:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i disagree about "just wanting power". no president runs because of one thing. did he want power? of course. all presidential candidates do.

Actually I did vote for him. Most people think I have an (R) by my name but the last time I voted for a POTUS with an (R) by his name was in 2000.

ok, point withdrawn. you have skin in the game. i don't.

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2012 11:44:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 20, 2012 11:39:08 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Actually I did vote for him. Most people think I have an (R) by my name but the last time I voted for a POTUS with an (R) by his name was in 2000.

ok, point withdrawn. you have skin in the game. i don't.

Anybody who voted has skin in the game regardless of who "won".

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2012 11:46:33 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 20, 2012 11:44:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ok, point withdrawn. you have skin in the game. i don't.

Anybody who voted has skin in the game regardless of who "won".

your opinion, not mine. i think that you voted "for" hope and change, and i didn't. that is what i meant.

i could actually spend a lot of time elaborating this point, but it is essentially really basic, so why bother?

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2012 11:49:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 20, 2012 11:46:33 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Anybody who voted has skin in the game regardless of who "won".

your opinion, not mine. i think that you voted "for" hope and change, and i didn't. that is what i meant.

i could actually spend a lot of time elaborating this point, but it is essentially really basic, so why bother?

I thought that BS line was rather ignorant but most people fell for it. I just couldn't bring myself to vote for 2 nitwits in McCain/Palin. Something about McCain just irked me. I didn't vote for Obama for any other reason than I couldn't bring myself to vote McCain.

[TonyTiger]

Jun 20, 2012 12:05:24 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

"...I didn't vote for Obama for any other reason than I couldn't bring myself to vote McCain."

Amen.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2012 12:05:24 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 20, 2012 11:49:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

your opinion, not mine. i think that you voted "for" hope and change, and i didn't. that is what i meant.

i could actually spend a lot of time elaborating this point, but it is essentially really basic, so why bother?

I thought that BS line was rather ignorant but most people fell for it. I just couldn't bring myself to vote for 2 nitwits in McCain/Palin. Something about McCain just irked me. I didn't vote for Obama for any other reason than I couldn't bring myself to vote McCain.

McCain is on a really weird trajectory. he used to be moderate and iconoclastic. i LOVED that. i would have voted for him in 2000. but by 2008 he was kinda...well....like Bush. i think there were two things that did me in with him. the first was him voting in favor of the MCA2006, including the indefinite detainment and enhanced interrogation stuff, in light of his background. that really irked me a LOT. the second was when he voted AGAINST his own landmark campaign finance legislation. that also bugged me a lot.

i might have voted for him if he had run with Lieberman, like he wanted to. but capitulating to the loony bin and running with Palin was way too much for me.

[Deleted]

What a sad state of affairs that we have

When elections are won by the "best" of the worst

Well....my guy is not as "bad" as your guy......lol

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2012 12:15:11 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

What a sad state of affairs that we have

When elections are won by the "best" of the worst

Well....my guy is not as "bad" as your guy......lol

No...they all suck equally! ;D

[mmhmm]

You got that one right, financialtexan!

[handyman2]

What I understand is that one part of executive privilege allows for the president to shield comunications between themselves and staff from being made public. This seems to be what he is doing since these were some of the documents requested. This is perfectly legal.
However it may leave the impression that it may show whether everybody was truthful when testifying before the commitee. Although it is legal it puts the administration in a tough position. Danged if you do and danged if you don't.