President Obama's Watergate moment?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 20, 2012 13:28:06 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

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.

compelling a sitting president to disclose his personal correspondence, some of which is no doubt of a sensitive nation, is a very complicated issue. it is not as simple as making this into a Watergate.

[henryclay]

Having at first said he was not aware of the details on fast and furious, Obama now uses Executive Privilege to try to keep the congress from finding out what the details were that he didn't know about.

Executive privilege is a useful tool for keeping the branches of government separate and equal. It however, is not a wall to hide illegal activities that lead to the deaths of anybody, American or otherwise, and certainly not the death of American law enforcement officers who are on duty trying to protect Americans from those illegal activities.

Obama's top law enforcement officer has been cited in Contempt of Congress. It will now go to the full House for another vote. After 18 months of stonewalling, this may not be the time for Obama to be defending illegal activities that resulted in massive gun running and untold numbers of deaths. It is just not a very good campaign tactic for re-election.

I believe we can foresee another of his secrets being discussed by the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see how those nine stalwarts vote. Either they will uphold the law or we will see another step being taken into the oblivion of a dying democracy.

nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/20/12320390-house-republicans-vote-to-cite-holder-for-contempt-in-fast-and-furious-scandal?lite

[Tennesseer]

There's one thread already running on this henryclay.

www.notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=23944

[mmhmm]

S'okay, henry. I'll combine this thread with the thread started first to maintain continuity.

[henryclay]

S'okay, mmhmm. The thread may have eventually come around to the issue, but is was surely not getting there.

The whole thing has been headed for the Supreme Court all along and the sad part of it is because of the Obama Administration's policy makers have been systematically skirting convention and ruling by fiat in so may areas. And the real sickening part is that the ONLY thng behind it all is partisan politics, with an entire leadership resorting to gangater tactics. And where did most of them learn their trade? Why, , , ,in Chicago of course.

[billisonboard]

The Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) hired people to break into the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate office complex. The President and his staff attempted to cover up their involvement in this politically motivated crime by invoking executive privilege. Fast and Furious might have been as bad of an idea as the break-in but, other than that, don't see how the two are even close to similar on the issue of executive privilege.

[henryclay]

Jun 20, 2012 17:53:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) hired people to break into the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate office complex. The President and his staff attempted to cover up their involvement in this politically motivated crime by invoking executive privilege. Fast and Furious might have been as bad of an idea as the break-in but, other than that, don't see how the two are even close to similar on the issue of executive privilege.

How discerning, , , how VERY discerning. And I'll bet there are some people in Congress who see it that way, too.

Probably a LOT of people in Congress, , , , , , , ,

[Don Perignon]

Espionage against an opposing political party is subversive.
Fast & Furious wasn't subversive, it was just ill-advised and poorly executed.
The first was an attempt to subvert the American political process, the second was an attempt to subvert Mexican gangs and druglords.
I'd say the motivation behind the two operations couldn't be more different.

And Iran-Contra involved far more. It was much more complicated, insidious, devious and Macchiavellian.
Oddly, nowadays Oliver North struts around, doing appearances and television... glorifying the Soldier of Fortune mystique.
Ollie is the kind of man Putin might admire...

[Value Buy]

This is not, much ado about nothing.
This is important.
This is not different than Watergate, or Iran contra.
the degree of intensiness of illegality, may be less, but, the intent to deflect or hide information is not.

[billisonboard]

Jun 21, 2012 6:57:54 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

This is not, much ado about nothing.
This is important.
This is not different than Watergate, or Iran contra.
the degree of intensiness of illegality, may be less, but, the intent to deflect or hide information is not.

Already dealt with why it is significantly different than Watergate in reply #35.

Re: Iran-Contra:
I am not aware of any Boland I or II Amendments that the Obama Administration has "worked around" so I am not sure what was "illegal" that took place in Fast & Furious.

Does seem somewhat like the "Iran" half of that affair.

[Deleted]

Fast and furious was a big mistake (not a well thought out or executed plan)

Administrations have been making mistakes since Washington took office

But as they say, they cover up is always worse than the crime or mistake itself

That is where we are today....the President has chosen to use EP to hide his correspondence, or that of AG Holder, because of what?

It will come out eventually...but way after the elections...probably 2-3 years down the line

And who knows what the documents will entail......but it will make for interesting coversations at that point

[djAdvocate]

not a big fan of Holder. don't give a f*&k what happens to him.

[floridayankee]

If this involved steroids and baseball, Congress would have been all over it 2 years ago.

[b2r]

Why It's...It's...It's a vast right wing conspiracy to supress the vote!



Nancy, Botulinum Toxin has the word TOXIN right there in the name!

[djAdvocate]

people still listen to her?

[Deleted]

How many dead people with Watergate cover up?
Hundreds?
Because we are talking about hundreds of dead Mexicans here and at least one American.
The msm can downplay it all they want to. They can portray it as all politics all they want to.
The truth will come out eventually.
It always does.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 23, 2012 20:08:51 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

How many dead people with Watergate cover up?
Hundreds?
Because we are talking about hundreds of dead Mexicans here and at least one American.
The msm can downplay it all they want to. They can portray it as all politics all they want to.
The truth will come out eventually.
It always does.

do you pin any of this on Bush? this program started in 2006, after all.

[Deleted]

Bush weapons had tracking devices.
Obama's did not .
Bush informed Mexican officials of the operation.
Obama did not.
Bush shut it down when Mexcans were being killed with the Americans guns and they were not able to keep track of the weapons.
Obama sent them more guns. Thousands more guns.
eta: and he didn't shut it down until weeks after a border patrol agent was killed with 3 of those American guns being found at the scene of his murder.