Sure they do.
Iraq Body Count
again.. Iraq was about oil for food, sanctions being broken, and illegal oil transfers post 9/11 for tereror funding.. and and your hero Clinton was bombing daily.. again this is not the subject so please stay on subject
Translation - Blah blah blah blah blah blah hey everyone look what Bush done 10 years ago blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah Bush blah Bush blah Bush blah I hate Bush so stop saying bad things about Obama blah blah blah.I don't know but a good start would be a confession from you "lunatics" that GW Bush needlessly caused the deaths of 4000+ Americans in a botched search for WMD's in Iraq.
That is incorrect. The privelege can be asserted over virtually any executive branch communication.
The Supreme Court did not reject the claim of privilege out of hand; it noted, in fact, "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process." This is very similar to the logic that the Court had used in establishing an "executive immunity" defense for high office-holders charged with violating citizens' constitutional rights in the course of performing their duties. The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III." Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence.
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 '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.
Translation - Blah blah blah blah blah blah hey everyone look what Bush done 10 years ago blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah Bush blah Bush blah Bush blah I hate Bush so stop saying bad things about Obama blah blah blah.
Seriously what does the Iraq war have to do with Fast & Furious?
Didn't say otherwise. Except that the precedent through the years has been WH communications, to and from. Not internal DoJ.
Kinda makes one wonder who brought Iraq into the thread eH?....WAIT THAT WAS YOU.:roll:
Don't you want to find out what happened that led our government to send 2000 guns to criminals in mexico, who killed 200 people and a border patrol agent, or is protecting Obama more important to you?
so much for Obama's "transparency" promise... :lamo
Well, you know I agree with you, Rev. This was all a botched plan to make it look like these guns came from the US, and to be a pretext for gun confiscations here in the US. What a shame, their little plan backfired. Now, they are playing the cover up game. Nothing like Executive Privilege to facilitate the cover up and break down the Constitution even farther. It is obvious this President has violated his oath to the Constitution. Impeach him.
So Obama was first handed involved in fast and furious? Last case like this, was nixon and the watergate tapes, and we all know how the supreme court ruled then.
If the president was involved, then Obama has a week argument for executive privilege (holder already said he didn't know about it), if Obama wasn't involved then there is no executive privilege....
Begs the question, WTF does Obama not want us to see?
I don't deal in jibber jabber. Bush isn't the president, nor the subject of this thread. Please for once try not to deflect to the president from almost 4 years ago, in order to give a pass to the one you like.
I challenge you to find one quote from me that changed the thread topic from F&F to Iraq... oh wait you can't because you were lying like ALL LIBERALS do.
Just like you lied when you stated that F&F started under Bush.
Why do ALL LIBERALS lie all the time about everything. Are they just compulsive liars? Do they know they're lying while the're always lying or are they just in denile. Seriously why can't Liberals be honest?
I challenge you to find one quote from me that changed the thread topic from F&F to Iraq... oh wait you can't because you were lying like ALL LIBERALS do.
Just like you lied when you stated that F&F started under Bush.
Why do ALL LIBERALS lie all the time about everything. Are they just compulsive liars? Do they know they're lying while the're always lying or are they just in denile. Seriously why can't Liberals be honest?
again.. Iraq was about oil for food, sanctions being broken, and illegal oil transfers post 9/11 for tereror funding.. and and your hero Clinton was bombing daily.. again this is not the subject so please stay on subject
Why can't you be honest instead of lying, saying that "all liberal lie all the time about everything?"
Sort of...those were the excuses, though the "terror funding" was sketchy at best.
I don't necessarily disagree that a war in Iraq would have been necessary, but I don't think it was necessary when it happened, and I don't think it was particularly well planned. Again, for another time.
| Moderator's Warning: |
As I pointed out above, Bush specifically asserted the privelege with respect to internal DOJ communications.
This will hurt Obama in the election, big time.
"With millions of Americans still struggling to pay the bills, Republicans announced at the beginning of this year that one of their top priorities was to investigate the Administration and damage the President politically. We are ten days away from the expiration of federal transportation funding which guarantees jobs for almost a million construction workers because Congress hasn't passed a transportation bill. We are eleven days away from nearly seven and a half million students seeing their loan rates double because Congress hasn't acted to stop it. But instead of creating jobs or strengthening the middle-class, Congressional Republicans are spending their time on a politically-motivated, taxpayer-funded election-year fishing expedition.
The problem of gunwalking was a field-driven tactic that dated back to the previous Administration, and it was this Administration's Attorney General who ended it. In fact, the Justice Department has spent the past fourteen months accommodating Congressional investigators, producing 7,600 pages of documents, and testifying at eleven Congressional hearings. Yet, Republicans insist on moving forward with an effort that Republicans and objective legal experts have noted is purely political.
Given the economic challenges facing the country, we believe that House Republicans should work with the rest of Congress and the President to create more jobs, not more political theater."
Sorry. No dice. What you quoted was a decision by Bush to stop his own Party from going after Bill Clinton's fundraising after Clinton was out of office.
Quite the contrary. What people care about is the economy. What pisses them off is Congress dicking around with this kind of political witch hunt when it should be dealing with real problems. See Obama ram it up the GOP's collective ass:
Quite the contrary. What people care about is the economy. What pisses them off is Congress dicking around with this kind of political witch hunt when it should be dealing with real problems. See Obama ram it up the GOP's collective ass:
Take you fail pail and stick it but before you do look up what year "Operation Wide Receiver" was launched.:mrgreen:
This will hurt Obama in the election, big time. The video in post 95 will be played over and over again and he'll have a tough time explaining his way out of this one. He is covering up for Holder who has already proven to be inept at his job. With his numbers already falling, this might just hand the presidency over to Romney.
Irrelevant to the issue of privelege. :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?