Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not true. Just because Nixon used Executive Privilege, doesn't mean its use is never legitimate.
LOLHow do you all feel about this???
Darrell Issa: No evidence White House involved in ‘Fast and Furious’ - 2chambers - The Washington Post
They were trying to Crusade against Obama with no reason to believe that he was with holding information. Too bad, game over. looks like this was just another political ploy by the GOP leadership to make Obama look terrible.
That means that the president has no right to invoke executive privilege.
No one ever said it was NEVER legitimate. EO is used quite often, legitimately.
But you know what's funny?
Those EOs are only REPORTED ON when there's something SCREWY about the circumstances!
I hate to break it to you - he's done it.
You really have no idea how the government runs do you?It shouldn't have been necessary to invoke Executive Privilege, because the Justice Dept already possesses sufficient "privilege" to keep those documents confidential. It is only because Issa refuses to recognize Holder's rights (not to mention his responsibilities) in this situation. It was a remaining legal avenue to preserve the confidentiality of Justice Dept files. Translation: Obama had to do this because Darrell Issa is crazy.
I agree that this action is worthy of comment, but for an entirely different reason, as I explained above - LOL!
I hate to break it to you - he's done it.
I hate to break it to you... well.. no I don't.
The president isn't above the law, this invocation of EP will be seen by history as the same thing as when Nixon did it.
TerranceL:
You really have no idea how the government runs do you?
It's the Congress job to provide oversight for the government.
Deputy Attorney General Coles representation that the President has asserted executive privilege over the relevant post-February 4, 2011, documents raised concerns that there wasgreater White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious than previously thought.
2
Thecourts have never considered executive privilege to extend to internal Executive Branchdeliberative documents.Absent from the Attorney Generals eight-page letter were the controlling authoritiesfrom the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. As the court held in the seminalcase of In re Sealed Case (Espy):
[FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]3 [/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]The D.C. Circuit established the operational proximity test to determine whichcommunications are subject to privilege. [/FONT][FONT=cd9800318d998e9e0a013eb0#901000]Espy [/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]made clear that it is operational proximity to thePresident that matters in determining whether the presidents confidentiality interest isimplicated.[/FONT]
[FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]The privilege should not extend to staff outside the White House in[/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]executive branch [/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]agencies. [/FONT]Instead, the privilege should apply only tocommunications authored or solicited and received by those members of an immediate White House advisers staff who have broad and significantresponsibility for investigating and formulating the advice to be given thePresident on the particular matter to which the communications relate.
[FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]4 [/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]In addition, even if the presidential communications privilege did apply to some of thesesubpoenaed documents, [/FONT][FONT=cd9800318d998e9e0a013eb0#901000]Espy [/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]made clear that the presidential communications privilege is, at alltimes, a qualified one, and that a showing of need could overcome it.[/FONT]
[FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]5 [/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]Such a need indeed acompelling one plainly exists in this case.The Justice Department has steadfastly maintained that the documents sought by the[/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]Committee do not implicate the [/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]White House whatsoever. [/FONT]If true, they are at best deliberativedocuments between and among Department personnel who lack the requisite operational proximity to the President. As such, they cannot be withheld pursuant to the constitutionally- based executive privilege. Courts distinguish between the presidential communications privilegeand the deliberative process privilege. Both, the [FONT=cd9800318d998e9e0a013eb0#901000]Espy [/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]court observed, are executive privileges [/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]designed to protect [/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]the confidentiality of [/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]Executive Branch decision-making. [/FONT]The deliberative- process privilege, however, which applies to executive branch officials generally, is a commonlaw privilege that requires a lower threshold of need to be overcome, and disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct has occurred.
[FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]6 [/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]The Committee must assume that the White House Counsels Office is fully aware of the prevailing authorities of [/FONT][FONT=cd9800318d998e9e0a013eb0#901000]Espy[/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000], discussed above, and [/FONT][FONT=cd9800318d998e9e0a013eb0#901000]Judicial Watch v. Dept of Justice[/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000].[/FONT]
[FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]7 [/FONT][FONT=cd9800328d99969f0a013eb0#901000]If theinvocation of executive privilege was proper, it calls into question a number of public statementsabout the involvement of the White House made by you, your staff, and the Attorney General.[/FONT]From the early stages of the investigation, the White House has maintained that no WhiteHouse personnel knew anything about Operation Fast and Furious. Your assertion of executive privilege, however, renews questions about White House involvement.
Uh, no. Federal Prosecutions do not take place in Congress. They take place in the Justice Dept. Issa cannot supplant the Attorney General, who needs to remain in charge of any investigation that could result in a Federal prosecution. If he doesn't remain firmly in charge, that could affect the ability to even prosecute! We are losing sight of the ultimate goal, here. I keep saying this, but perhaps I could have done a better job at spelling it out. Criminal prosecution is probably the ultimate goal, or at least determining if criminal prosecution would be appropriate. AG Holder has the experience and knowledge to make that determination. Congressman Issa does not.
Furthermore, if you want to catch AG Holder in the act of committing a crime, perhaps it would be more intelligent to keep your mouth shut, stop PUBLICLY accusing him of things you have no proof of, and quietly order an investigation (as McCaul has in fact done). If you think he is guilty, TELLING him will tip him off. But I am far from impressed with Issa's investigation skills, anyway.
I hate to break it to you... well.. no I don't.
The president isn't above the law, this invocation of EP will be seen by history as the same thing as when Nixon did it.
You really have no idea how the government runs do you?
It's the Congress job to provide oversight for the government.
I don't know where you got it into your head that the government can do what it wants willynilly and get away with it with zero oversight.
What are they teaching in civics classes today?
Last minute talks with Holder to avoid the contempt vote have failed so the vote is scheduled to go forward
RETS:
However... Assured's weird and otherworldly response is...?
...Federal Prosecutions do not take place in Congress. They take place in the Justice Dept. Issa cannot supplant the Attorney General, who needs to remain in charge of any investigation that could result in a Federal prosecution. If he doesn't remain firmly in charge, that could affect the ability to even prosecute! We are losing sight of the ultimate goal, here. I keep saying this, but perhaps I could have done a better job at spelling it out. Criminal prosecution is probably the ultimate goal, or at least determining if criminal prosecution would be appropriate. AG Holder has the experience and knowledge to make that determination. Congressman Issa does not.
Furthermore, if you want to catch AG Holder in the act of committing a crime, perhaps it would be more intelligent to keep your mouth shut, stop PUBLICLY accusing him of things you have no proof of, and quietly order an investigation (as McCaul has in fact done). If you think he is guilty, TELLING him will tip him off. But I am far from impressed with Issa's investigation skills, anyway.
__________________
Except that in Watergate, nobody died
To get us back on track, my own response was:
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?