|
|
| From | Message |
|---|
dmaestro
18-Jan-13, 18:50
|
Of course congress can request documents and usually gets them. But executive privilege places limits on those requests. Traditionally these requests are negotiated in good faith to resolve disputes.Here the GOP had already declared Obama was the most corrupt administration ever and was grandstanding for headlines and with selective leaks and harassment such as criminal charges against holder for complying with the executive privilege. Once the legal issue is settled most documents will be available but now there is principle at stake. I want to see docs myself but not until the GOP backs down.
|
|
It's beginning to look like the Gun Walking caper is a tip of an iceberg and is connected to the 23 newly released EOs. No wonder they want people to shut up about it.
|
dmaestro
18-Jan-13, 19:00
|
That is a right wing hoax.
|
|
maestro, any "executive branch employee" can definitely NOT use executive priviledge. If this were the case, you'd have people extending executive priviledge to protect their financial documents in a divorce, or an IRS audit and so on. The entire point of executive priviledge is that it gives the president the priviledge of denying the undeniable requests.
This is not about records created by the executive branch. This is about using executive priviledge to protect documents from being released in response to a request. For there to be executive priviledge used, it means that Obama chose to use his executive priviledge to protect specific documents and he did so ahead of time. This is why I pointed out what the request specifically asked for.
|
dmaestro
18-Jan-13, 19:34
|
Only the President can invoke executive privilege. But any record produced within the executive branch can be subject to protection if the President seems it is necessary under separation of powers. If Congress asked for every record that ATF had the President would not have to comply even for innocuous records a priori.
|
dmaestro
18-Jan-13, 19:58
|
Prog, regarding the tantrum, that is how you see it and I understand your POV, but your side lost and Congress got less, not more. Our side sees it as the GOP having the tantrum and hissy fit because they couldn't find a smoking gun to hang Obama before the election. Neither F&F or Benghazi got the traction they expected. You see, our coalition isn't spun up on those silly diversions and conspiracy theories. We want a strong leader who will look out for the interests of the majority of the people. As long as Obama does what the people want, not just conservative whites, things like F&F etc just are diversions. Having sex with an intern isn't impeachable either. Your side just gets hung up on trivia and expects the non-Clinton and Obama haters to get spun up the way you do. Nope it won't happen. Move on to something more of interest to the majority...
|
|
DM
This isn't about politics for me it's about a corrupt executive and it's been going on for a long time. I could care less if the GOP is in office. I'm not a Republican. I'd just like some people in office who are honorable, principled, don't lie, and respect the rights of individuals. I voted for Nader in 2004, mostly because he's honest, even if a leftist - though he's left like Jeff is left, not your radical left like you and those that seem to have taken over in the Democrat party these days.
Your coalition is built upon PLENTY of silly diversions and conspiracy theories - that ALL that the identity politics you vomit out of your mouth every other post around here.
Clinton wasn't impeached for having sex with an intern. He was impeached for perjury. Lying should be a big deal to people, and lying under oath should be an even bigger deal to people, but we don't live in a world of principled or moral people any longer. It speaks volumes about your kind that you think lying is no big deal . . . which kind of brings us back to these documents. You are all known liars. Demonstrable liars. Who defend liars, and you'd like everyone to believe you're telling the truth this time, honest abe, honest injun. The temerity!! It's priceless!!
The fact that this isn't of "interest to the majority," if I simply I beg the question here, simply shows that the adults didn't show up to vote like they should have, and the idiots and immoral are now picking leaders based on nonsense.
I personally don't give much of a flying flip wether these documents ever come out or not. It changes my life not at all. The white house learned following Nixon how to handle these kinds of things, and they've been pulling this nonsense ever since.
|
dmaestro
18-Jan-13, 20:47
|
No it is about sex. Lying about extramarital sex is not that uncommon, really. It wasn't really that relevant to the issue the grand jury was looking into, it was the gotcha moment on a long right wing witch hunt about whitewater that never got traction.. Not honorable and potentially enough to end law practice but hardly a high crime and misdemeanor that threatened the republic. If he had lied about something more critical, I agree impeachment was the proper penalty.
|
|
Maestro, Clinton is a grown man who has been to law school. He made the choice to lie under oath and he doesn't need you defending him.
It doesn't matter what he lied about. Perjury is when someone does not tell the truth under oath. He had the option of pleading the 5th to avoid perjuring himself and he didn't.
This is his responsibility. It's not anyone's fault but his.
If he didn't want to be asked about his sex life, then he shouldn't have been getting blow jobs in the Oval Office from an intern. Once again, Clinton made the decision to do this and it's his responsibility.
|
|
|
Log in 
