SUBJECT: The crooks are at it again!!!
Texan (18.104.22.168) from TEXAS on
The whitehouse has invoked executive privledge on all the documents requested by Rep. Issa. The worms are comming out in this corrupted administration. It just reeks with the stinch of corruption. More Chicago politics. How can the dimwits of that party continue to try to spin this crap and back a cabul like this without wanting to throw up?
YEP! They had HOPE! They got CHANGE! FROM BAD TO MUCH WORSE!
Harumph #11038 from OHIO says More of the same from crooks
From the MOST CORRUPT administration in the history of this nation.
You left-wing nutjobs remember this crap when you are looking for excuses late November.
Bender, MS Gulf Coast from MISSISSIPPI says What are they trying to hide?
Here we go again. What is it with this President when he promised an Open and Transparent Administration. The only thing that is Transparent and open is our National Security and Defense operations and plans along with War Planning. Traitors for sure and a pure simple added swat to the Consitution.
GITTHENET from NORTH CAROLINA says Oh boy... the WH and CIC
is now complicit and involved. Though most of us suspected that already.
Pretty sad when this administration won't admit that someone screwed up and needs to loose their job for it. Obviously the WH don't care about these white, middle class people, huh Bradiot?
Even if congress can't take action, just another reason why the majority of Americans will....
Harumph #11038 from OHIO says OBAMA REFUSES TO TURN OVER FAST AND FURIOUS DOCUMENTS... FLASHBACK: Attacked Trying 'To Hide Behind Executive Privilege'
Larry King is obviously a racist.
MikeF from FLORIDA says same theme; nobody ever hides stuff they don't need hidden
The morons elect these crooks and this is what you get. Who would have expected any better.
Harumph #11038 from OHIO says If Obama knew nothing, then why use EP?
Sen. Charles Grassley criticized the White House. "How can the president extert executive privilege over documents he's supposedly never seen?"
PJzaBruin (22.214.171.124) from CALIFORNIA says I hate when Obama acts like a Republican
he needs to be open on this, not pull the Bush/Cheney "it's none of your dam business who we talk to or what we do." Before Bush/Cheney, it seemed like executive privilege only applied to the President (and MAYBE the Veep). They expanded it to include the entire executive branch, and damned if Obama isn't trying to take advantage of that precedent now.
Crap, next thing you know, he'll be doing the Reagan "I'm sorry Senator, but at this time I do not recall..."
MikeF from FLORIDA says Bush did it first is the best excuse you have?
It must be because you sure seem to use it all the time.
obama is a dismal failure and only fools and morons don't see it. BTW those two are not mutually exclusive.
dshadoin from LOUISIANA says Bush/Cheney used it 6 times. Clinton used it 14 times. FOURTEEN.
Since the Reagan Administration, Executive Privilege has been invoked only 24 times. More than half of those times by Clinton.
What else you got Peaches? More flawed statistics?
PJzaBruin (126.96.36.199) from CALIFORNIA says It's no excuse, MikeF'er
it's just giving credit where credit is due.
Bush/Cheney established some very ugly precedents, which were OK with you Retardlicans when they were in office. Now they're out of office, and it's suddenly not OK for Obama to do the same thing. I call that hypocrisy.
I don't think it was OK for Bush/Cheney to do it, and I don't think it's OK for Obama to do it. It sucks that he's following their ugly precedents. But they established that it was OK, whether I like it or not.
dshadoin from LOUISIANA says What about Clinton and the FOURTEEN times
he used it? Wouldn't that set a precedent Peaches?
Or can't you think with your head up your ass?
mac (Doyle McEwen) (188.8.131.52) from CALIFORNIA says The opposite is also true PJ
The Democrats raised holy hell with Bush/Cheyney as well as with Reagan about using executive privilege..Yes, I know the Republicans objected then as you are now..The Republicans used weak excuses just as you are..So who is acting like Republicans..I don't think anyone is acting like anyone else..They are acting just like politicians of any stripe, protecting their asses..President Obama, had as one of his campaign points, said he would have an open and transparent administration..It really hasn't been all that open or transparent in many areas..Should a President have the right of Executive Privilege to the extremes we all have seen it used..
MikeF from FLORIDA says typical PJ
It's only a problem if the other side does it. I can't wait for November so I can have 8 years of you whining about Romney. Maybe we should blame obama for everything bad that happens then.
BTW, obama is the absolute worse President in modern times.
Arby from TEXAS says PJ....Do you think it OK for Obama to use EP in this case?....How can he justify using EP to seal documents that he says he has never seen?
If there is nothing in the documents that is incriminating why not hand them over?
This has nothing to do with Cheney or Bush or Clinton and how many times they used EP...What is at issue is, Why 2000 guns were allowed to go into Mexico to Cartels when the agents who were ordered to make it happen tried to stop it...There must be something in the disputed documents that could provide the answers and makes Holder and maybe Obama accountable....Why the stone walling?
Publius #10953 from MARYLAND says Holder also retracted his claim...
that the Bush administration knew about F&F. Evidently another lie of convenience. F&F is all Obama's...they're circling the wagons.
PJzaBruin (184.108.40.206) from CALIFORNIA says Well, Dshat, Eisenhower invoked Executive Privilege 44 times
so Clinton invoking it 14 times (mostly to try to cover his sexual pecadilloes) wasn't exactly a precedent, was it?
Or can't you think with your head so far up your ass?
PJzaBruin (220.127.116.11) from CALIFORNIA says I don't know, ARBY. I think we have to abide by what CJ Burger said in US v Nixon
"The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine (Executive Privilege) in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case."(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns."
A presumption of privilege is established, and now the responsibility falls to the Prosecutor to show that the material is "essential to the justice of the case." And I don't know enough about the material or the case to have an opinion.
JacKFish56 (18.104.22.168) from NEW JERSEY says Do your homework Blond Lunker
Did you see the video tape with Obama on Larry King Live in 2007? From his own lips on what he thinks about asserting Executive Privilege. Just more lies and half truths.
Arby from TEXAS says Snicker....
mac (Doyle McEwen) (22.214.171.124) from CALIFORNIA says My question to you PJ
is how can the "prosecutor" possibly make that determination without the said documents in hand..One would think reasonable belief would suffice..In any such situation, the use of Executive Privilege puts the onus on the "Prosecution" that cannot possibly be met without the documents in hand..Personally I think most Congressional investigations are a waste of time..Rarely are the results of any tangible use..Most of the time they are purely politically motivated..Oversight was put into place to prevent executive excesses, how can you possibly know if there were or were not excesses or abuse of power if you cannot obtain the information..
PJzaBruin (126.96.36.199) from CALIFORNIA says Mac, in US v Nixon the standard was met
and Clinton lost in District Court a number of times.
So you are just flat wrong -- the onus placed on the prosecution can be met, and has been met in the past, without the documents in hand. "Reasonable belief" is not a standard under which our courts operate for much of anything.
Harumph #11038 from OHIO says The most open and transparent administration in history
Suck on that till November Girly-J
PJzaBruin (188.8.131.52) from CALIFORNIA says Yeah, that's kind of a bad joke, ain't it Rump-hair
even though it's the latest a Presidential Administration has evoked Executive Privilege in 3 decades... or since Jimmy Carter.
RJR from MISSOURI says walking like a duck, talking like a duck
doesn't mean anything anymore with our politicians. Where is Boehner in all this?
mac (Doyle McEwen) (184.108.40.206) from CALIFORNIA says PJ much of our justice system
is based on reasonable belief..Just look at all of the circumstantial evidence allowed and presented in most court cases..Search warrants are approved on reasonable belief..If I were accused of a crime or even suspected of one, it would be reasonable to grant a search warrant for my property, it would not be reasonable to grant one for your property to search for evidence of a crime I may or may not have committed..
GITTHENET from NORTH CAROLINA says Major difference PJDA
No Americans died from the Bush/Cheney episode... But, I guess you're OK with the American deaths as long as your pres is not implicated... Shamefull.
Tex (220.127.116.11) from TEXAS says Looks like Paul and the rest of the lefties forgot about this
Arby from TEXAS says But Tex ...that is different. It is only bad when Republicans us EP....
but totally justified when Democrats use it. Just likea lot of other things crooked politicians do.
dshadoin from LOUISIANA says I guess when George Washington invoked Privilege during
his term in office, it was the original precedent, wasn't it?
Clean the shixt from your eyes Peaches, you have a hard time seeing the truth.
That Eisenhower did it to thwart Joe McCarthy must come as a terrible blow to your ego. Eisenhower was never on trial or under investigation for providing weapons to the enemies of the United States. You can't make the same assertions for the current administration.
Major Johnson#15608 (18.104.22.168) from TENNESSEE says Crooks?
On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove.
mac (Doyle McEwen) (22.214.171.124) from CALIFORNIA says So MJ, are you saying
that when Bush claimed EP, it was a bad thing, but it is a good thing when President Obama does it, because Bush did it..Some how that just does not mesh up..I am not saying President Obama or President Bush do not have the right to exert the privilege, the real question now is why..Just as the question should have been when President Bush invoked..In either case chances are it was nothing more than trying to cover their backsides..In the case of President Bush it is really immaterial, as he is no longer in office..That is not the case currently..
PJzaBruin (126.96.36.199) from CALIFORNIA says Mac, in criminal proceedings, the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In obtaining a warrant, the standard is "just cause."
Try as you migh to spin it, both are much higher standards than "reasonable belief."
I do not condone Obama's invocation of executive privilege. Nor do I condemn it. But you folks sure are shrill about him doing what his prededeccors have done, and they did so more frequently and more broadly. Sounds hypocritical to these ears.
TimT (188.8.131.52) from MASSACHUSETTS says Small difference
It's my understanding that EP only pertains to Whitehouse documents.Since the documents in question are DOJ documents,EP should not apply.Not stating this as fact just what my understanding of EP is used for.
mac (Doyle McEwen) (184.108.40.206) from CALIFORNIA says PJ, contrary to your thinking
I am not now, nor have I ever defended anyones use of Executive Privilege..As I said, it gives a strong appearance of covering ones ass..Most often it comes across as a way of being above the law..It did so when Clinton used it, it did so when Bush used it..I have no idea about when Ike used it or even why, I was in elementary school during most of that time and honestly I didn't really care one way or the other..Presiden Obama stated he would run a transparent administration, he obviously has a completely different idea of what that means than I do..
PJ just cause is often based on reasonable belief, or reason to believe..In my example of getting a search warrant for my property if I were accused of a crime, There is reasonable belief I committed the crime, or I would not have been arrested..I obviously have not yet been tried or convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, so exactly what just cause do they have to search my property to seek evidence..I guess you could say "just cause" I was arrested..Why was I arrested, because they had reasonable belief I had committed a crime..They did not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt..Now after getting and serving a search warrant based on reasonable belief, they might indeed gain sufficient evidence for my conviction beyond a reasonable doubt..Prior to the search they did not have that evidence..I agree that search warrants are issued on just cause, many of those causes are based on reasonable belief..They generally not based on could have or might have type reasons..
PJzaBruin (220.127.116.11) from CALIFORNIA says TimT, Executive Privilege covers documents from the Executive Branch
Just a thought
TimT (18.104.22.168) from MASSACHUSETTS says Shucks
I knew that ,was just setting out some bait but got no nibbles.
mac (Doyle McEwen) (22.214.171.124) from CALIFORNIA says By the way PJ
The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not the standard for bringing charges or issuing of warrants, it is the standard for conviction at trial..One might think it is also the standard for arrests or warrants, but that is not the case..I think you know that and knew it prior to making your post..If it were the standard for making an arrest, there would be no need for a trial..If it were the standard for issuing a search warrant, it would often be an impossible standard to meet..
PJzaBruin (126.96.36.199) from CALIFORNIA says Mac, you need longer naps.
Read your follow-up #25. Then read my #32.
You ought to be able to see that I clearly stated the standard for a warrant (JUST CAUSE) as opposed to the standard for criminal proceedings, also known as trials (PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT). The latter was in response to your silliness about circumstantial evidence. Funny thing about circumstantial evidence -- when you put enough of it together with a little bit of physical evidence, it can remove all reasonable doubt. But it's FAR from "reasonable belief."
At no time did I claim or imply that proof beyond a reasonable doubt was necessary for an arrest or a warrant. Rather, "Just Cause" is what is the standard for a warrant OR for holding someone in custody. "Reasonable belief" may be used for arresting somebody, but if there is no "just cause," that person is quickly released from custody.
You made up a standard ("reasonable belief") out of whole cloth, then tried your best to defend it against the facts. Then you tried to make my statements say something they didn't. You look really silly when you do this, Mac. Silly and petty.
mac (Doyle McEwen) (188.8.131.52) from CALIFORNIA says No more silly or petty
than yourself PJ..Just cause is very often nothing more than reasonable belief..I do happen to agree the standard for conviction is much higher than just reasonable belief, what I do not agree with you on is your idea that just cause is a higher standard..Reasonable belief is just cause..Unreasonable belief obviously is not..
PJzaBruin (184.108.40.206) from CALIFORNIA says Nice, Mac -- I know you are, but what am I
"You can be arrested by an officer or a citizen who sees you commit a crime. And even if they didn’t see you, the police can arrest you if they have probable cause to believe that you’re involved in a felony (or sometimes a misdemeanor, depending on the type of crime and the jurisdiction). The facts adding up to probable cause vary, according to the nature of the case. Say, for example, the police received a call from a store owner that someone matching your deion had just spray-painted lots of graffiti all over the front of his store. The police drive to the area and notice you running down the street, about a block from the store, holding a can of spray paint in your hand. Under these circumstances, the police would have probable cause to arrest you. They don’t need an arrest warrant as long as they have enough facts for probable cause. Probable cause is more than a reasonable suspicion, but less than the level of proof required to convict you at trial (proof beyond a reasonable doubt)."
Please read that last sentence 5 times.
"Search warrants allow law enforcement agents to search a particular place (or vehicle or person) and seize items that might have evidentiary value. To obtain a search warrant, an officer must show a judge that there’s probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed. The officer’s “affidavit,” or statement of probable cause, is usually submitted to the court in writing, but sometimes an officer gives her affidavit orally, usually when calling from a crime scene to request a warrant. (For an example of probable cause, see Arrest)"
mac (Doyle McEwen) (220.127.116.11) from CALIFORNIA says Semantics
Reason to believe and probable cause are often, but not always the same..The law enforcement officers spotting the individual in your case running down the street with the can of spray paint have probable cause because they have a reasonable belief the individual may be involved..Of course anyone in the area might have been the person or persons actually committing the crime, those not running and those not carrying cans of spray paint are generally ignored, especially if you see someone running from the area carrying a can of spray paint, giving you reasonable belief they may have been involved..
Of course the person may have just purchased the can of spray paint and was running home in order to finish up a project he had started or even some huffing, and be totally innocent of defacing private or public property..
PJzaBruin (18.104.22.168) from CALIFORNIA says Clutch those straws tightly, Mac
they're all you have now.
"Probable cause is more than a reasonable suspicion, but less than the level of proof required to convict you at trial"
Read it again four more times.
mac (Doyle McEwen) (22.214.171.124) from CALIFORNIA says PJ please show me where I said anything about
Reasonable suspicion, I said reasonable belief..If you cannot see a difference, nothing I can say or write will alter your thinking..I am not one of your students, nor am I your ward..Read it yourself..I agree with you probable cause is more than reasonable suspicion, it is not always more than reasonable belief..And yes both are below the level of proof considered appropriate for conviction..So who exactly is it that is clutching at straws..