If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   Obama cannot claim executive privilege over a scandal he owns lock, stock, and barrel because the papers requested never involved the White House   (nationalreview.com) divider line 37
    More: Ironic, President Obama, executive privilege, White House, D.C. Circuit, Furious, executive branches, DOJ, checks and balances  
•       •       •

2255 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2012 at 3:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-21 02:03:18 PM
4 votes:

Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.


Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.
2012-06-21 04:48:24 PM
2 votes:

Ned Stark: Huh. If I believed things like pragmatic voting I might have to go mitt.


If you believed in things like pragmatic voting, you'd be considering the fact Scalia, Ginsburg, and Kennedy -- but especially the last two -- are all likely to retire from the Court in the next turn, and whoever wins in 2012 will get to replace each and every one of those seats.

Meaning that come 2016, we'll have a 6-3 split on the Court favoring one ideology or the other, opposed to the 4-4 split with a swing Justice we've had for the past few decades.
2012-06-21 04:46:30 PM
2 votes:
My favorite part of the F&F situation is how it's gone from "F&F weapons were found among those confiscated after the agent's death" to "F&F guns killed the agent"
2012-06-21 04:10:32 PM
2 votes:

Ricardo Klement: Me: "Loonies."
Cameron: "Show me."
Me: "Examples of Loonies."
You: "Hey! Those are extremes!"

No farking shiat, really?




I think the point here was that the extremes on the left you mention get pointed at and laughed about. The extremes on the right you mention have quite a bit of power in the Republican Party (Grover being a perfect example).
2012-06-21 12:28:08 PM
2 votes:

Ricardo Klement:

People who think Israel runs US foreign policy (which exist in both parties, but moreso in the Democratic Party.


Hmm, which Democrat said this:

"I believe America must say - and the best way to have peace in the Middle East is not for us to vacillate and to appease, but is to say, we stand with our friend Israel. We are committed to a Jewish state in Israel. We will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally, Israel."

and this:

"Before I made a statement of that nature, I'd get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: "Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?"

And which Democrat has a billionaire throwing hundreds of millions their way from someone who thinks Israel is the 51st state, and nothing is more important?
2012-06-21 11:15:04 AM
2 votes:
Fiscally conservative doesn't mean fiscally sound.
2012-06-21 10:37:26 AM
2 votes:
And the White House was supposedly uninvolved in the US Attorney firing scandal but that didn't stop Bush from invoking executive privilege to enable Rove, Meirs and other WH officials to avoid subpoenas.
2012-06-21 09:40:02 AM
2 votes:
So, wait, now the argument is that Obama WAS NEVER INVOLVED.

Thanks, NRO!
2012-06-21 09:39:40 AM
2 votes:
I forget, what was this Fast and Furious program called when Bush started it in 2008?
2012-06-21 09:37:14 AM
2 votes:
Attorney General, member of presidents cabinet = executive branch of government.
case closed.

//HA HA!!!!!
2012-06-22 05:57:40 AM
1 votes:
Fast and Furious is a debacle that would be treated as a huge scandal if a Republican were in charge. The troubling aspect of it is that it makes Holder (or subordinates he is covering for) look damned incompetent. Obama 'owns' it because he is invoking executive priviledge (the coverup). The politically expedient thing for Obama to have done would've been to hang Holder out to dry, but he's too loyal to do that, unfortunately
2012-06-22 02:46:26 AM
1 votes:
The transparent government, on parade...behind executive privilege

/man up, Mr. President.
2012-06-22 12:14:39 AM
1 votes:

muck4doo: Hey Farklibs, you should all be pissed that Obama isn't releasing these papers showing this Bush program, Fast and Furious, that has gotten people killed. Why is Obama covering for Bush? Amiright?


Umm... maybe it's because the documents being asked for don't have anything to do with the program itself (or its antecedents under Bush), but rather are merely a fishing expedition for information that may or may not make Obama look bad? Just a thought.
2012-06-21 11:23:22 PM
1 votes:

beta_plus: Liberals - nothing they love more than a dead border guard.


Right wingers - nothing they love more than thousands and thousands of dead US servicemen.

thesocietypages.org

Except perhaps mocking their sacrifices.

www.democraticunderground.com
2012-06-21 10:02:21 PM
1 votes:

HeadLever: mrshowrules: If it was it put guns in the hands of Mexican drug dealers,

A controlled delivery is one that has law enforcement (theoretically) is in control of the situation and is able to apprehend the suspect immediately after the illegal activity takes place. Not saying that WR was a perfect plan. Let's face it, anything the ATF is involved is usually FUBAR'ed


Fast and Furious was part of the Bush program "Project Gunrunner."

Link

There is no evidence the Bush administration discontinued Project Gunrunner after Wide Receiver. That, of course, is why the GOP House has demonstrated no interest whatsoever in subpoenaing Gonzales or any of the other parties who set Project Gunrunner in motion. This whole charade is pure political showboating.
2012-06-21 08:26:40 PM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: Descartes: Obama and Holder have both said they knew nothing about the operation.
And everyone knows that the Bush administration started this.

Since there is nothing to hide, this must be a clever plot to trick the right-wingers, and then Obama will say "okay" and release all the documents that blame Bush.

FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT THE SAME PROGRAM AS WIDE RECEIVER YOU IGNORANT PIECE OF CRAP.

God some of you are retarded. One used controlled delivery while the other relied on uncontrolled, pretty substantial difference.


I think F&F was a complete fark-up but I am curious, how you claim "Wide Receiver" is so different. They were both putting guns into the hands of the drug cartels in Mexico. I understand that it is important for you that these be somehow different on an important fundamental level but to any objective viewer the differences are not substantial. How did the "control" the guns in "wide receiver" after they crossed the border?
2012-06-21 08:23:48 PM
1 votes:

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Sure, just because there is no evidence of it ever occurring doesn't mean it didn't happen.

No evidence of the attempt? I hope you are joking.

No evidence of attempting to bring it before congress? That you would be correct because, as I mentioned, it never got that far.


It never got that far because it was never really a priority except to the nitwits who were stockpiling ammo back in 2008.
2012-06-21 06:18:46 PM
1 votes:
The Eisenhower Administration took the most expansive approach, arguing that the
privilege applied broadly to advice on official matters among employees of the executive branch.


Should have bolded that part too.

Presidential administrations beginning with Eisenhower have taken the view that executive privilege extends beyond the scope of communications with the president himself, to communications among executive branch officials, and even employees.

I.e., the premise that invocation of executive privilege here indicates Obama's personal knowledge of Fast and Furious is... bullsh*t.

"Wait, are you saying Daryl Issa lied when he said invocation of executive means Obama personally delivered automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels?"

I'm saying Issa's public statement inferring Obama's personal knowledge of Fast and Furious from invocation of executive privilege conclusively proves either a) that Issa is ignorant of executive privilege's long history, or b) that Issa knows the history, and dishonestly argued for a faulty inference. In the first case, Issa is unfit for his chairmanship by virtue of ignorance of matters critical to the exercise of its powers. In the second case, Issa is unfit for his chairmanship by his proven character for dishonesty. At the minimum, no reasonable person believes anything Daryl Issa says anymore.
2012-06-21 05:52:13 PM
1 votes:

paygun: qorkfiend: The right gives their nutjobs seats at the table. The left ignores them.

Sure they do.


And where is she now? Lost a primary for re-election, is out of the House and is a member of the Green Party. Is this the only example you have?
2012-06-21 05:46:01 PM
1 votes:

paygun: qorkfiend: It's entirely different. Not all liberals are Democrats and not all Democrats are liberals.

I agree. I don't think the right has cornered the market on nutjobs, either.


The right gives their nutjobs seats at the table. The left ignores them.
2012-06-21 05:34:17 PM
1 votes:

Ricardo Klement: facepalm.jpg

So: what party is conservative fiscally, yet understands fiat currency and therefore doesn't lust after a gold-standard, is socially pragmatic, and believes in science? Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative.


The Democrats.

There's a couple of things you're premise is lacking:

First off, the "PC loons" are a creation of the right. They don't actually exist as a relevant political entity and never really have, you can FIND some Child-of-gaia-think-of-the-womyn-and-children type if you look, but most of them don't actually vote in the first place and they never take the lead. Their existence is inflated, distorted, and given press by right-wing media trying to play up another fear, the fear of the wimpy, shrimpy, limp-wristed lump. It's nonsense on multiple levels and pervasive only if not analyzed.

Second, "fiscal conservative" is bullshiat. It is the lunatic belief that economic models that have been disproved thoroughly in 3 of the last 5 administrations are going to somehow start working this time around. By the actual definition of the word "conservative" the democrats are "fiscal conservative" since they advocate a return to a past fiscal policy that worked decidedly better than current policy. An appeal to traditional tax rates, you know?
2012-06-21 05:33:03 PM
1 votes:

Welfare Xmas: Mikey1969: I'm cusious as to how your logic equates '

It's not my logic, I'm not "the administration" and CBS didn't write the story about me.

//should be obvious


Well, if CBS says so...

/something something Rathergate
2012-06-21 05:15:42 PM
1 votes:
I wonder if any conservatives have ever thought that Obama is letting this whole Fast and Furious thing garner so much attention to point out that in the last five years Mexico has confiscated 68,000 guns from drug cartels that came from the United States. The Republicans in Congress might have just served this one up on a platter without even realizing it. While Fast and Furious might have been a complete mess, those 2,000 guns are just a drop in the bucket of the guns going into Mexico from the United States.
2012-06-21 05:01:37 PM
1 votes:

Almet: My favorite part of the F&F situation is how it's gone from "F&F weapons were found among those confiscated after the agent's death" to "F&F guns killed the agent"


It's also nice that the right wing has finally come around to the argument that people don't kill people, guns kill people.
2012-06-21 04:57:19 PM
1 votes:

Ned Stark: qorkfiend: Ricardo Klement: SphericalTime: Gwendolyn: Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.

Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.

Yeah, but if you're anyone that matters, they're basically identical.

/I fall into . . . three of those categories, and I date a legal immigrant.

Read what I said: if you look at their HISTORIES not their POSITION STATEMENTS. Romney's rhetoric has zoomed off to the right as fast and as far as he could do it and get the nomination.

Romney's history aside, it's pretty clear that his agenda would be dictated by Congressional Republicans. Instead of basing your decision on Obama vs. Romney or punting because they're so similar, you could judge based on the merits and likely impact of the expected legislative agendas, which would be radically different for a second Obama administration than a Romney administration.

Then let us consider. What will we get with 4 more years of Obama. That's 4 more years of a right-wing president "Aw, c'mon!"ing an ultraright Congress out to run as far right as possible just to oppose the Democratic president and the vast bulk of the liberal-left making excuses for monstrosities because their team is at bat.

With Romney we get a rightwing politician able to get compromises from the ultraright congress because they are part of the same machine and a liberal-left that will get furious and start agitating over things like "social security is on the table"

Huh. If I believed things like pragmatic voting I might have to go mitt.


I guess if you want things done just for the sake of getting them done, sure.

My hope is that Obama's presence will be inhibiting enough that the far-right Congress won't bother introducing their more extreme stuff, and would give cover to filibusters by Senate Democrats should the Republicans win the chamber. We'll continue with gridlock, so things might not get done, but if they do, they'll be pretty moderate.

On the other hand, Romney's presence would almost certainly encourage the far-right Congress to move even further rightward, since Romney won't buck his party in any meaningful way. Things will get done, and they'll be extreme right.

Plus, Supreme Court Justices.
2012-06-21 04:55:44 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-06-21 04:35:49 PM
1 votes:
Is anyone else annoyed by today's rash of "Executive Privilege" stories?

I saw one on Yahoo today that had the headline: "Top Uses of Executive Privilege: Washington, Nixon, Obama", and then went on to say that this is the ONLY time Obama has used it, and that Bush, Reagan, and CLinton ALL used it more. In fact, when they made their list of "top" users. Obama wasn't actually on it.

Jesus people, you may not like him, but please DO try and have just a smidgen of journalistic integrity for a change.

Link
2012-06-21 04:33:22 PM
1 votes:

Vodka Zombie: I forget, what was this Fast and Furious program called when Bush started it in 2008?


2006, actually. And it was called Operation Wide Receiver.
2012-06-21 04:12:18 PM
1 votes:

Ricardo Klement: SphericalTime: Gwendolyn: Ricardo Klement: Romney and Obama are as close to identical as we've ever had in a presidential election.

Sure they are identical...unless you happen to be a woman, a minority, of a faih other then Christianity,, an immigrant (illegal or otherwise), poor, a veteran, or LGBT. Then those differences become real farking important.

Yeah, but if you're anyone that matters, they're basically identical.

/I fall into . . . three of those categories, and I date a legal immigrant.

Read what I said: if you look at their HISTORIES not their POSITION STATEMENTS. Romney's rhetoric has zoomed off to the right as fast and as far as he could do it and get the nomination.


Romney's history aside, it's pretty clear that his agenda would be dictated by Congressional Republicans. Instead of basing your decision on Obama vs. Romney or punting because they're so similar, you could judge based on the merits and likely impact of the expected legislative agendas, which would be radically different for a second Obama administration than a Romney administration.
2012-06-21 12:50:35 PM
1 votes:
Headline: Obama completely owns this scandal he had nothing to do with
2012-06-21 12:40:48 PM
1 votes:
Can't we just fast forward to the part where it's all Obama's fault?
2012-06-21 11:45:50 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: I didn't say Obama was a loon. I said there are too many loons in his party

Which ones are the loons then?


Sheila Jackson Lee is a good example.

And, I hate to do this, because it will end up directly insulting farkers when I generally try to avoid launching first, but I kind of set myself up for the question and answer, so here goes...

People who believe the MIC is made up of mindless automatons and not human beings who prefer peace over war.

People who believe 9/11 was an inside job (although birthers are doing a good job of taking the title for biggest conspiracy loon).

People who think Israel runs US foreign policy (which exist in both parties, but moreso in the Democratic Party.)

Most of CurrentTV

To be fair, I'll list some of the loons in the Republican Party:

Birthers

The Grover-Nordquist crowd (absolutes are generally bad)

Young Earthers

Allen West

Most of FOX News
2012-06-21 10:39:08 AM
1 votes:

Ricardo Klement: Too many PC loons in the Democratic party, and they aren't fiscally conservative


Um. What? President Obama is the only one who has come up with a plan for a balanced budget that is fiscally conservative and sound. He happens to be a Democratic President.
2012-06-21 10:32:42 AM
1 votes:

FlashHarry: morons. farking morons. william f. buckley is spinning in his grave right now.


I miss him.
2012-06-21 10:03:43 AM
1 votes:
morons. farking morons. william f. buckley is spinning in his grave right now.
2012-06-21 09:43:17 AM
1 votes:
Wikipedia:

"In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]"
2012-06-21 09:38:21 AM
1 votes:
Good thing it's called White House Privilege, then.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report