Fast and Furiously, Obama Claims Executive Privilege!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

***DISCLAIMER***
Please note: While the threat title does include the phrase "Fast and Furiously" it is not an indication the threat topic is about the Fast and Furious hearings in Congress. Details on that topic and conversation, can be found in another thread, and should not be mistaken for this conversation or topic, in spite of the similarities in the title. This thread is for the discussion of liberal hypocrisy over presidential use of executive privilege, which is an entirely different conversation than "Fast and Furious." This disclaimer is necessary because JPP is apparently now being moderated by imbeciles, who assume if you use similar phrases, you must be talking about the same things. One imbecile in particular, has already chosen to 'merge' this topic into the other thread, and after complaining about this, I was informed it wasn't "the end of the world" and "no big deal" ...so, since it isn't a big deal and not the end of the world, I decided to re-post the original OP again in it's own thread.
+++++++++++++​

Attorney General Eric Holder has been cited for contempt of Congress, and things are heating up in Washington, and the Fast and Furious hearings continue. Documents have been requested to show what the president knew and when he knew it, and guess how Obama has responded? That's right, the good ole tried and true, claiming of Executive Privilege!

Does anyone recall what Liberals had to say about Bush, when he claimed EP during the interrogations over his energy policy meetings? Or the assorted investigations into the war policies, etc.? Jeesh, I wish I could remember what they had to say about his citing of the same executive privilege, but I'm sure it was something really supportive and nice... since we aren't hearing a peep from them over this. And golly-gee... I really can't remember just what they said when Richard Nixon claimed exec-privies and refused to turn over information to Congress... Can someone look that up for me in your memory banks? For some odd reason, I was under the impression the Liberal Demos weren't keen on this idea of claiming executive privilege and refusing to turn over evidence, and something about how Obama was going to have full disclosure and nothing kept from the public... It just seems like I remember that being said or promised at some point, while they were trying to bring War Crimes charges against Bush and Cheney. Maybe I was dreaming?

 

[Damocles]

I like the title, Dix. Great play at words.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I like the title, Dix. Great play at words.

Thanks Damo, now if we can keep your biased moderator from censoring me again, and get some liberals to actually comment, perhaps we can have a successful thread. The problem may be the title, though. Liberals seem to be staying well away from anything with those words associated... so it may have been a poor choice on my part. I take full responsibility if that is the case.

Still, I wish my old memory wouldn't fail me so... I really do wish someone could refresh me on what it was they said about Nixon and Bush. I searched for "Liberals applaud and defend Republican president's citing of executive privilege" but I came up empty!

Does anyone remember what they said?

 

[anatta]

Thanks Damo, now if we can keep your biased moderator from censoring me again, and get some liberals to actually comment, perhaps we can have a successful thread. The problem may be the title, though. Liberals seem to be staying well away from anything with those words associated... so it may have been a poor choice on my part. I take full responsibility if that is the case.

Still, I wish my old memory wouldn't fail me so... I really do wish someone could refresh me on what it was they said about Nixon and Bush. I searched for "Liberals applaud and defend Republican president's citing of executive privilege" but I came up empty!

Does anyone remember what they said?

I was around back then, Nixon was pretty much loathed by the time of the Wategate hearings, by all.
If memory serves Howard Baker was a Repub. Here ya go.

In 1973 and 1974 Baker was also the influential ranking minority member of the Senate committee, chaired by Senator Sam Ervin, that investigated the Watergate scandal. He is famous for having asked aloud, "What did the President know and when did he know it?", a question given him to ask by his counsel and former campaign manager, future U.S. Senator Fred Thompson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Baker

I got in on the loathing early, Vietnam was my generations GWOT ( Global war on terror) - fortunately I was only eligble for 1973 -and I had a high lottery number.

By the time of the hearing even the "hardhats" (America -Love it or Leave it) deserted Nixon. He was prolly the worst ever.
He did open up China ( ping pong diplomacy) and started the EPA -but also the DEA.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

he hardly claimed the privilege fast and furiously......it's been almost a year and a half since the investigation began.....

 

[Howey]

Thanks Damo, now if we can keep your biased moderator from censoring me again, and get some liberals to actually comment

Thanks, but I'll post in the real thread.

 

[anatta]

he hardly claimed the privilege fast and furiously......it's been almost a year and a half since the investigation began.....

LOL. good one

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I was around back then, Nixon was pretty much loathed by the time of the Wategate hearings, by all.
If memory serves Howard Baker was a Repub. Here ya go.


I got in on the loathing early, Vietnam was my generations GWOT ( Global war on terror) - fortunately I was only eligble for 1973 -and I had a high lottery number.

By the time of the hearing even the "hardhats" (America -Love it or Leave it) deserted Nixon. He was prolly the worst ever.
He did open up China ( ping pong diplomacy) and started the EPA -but also the DEA.

I'm sorry, but I wasn't asking for what Republicans said, I already knew that Republicans were opposed to Nixon obstructing Congress by invoking executive privilege, I was asking for what the Liberal Democrats had to say. I'm sure they must have supported Nixon, because they are supporting Obama's obstruction now... and they probably supported Bush when he did it, but I am just finding it difficult to locate on the Interwebs.

Also, I must note, this is not to be confused with a thread discussing the greatness or sorriness of President Nixon... we have to be careful, or a mod might start merging all the Nixon threads here, and we wouldn't want that. I want to specifically discuss the liberal support of presidents using executive privilege to obstruct Congressional investigations. Let us remained focused!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Okay, let's take a quick dismantling of the OP's premise:

1. The Shrub claiming Exec Priviledge to shield Cheney's secret energy policy meeting pertains to withholding information regarding the economic determiners for the country....NOT about law enforcement agents working undercover who would be compromised if certain information was made public.

2. Nixon commited a violation of the very public trust regarding the integrity of the electoral campaign process, illegal surveillance of private citizens, an illegal, secret war in Cambodia, etc., etc. Contrary to his claim, Nixon was a crook, and tried to hide his crimes behind executive priviledge...NOT to protect law enforcement agents working undercover who would be compromised if certain information was made public.

3. Just recently, the neocon/teabagger politicos and their punditry all decried the Obama administration discussing publically the capture/kill mission on Osama Bin Ladin, claiming that military personnel and confidential informants in the region would be put in danger as Al qaeda would connect the dots. Yet, they seem to have NO problem in trying to get Holder to reveal infroamtion that would DEFINITELY do just that! Talk about hypocrits!

Now for those readers interested in a little clarity on the subject from last year:

More Double Standards On Fast and Furious From Rep. Issa
October 27, 2011 4:02 pm ET — Chris Brown
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201110270010

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Okay, let's take a quick dismantling of the OP's premise:

1. The Shrub claiming Exec Priviledge to shield Cheney's secret energy policy meeting pertains to withholding information regarding the economic determiners for the country....NOT about law enforcement agents working undercover who would be compromised if certain information was made public.

2. Nixon commited a violation of the very public trust regarding the integrity of the electoral campaign process, illegal surveillance of private citizens, an illegal, secret war in Cambodia, etc., etc. Contrary to his claim, Nixon was a crook, and tried to hide his crimes behind executive priviledge...NOT to protect law enforcement agents working undercover who would be compromised if certain information was made public.

3. Just recently, the neocon/teabagger politicos and their punditry all decried the Obama administration discussing publically the capture/kill mission on Osama Bin Ladin, claiming that military personnel and confidential informants in the region would be put in danger as Al qaeda would connect the dots. Yet, they seem to have NO problem in trying to get Holder to reveal infroamtion that would DEFINITELY do just that! Talk about hypocrits!

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Nixon and Bush ALSO claim executive privilege on the grounds of sensitive national security? Isn't that generally WHY a president refuses to hand over documents to Congress? I don't recall Nixon saying he was exerting executive privilege because he was a crook.

Then your third response seems to indicate your only reason or justification for supporting the president's obstruction, is because "they did it too!" That would suggest that the only reason you were opposed to "them" doing it back then, was that it wasn't YOUR SIDE doing it. That's quite a revelation.

As I recall, it hasn't ever mattered before about national security or who would be put at risk, that was never an excuse for obstructing Congress. It wasn't allowed to stand for Nixon or Bush, or even Clinton for that matter, but you now believe that should work for Obama, huh?

Oh, and by the way... I deleted your politicalcorrection.org link, this thread isn't a place for advertising left-wing blogs. I have to be clear about this, because the moderator might confuse this with the left-wing blog site discussion, and merge the thread. Please refrain from such plugs here, thanks!

 

[anatta]

I'm sorry, but I wasn't asking for what Republicans said, I already knew that Republicans were opposed to Nixon obstructing Congress by invoking executive privilege, I was asking for what the Liberal Democrats had to say. I'm sure they must have supported Nixon, because they are supporting Obama's obstruction now... and they probably supported Bush when he did it, but I am just finding it difficult to locate on the Interwebs.

Also, I must note, this is not to be confused with a thread discussing the greatness or sorriness of President Nixon... we have to be careful, or a mod might start merging all the Nixon threads here, and we wouldn't want that. I want to specifically discuss the liberal support of presidents using executive privilege to obstruct Congressional investigations. Let us remained focused!

OK. kinna tough to compare the 2 -40 years apart is 2 generations, and the country wasn't hyperpolazied, there was polarization, but there was a degree of cooperation not seen now.
Can't really answer your question. the time periods don't really allow for a continuum. Best i can answer.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

OK. kinna tough to compare the 2 -40 years apart is 2 generations, and the country wasn't hyperpolazied, there was polarization, but there was a degree of cooperation not seen now.
Can't really answer your question. the time periods don't really allow for a continuum. Best i can answer.

Well, I know Bush's use of executive privilege to avoid revealing info about the energy task force, wasn't 40 years ago. And I know the interrogation over Iraq wasn't that long ago. I'm just finding it hard to locate the praise from liberal democrats over these accounts. Whenever Bush obstructed Congress by using executive privilege, I am sure some liberal democrats must have supported it, because they support Obama doing it now. I just wish I could find what they said about Bush when he did this exact same thing. I'm sure it was great!

I suppose we can accept that you don't recall the Nixon era, you probably weren't even born yet, if you were, you were probably too young to recall. But you've been very helpful in showing that Republicans were firmly opposed to Nixon's obstruction, and despite it being 2 generations ago, they still had their principles, which remain the same today. That's why I assume, since liberal dems are okay with Obama obstructing Congress today, they must have been okay with it back then... don't you imagine? It's just.... I am finding it difficult to locate all the wonderful things they had to say about it at the time.

Oh well... maybe someone older can help?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I did find this, it's Obama talking about government transparency.

Now I know a lot of right-wingers at the time, understood he was chastising Bush as being the "most secretive administration in history" because of Bush's use of executive privilege to refuse releasing information on his energy task force and later, on Iraq. And I am sure everyone thought, he meant that his administration would never do such a thing, as they planned to be more transparent and open... but if you listen to his speech, he never said a thing about him not using executive privilege to cover up for his corrupt Attorney General, or to hide what he knew and when he knew it.

Interesting!

 

[Damocles]

I did find this, it's Obama talking about government transparency.

Now I know a lot of right-wingers at the time, understood he was chastising Bush as being the "most secretive administration in history" because of Bush's use of executive privilege to refuse releasing information on his energy task force and later, on Iraq. And I am sure everyone thought, he meant that his administration would never do such a thing, as they planned to be more transparent and open... but if you listen to his speech, he never said a thing about him not using executive privilege to cover up for his corrupt Attorney General, or to hide what he knew and when he knew it.

Interesting!

There was never executive privilege claimed for anything in Iraq.

Bush claimed executive privilege six times. Twice in two separate instances for the exact same demand from Congress (Harriet Miers and and another advisor's records).

The first claim was in an investigation about "misuse" of organized crime informants.

He claimed it when they wanted information about the energy executives that visited the WH. (That one I was vocal about the fact that knowing who they were would not stop them from candidly speaking to the Pres.)

Twice when they demanded papers from Advisors (Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor).

Once in the Congressional investigation of the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman.

Once in regard to the investigation of firing of US Attorneys, which every President gets to do except Bush apparently..

For contrast purposes, Clinton invoked it 14 times.

 

[Ett]

***DISCLAIMER***
Please note: While the threat title does include the phrase "Fast and Furiously" it is not an indication the threat topic is about the Fast and Furious hearings in Congress. Details on that topic and conversation, can be found in another thread, and should not be mistaken for this conversation or topic, in spite of the similarities in the title. This thread is for the discussion of liberal hypocrisy over presidential use of executive privilege, which is an entirely different conversation than "Fast and Furious." This disclaimer is necessary because JPP is apparently now being moderated by imbeciles, who assume if you use similar phrases, you must be talking about the same things. One imbecile in particular, has already chosen to 'merge' this topic into the other thread, and after complaining about this, I was informed it wasn't "the end of the world" and "no big deal" ...so, since it isn't a big deal and not the end of the world, I decided to re-post the original OP again in it's own thread.
+++++++++++++​

Attorney General Eric Holder has been cited for contempt of Congress, and things are heating up in Washington, and the Fast and Furious hearings continue. Documents have been requested to show what the president knew and when he knew it, and guess how Obama has responded? That's right, the good ole tried and true, claiming of Executive Privilege!

Does anyone recall what Liberals had to say about Bush, when he claimed EP during the interrogations over his energy policy meetings? Or the assorted investigations into the war policies, etc.? Jeesh, I wish I could remember what they had to say about his citing of the same executive privilege, but I'm sure it was something really supportive and nice... since we aren't hearing a peep from them over this. And golly-gee... I really can't remember just what they said when Richard Nixon claimed exec-privies and refused to turn over information to Congress... Can someone look that up for me in your memory banks? For some odd reason, I was under the impression the Liberal Demos weren't keen on this idea of claiming executive privilege and refusing to turn over evidence, and something about how Obama was going to have full disclosure and nothing kept from the public... It just seems like I remember that being said or promised at some point, while they were trying to bring War Crimes charges against Bush and Cheney. Maybe I was dreaming?

First, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The courts held that [President] Nixon’s purported invocation of executive privilege was illegitimate, in part, for that reason. There is reason to suspect that this might be the case in the Fast and Furious cover-up and stonewalling effort. Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of them is covered by executive privilege—and more.

Hi Dix

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There was never executive privilege claimed for anything in Iraq.

Bush claimed executive privilege six times. Twice in two separate instances for the exact same demand from Congress (Harriet Miers and and another advisor's records).

The first claim was in an investigation about "misuse" of organized crime informants.

He claimed it when they wanted information about the energy executives that visited the WH. (That one I was vocal about the fact that knowing who they were would not stop them from candidly speaking to the Pres.)

Twice when they demanded papers from Advisors (Harriet Miers and Sara Taylor).

Once in the Congressional investigation of the friendly fire death of Pat Tillman.

Once in regard to the investigation of firing of US Attorneys, which every President gets to do except Bush apparently..

For contrast purposes, Clinton invoked it 14 times.

So you're saying Bush could have refused to release information on Abu Grahib, etc., using executive privilege, and the liberal democrats would have been okay with that? ...makes sense to me, since they obviously don't have a problem with presidents using executive privilege. Bush was so stupid!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Hi Dix

Hi Ett! Good to see you here!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

**crickets**

WOW... Liberals REALLY don't want to touch this topic!

 

[anatta]

Well, I know Bush's use of executive privilege to avoid revealing info about the energy task force, wasn't 40 years ago. And I know the interrogation over Iraq wasn't that long ago. I'm just finding it hard to locate the praise from liberal democrats over these accounts. Whenever Bush obstructed Congress by using executive privilege, I am sure some liberal democrats must have supported it, because they support Obama doing it now. I just wish I could find what they said about Bush when he did this exact same thing. I'm sure it was great!

I suppose we can accept that you don't recall the Nixon era, you probably weren't even born yet, if you were, you were probably too young to recall. But you've been very helpful in showing that Republicans were firmly opposed to Nixon's obstruction, and despite it being 2 generations ago, they still had their principles, which remain the same today. That's why I assume, since liberal dems are okay with Obama obstructing Congress today, they must have been okay with it back then... don't you imagine? It's just.... I am finding it difficult to locate all the wonderful things they had to say about it at the time.

Oh well... maybe someone older can help?

I was around back then, Nixon was pretty much loathed by the time of the Wategate hearings, by all.
If memory serves Howard Baker was a Repub. Here ya go.


I got in on the loathing early, Vietnam was my generations GWOT ( Global war on terror) - fortunately I was only eligble for 1973 -and I had a high lottery number.

By the time of the hearing even the "hardhats" (America -Love it or Leave it) deserted Nixon. He was prolly the worst ever.
He did open up China ( ping pong diplomacy) and started the EPA -but also the DEA.

maybe someone can help, since you missed the fact I was "around back then" almost 20 years old.
My answer? all Executive Privledges aren't the same, since Nixon was engaged in criminal politics. Thoroughly corrupted, and an earlier version of his "ememys list".
Now the gov't just treats us all as suspects, until proved innocent.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

maybe someone can help, since you missed the fact I was "around back then" almost 20 years old.
My answer? all Executive Privledges aren't the same, since Nixon was engaged in criminal politics. Thoroughly corrupted, and an earlier version of his "ememys list".
Now the gov't just treats us all as suspects, until proved innocent.

Well the problem I see with your understanding of this, is that we didn't know Nixon was engaged in criminal politics until the information was turned over. You see, what we discovered with Nixon's usage of executive privilege, is that it CAN be used to keep damning information away from your accusers. I realize presidents aren't supposed to lie and cover up things, but with Nixon, we learned that this is entirely possible and can happen. They aren't SUPPOSED to use the right of executive privilege to hamper and hinder investigations, but sometimes they do. So now, whenever they withhold information by using EP, we have to assume they are doing this to avoid implicating themselves in criminal politics, much like what Nixon did. They only real way to confirm that's NOT what is happening, is to release the information in question and exonerate the president. If you believe Obama is innocent, you should welcome the release of the requested information, so he can be cleared.

What you are essentially offering as an explanation is this: You like Obama, and don't have a problem with him obstructing Congress because he shares your political philosophy. And the only reason you've opposed any presidential use of EP in the past, is because you didn't like them or their politics. In other words, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with honor and integrity in your mind, it has nothing to do with our right to know the truth or to get to the bottom of corrupt politics, yours is a purely political motivation. It's okay for your guys, not okay for the other guy!