Fast and Furiously, Obama Claims Executive Privilege!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Tell me, can you name a time when a president has used EP and NOT obstructed an investigation? Nixon used EP because presidents have the authority to use EP! We didn't know he was covering up anything, until the information was revealed. Obama might also be covering up something, we don't know, and we won't know until the information is revealed.
What stinks even more, are liberals who seem to think this is perfectly okay and acceptable for Obama to do, because republicans have done it. Forget all they said back then about transparency and open honest government, they didn't mean a word of that... Why vote for crooked lying Republicans, when Democrats can be just as crooked and lie just as well?
you're so far off in left/right field. i don't even know where to start.
I am not voting for a warmonger, or the duopoloy -that includes Obama and Romney. As to "finding out" EP was used to withold the tapes, but recall Woodward and Bernstein's invetigative journalism in WAPO? Deep Throat? any of this ring a bell?
Yes I do agree todays "reporters" really can't investigate -everything is "classified", and it takes a mole to find out.
The difference is moles aren't tolerated, they'll get sanctioned by the Patirot Act, or some other loathsome NSA "card"
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well it's a relief to know you won't be an Obama vote, but that doesn't excuse you from the argument you have made. Yes, I recall Woodward & Bernstein and Deep Throat, but they have little to do with Nixon's use of EP to obstruct Congress. The argument has been, it was wrong for Nixon to use EP because he was covering up criminal political activity... but we didn't KNOW that until we had the information he was protecting. Even then, it wasn't CERTAIN because 18 minutes of tape were missing. Likewise, we don't know what criminal political activity Obama might be covering up, because the information isn't being released.
LMAO@ moles aren't tolerated! Maybe we should pass a Equal Rights for Moles Bill? So whenever a mole is discovered inside an organization, it would be against the law to out them or get rid of them? Yeah, that sounds like another award-winning liberal idea!
we knew of his criminal activity, the WaPo aricles described such: timeline:
1970
July 23 - Nixon approves a plan for greatly expanding domestic intelligence-gathering by the FBI, CIA and other agencies. He has second thoughts a few days later and rescinds his approval.
1971
June 13 - The New York Times begins publishing the Pentagon Papers - the Defense Department's secret history of the Vietnam War. The Washington Post will begin publishing the papers later that same week.
September 3 - The White House "plumbers" unit - named for their orders to plug leaks in the administration - burglarizes a psychiatrist's office to find files on Daniel Ellsberg, the former defense analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers.
1972
June 17 - Five men, one of whom says he used to work for the CIA, are arrested at 2:30 a.m. trying to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate hotel and office complex. Post Story
June 19 - A GOP security aide is among the Watergate burglars, The Washington Post reports. Former attorney general John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denies any link to the operation. Post Story
August 1 - A $25,000 cashier's check, apparently earmarked for the Nixon campaign, wound up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar, The Washington Post reports. Post Story
September 29 - John Mitchell, while serving as attorney general, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance widespread intelligence-gathering operations against the Democrats, The Post reports. Post Story
October 10 - FBI agents establish that the Watergate break-in stems from a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of the Nixon reelection effort, The Post reports. Post Story
November 7 - Nixon is reelected in one of the largest landslides in American political history, taking more than 60 percent of the vote and crushing the Democratic nominee, Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota. Post Story
1973
January 30 - Former Nixon aides G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. are convicted of conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping in the Watergate incident. Five other men plead guilty, but mysteries remain. Post Story
April 30 - Nixon's top White House staffers, H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, and Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resign over the scandal. White House counsel John Dean is fired.Post Story
May 18 - The Senate Watergate Committee begins its nationally televised hearings. Attorney General-designate Elliot Richardson taps former solicitor general Archibald Cox as the Justice Department's special prosecutor for Watergate. Post Story | Post Analysis
June 3 - John Dean has told Watergate investigators that he discussed the Watergate cover-up with President Nixon at least 35 times, The Post reports. Post Story
June 13 - Watergate prosecutors find a memo addressed to John Ehrlichman describing in detail the plans to burglarize the office of Pentagon Papers defendant Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, The Post reports. Post Story
July 13 - Alexander Butterfield, former presidential appointments secretary, reveals in congressional testimony that since 1971 Nixon had recorded all conversations and telephone calls in his offices. Post Story
July 18 - Nixon reportedly orders the White House taping system disconnected.
July 23 - Nixon refuses to turn over the presidential tape recordings to the Senate Watergate Committee or the special prosecutor.Post Story
October 20 - Saturday Night Massacre: Nixon fires Archibald Cox and abolishes the office of the special prosecutor. Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus resign. Pressure for impeachment mounts in Congress. Post Story
November 17 - Nixon declares, "I'm not a crook," maintaining his innocence in the Watergate case. Post Story
December 7 - The White House can't explain an 18 ½-minute gap in one of the subpoenaed tapes. Chief of Staff Alexander Haig says one theory is that "some sinister force" erased the segment. Post Story
1974
April 30 - The White House releases more than 1,200 pages of edited transcripts of the Nixon tapes to the House Judiciary Committee, but the committee insists that the tapes themselves must be turned over. Post Story
July 24 - The Supreme Court rules unanimously that Nixon must turn over the tape recordings of 64 White House conversations, rejecting the president's claims of executive privilege. Post Story
which establishes SCOTUS didn't rule on EP until well into the CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
as to "moles" i phrased it incorrectly, i should have said "the press cannot investigate because of NSA laws, and it casts a chilling effect on moles."
Yes, i'll concede that point to you.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
annata, I am not arguing when the SCOTUS ruled on EP for Nixon. There is no logic in your argument, because if it had already been proven that Nixon was involved, there would have been no need in obtaining the tapes. It would have been academic... a moot point. The fact is, the tapes are what damned Nixon, and proved he was lying. Nixon knew that, which is why he used EP to block their release to Congress. YES, there was a great deal of evidence to suggest that Nixon was directly involved with Watergate... just as there is a great deal of evidence to suggest Obama is involved with Fast & Furious. The tapes were the PROOF, and until we had those, we really didn't KNOW anything.
As for the NSA hampering the press and it's ability to investigate, I think that has pretty much always been the case, we have a confidentiality afforded to national security matters, and we'd be really stupid to NOT have them. We don't live in a bubble, where only self-absorbed politicos see and hear this stuff, we are in the 21st century, where information is available instantly around the world to everyone. Most certainly, our enemies! We can't just willy-nilly open up our CIA files for the world to look at, that's insane. So we have a system which enables us to issue certain information we declassify, and the media can do whatever it wants to do. They aren't prohibited from investigating, they just aren't privy to sensitive information, and they aren't ever going to be.
As for the NSA hampering the press and it's ability to investigate, I think that has pretty much always been the case, we have a confidentiality afforded to national security matters, and we'd be really stupid to NOT have them. We don't live in a bubble, where only self-absorbed politicos see and hear this stuff, we are in the 21st century, where information is available instantly around the world to everyone. Most certainly, our enemies! We can't just willy-nilly open up our CIA files for the world to look at, that's insane. So we have a system which enables us to issue certain information we declassify, and the media can do whatever it wants to do. They aren't prohibited from investigating, they just aren't privy to sensitive information, and they aren't ever going to be.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
It's always a comedic pleasure when you try to envoke the guise of a condescending intellectual, Dixie! I mean, just because YOU cannot disprove or refute the information contained in the website I sourced by any rational or logical means, you try to create some "rule violation" based solely on your personal opinions. If the rules state that no website of bloggers who have advertisers can be used (and they would have to do that to liberals and conservatives in the interests of true fair debate), then this discussion board would grind to a halt, as it would merely be a place where children would argue about the existence of Santa Claus, and psuedo-intellectuals would debate the number of angels dancing on a pinhead (not to mention the moderators having to tell THEIR political advertisers to go away).
So, my dear Dixie, I suggest you either man-up and just acknowledge where you are wrong and stick to the discussion at hand, as anything else you venture at is just not complimentary to you. Carry on.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And here's a little addition to the discussion that should have Annie groaning for days on end. Enjoy!
GOP Oversight Chair Admits There Is No Evidence Of White House Involvement In Fast And Furious
Last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) claimed that the White House decision to invoke executive privilege to prevent the release of some documents related to the “Fast and Furious” investigation indicated some sort of admission of a White House cover-up. Today, pressed by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) admitted that there is absolutely no evidence to back up Boehner’s allegation:
WALLACE: Do you have any evidence that White House officials were involved in these decisions, that they knowingly misled Congress, and are involved in a cover-up?
ISSA: No, we don’t. And what we are seeking are documents that we know to exist, February 4 to December [2011] that are in fact about [murdered Border Patrol agent] Brian Terry’s murder, who knew, and why people were lying about it…
WALLACE: I want to be clear, because we’ve got to get out, no evidence that the White House is involved in the cover up?
ISSA: And I hope they don’t get involved.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fast...e-washington-barack-obama/story?id=16613606#3
GOP Oversight Chair Admits There Is No Evidence Of White House Involvement In Fast And Furious
Last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) claimed that the White House decision to invoke executive privilege to prevent the release of some documents related to the “Fast and Furious” investigation indicated some sort of admission of a White House cover-up. Today, pressed by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) admitted that there is absolutely no evidence to back up Boehner’s allegation:
WALLACE: Do you have any evidence that White House officials were involved in these decisions, that they knowingly misled Congress, and are involved in a cover-up?
ISSA: No, we don’t. And what we are seeking are documents that we know to exist, February 4 to December [2011] that are in fact about [murdered Border Patrol agent] Brian Terry’s murder, who knew, and why people were lying about it…
WALLACE: I want to be clear, because we’ve got to get out, no evidence that the White House is involved in the cover up?
ISSA: And I hope they don’t get involved.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fast...e-washington-barack-obama/story?id=16613606#3
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Before release of the Nixon tapes, there was no evidence of white house involvement.
I don't know how you managed to mess up what you read from me, but I said that Nixon DIDN'T come out and tell us he was a crook... you posting evidence he obviously did the exact opposite, and told us he was NOT a crook, doesn't refute what I said... it confirms it. Nixon was telling us he wasn't involved, the tapes proved he was a liar. The missing 18 minutes were probably more incriminating than if they had been there, in the end, it was a disastrous cover-up.
But we're not discussing Nixon, just his use of executive privilege to obstruct Congressional investigation. It sounds like you weren't for that, but with Obama, things are somehow different. The only difference I see, is that it turned out, Nixon was lying and had to resign in shame, and that hasn't happened with Obama yet. In both cases, Congress was investigating and requesting information from a reluctant white house, who claimed to have no involvement. In both cases, the Congress said they weren't alleging the white house was involved, they just needed to see the information to clear up everything. It wasn't until AFTER the information was released by the Nixon white house, that he resigned... it was over. The tapes are what damned him, is this true for Obama as well? That is the question!
I don't know how you managed to mess up what you read from me, but I said that Nixon DIDN'T come out and tell us he was a crook... you posting evidence he obviously did the exact opposite, and told us he was NOT a crook, doesn't refute what I said... it confirms it. Nixon was telling us he wasn't involved, the tapes proved he was a liar. The missing 18 minutes were probably more incriminating than if they had been there, in the end, it was a disastrous cover-up.
But we're not discussing Nixon, just his use of executive privilege to obstruct Congressional investigation. It sounds like you weren't for that, but with Obama, things are somehow different. The only difference I see, is that it turned out, Nixon was lying and had to resign in shame, and that hasn't happened with Obama yet. In both cases, Congress was investigating and requesting information from a reluctant white house, who claimed to have no involvement. In both cases, the Congress said they weren't alleging the white house was involved, they just needed to see the information to clear up everything. It wasn't until AFTER the information was released by the Nixon white house, that he resigned... it was over. The tapes are what damned him, is this true for Obama as well? That is the question!
There was enough evidence -if it was followed up to prove Nixon knew and approved of Watergate. again llok at the timeline:
If it were anyone but POTUS normal criminal investigations would surely have gotten subpeona, and folowed the trail.
But I also see your point Nixon's use of EP. did block the investigation. So I sort of aggree and disagree with you, i'll leave it at that.
as to NSA types - since 9-11 these acts NDAA/Patriot, etc. do effectively block any investigation - futher they enable the gov't to inhibit investigation in an active manner.
The real probles (IMHO) is we're in a perpetual state of war -so this is going to be the modus operandi for the forseeable future.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well it's good you're going to leave it at that, but the fact is, I am right and you were wrong. The release of the tapes was followed by his resignation for good reason. The tapes were the physical proof which condemned Nixon. Now you can speculate as to whether they may have been able to prove his guilt some other way, but that doesn't change the facts. The tapes are what did it. And until we had the tapes, we really didn't have "PROOF" that Nixon had lied or had been involved in the cover-up. It's also interesting to note, until Nixon resigned, he maintained his innocence and denied involvement.
So what you're saying is, these are just things we have to accept, especially if it's a Democrat in the white house, because Democrats didn't have anything to do with passing the Patriot Act? Because Democrats would never use obstruction to impede an investigation? What exactly is your point? You seem to be FINE with Obama obstructing Congress and refusing to hand over information. Something tells me, you sang a different tune when it was Bush or any other Republican.
really . you're nit picking it to death. Narrowing the point that the tapes were the smoking gun. OK fine.
Q.Where would normal investigative proceedures ( where EP is not allowed) lead?
A.To a criminal invesigation. Why this is so important, i don't know, i ssuppse you're trying to say EP by Obama is sheltering an investigation?
It's certainly possible, we're getting numerous stories. I dont' know enough about it -i never followed it, to give you my opinion. If I don't know -i'll say so honestly
'I'm neither fine or not fine', 'it's not part of my knowledge'. 'Not on my radar screeen' Pick a simile.
I haven't defended Obama's use of EP.I'm not a Democrat. I have accused both partys of overstepping the use of wars as a policy to combat terrorism.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Whenever you sober up, perhaps you can post that last post again?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Sorry to burst your bubble Dix, but the GOP's grandstanding is but a piss in the wind, as shown here: http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ms-Executive-Privilege!&p=1025485#post1025485