Report: Holder Asks Obama For Executive Privilege On F&f Docs

[Guest Deisel]

If this proves to be true then Holder is asking for Protection for Lying to Congress.

[Peyton]

I do think it's funny that when the Government has found some information worth protecting, it's this information.

Funny.

[Guest Deisel]

OBAMA REFUSES TO TURN OVER FAST AND FURIOUS DOCUMENTS...

GRASSLEY: ASSERTION 'RAISES MONUMENTAL QUESTIONS'...

Issa to Holder: Get ready for contempt vote...

[Guest Deisel]

OBAMA JUST ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVLEDGE ON FAST AND FURIOUS DOCUMENTS. Question, if the White house wasn't involved, as they contend, how do they have executive privledges? Media won't ask I bet.

[Gritzblitz 2.0]

So how is everyone enjoying Dubya's third term?

[IronBallsMcGinty]

OBAMA JUST ASSERTED EXECUTIVE PRIVLEDGE ON FAST AND FURIOUS DOCUMENTS. Question, if the White house wasn't involved, as they contend, how do they have executive privledges? Media won't ask I bet.

I think POTUS can invoke executive privilege on communications that he wasn't a direct party to, but that his subordinates were. It's not saying that Obama himself was involved, but pretty much admitting that Holder was in the loop as Obama's direct subordinate.

[Peyton]

So how is everyone enjoying Dubya's third term?

LOL it's funny I swear I was thinking to myself this morning "Dubya and President Obama are exactly the same person".

[IronBallsMcGinty]

So how is everyone enjoying Dubya's third term?

No ******* kidding.

[Xnex]

Everyone needs to accept that ANY AND ALL candidates running for the office will make statements about what they would/would not do if elected only to later determine that they had no idea of the complexity of holding that office and will eventually end up backing out of so many of the promises they made when running for the Presidency.

I know that candidates lie at times in order to get what they want; I don't condone it or approve of it I just acknowledge that it happens very often. But we (voters/ anyone of reason) need to admit that the men who have held and will hold that office will frequently speak on topics and what they would do in certain situations without fully understanding the implications of their intended actions. To me I don't think of ALL OF THOSE changes in position as lies or anything underhanded. It's just more proof that none of us knows what we would do in certain circumstances. All of us need to admit that we don't always know what we would do in a certain situation, and we should also be less willing to believe whole heartedly in everything our favorite candidates have to say. We also need to quit expecting any person to hold to their original positions with 100% ferver... doing that would make you an idiot of the highest order.

[Rambler]

Everyone needs to accept that ANY AND ALL candidates running for the office will make statements about what they would/would not do if elected only to later determine that they had no idea of the complexity of holding that office and will eventually end up backing out of so many of the promises they made when running for the Presidency. I know that candidates lie at times in order to get what they want; I don't condone it or approve of it I just acknowledge that it happens very often. But we (voters/ anyone of reason) need to admit that the men who have held and will hold that office will frequently speak on topics and what they would do in certain situations without fully understanding the implications of their intended actions. To me I don't think of ALL OF THOSE changes in position as lies or anything underhanded. It's just more proof that none of us knows what we would do in certain circumstances. All of us need to admit that we don't always know what we would do in a certain situation, and we should also be less willing to believe whole heartedly in everything our favorite candidates have to say. We also need to quit expecting any person to hold to their original positions with 100% ferver... doing that would make you an idiot of the highest order.

Say what?

[Xnex]

Say what?

I guarantee you that right now if I were to give you 5 different sets of circumstances and asked you what you would do, you would be wrong on at least one of them when the situation "went live". Expecting someone who has never gotten behind the curtain of actually running the nation to give details about every possible situation they might encounter if they took the office, is foolish. The best you can hope for is a man (or woman) who tells us what they intend to do on a macro level and how they want to accomplish it. Asking for more than that and then berating them when they don't do exactly what they said they would do beforehand is foolish, IMO.

Nobody knows or could possibly hope to know exactly what they would do in all circumstances at all times. Sometimes "new information or circumstances" arise and those changes cause us to behave differently than we ever thought we would.

[eatcorn]

Everyone needs to accept that ANY AND ALL candidates running for the office will make statements about what they would/would not do if elected only to later determine that they had no idea of the complexity of holding that office and will eventually end up backing out of so many of the promises they made when running for the Presidency.

I know that candidates lie at times in order to get what they want; I don't condone it or approve of it I just acknowledge that it happens very often. But we (voters/ anyone of reason) need to admit that the men who have held and will hold that office will frequently speak on topics and what they would do in certain situations without fully understanding the implications of their intended actions. To me I don't think of ALL OF THOSE changes in position as lies or anything underhanded. It's just more proof that none of us knows what we would do in certain circumstances. All of us need to admit that we don't always know what we would do in a certain situation, and we should also be less willing to believe whole heartedly in everything our favorite candidates have to say. We also need to quit expecting any person to hold to their original positions with 100% ferver... doing that would make you an idiot of the highest order.

Totally agree. Good post.

[Rambler]

I see there is a new understanding and compassion for the job of POTUS and the difficult decisions they are faced with on a day to day basis. Did you just now come to this "moment of clarity" or have you been holding back on us?

[EpicBeardMan]

So I'm curious. Everyone was just as outraged when George W. Bush used the executive privilege 6 times during his administration, right?

[kicker]

Everyone needs to accept that ANY AND ALL candidates running for the office will make statements about what they would/would not do if elected only to later determine that they had no idea of the complexity of holding that office and will eventually end up backing out of so many of the promises they made when running for the Presidency.

I know that candidates lie at times in order to get what they want; I don't condone it or approve of it I just acknowledge that it happens very often. But we (voters/ anyone of reason) need to admit that the men who have held and will hold that office will frequently speak on topics and what they would do in certain situations without fully understanding the implications of their intended actions. To me I don't think of ALL OF THOSE changes in position as lies or anything underhanded. It's just more proof that none of us knows what we would do in certain circumstances. All of us need to admit that we don't always know what we would do in a certain situation, and we should also be less willing to believe whole heartedly in everything our favorite candidates have to say. We also need to quit expecting any person to hold to their original positions with 100% ferver... doing that would make you an idiot of the highest order.

A for effort in trying to deflect a totally FUBAR move by Obama.

[eatcorn]

I see there is a new understanding and compassion for the job of POTUS and the difficult decisions they are faced with on a day to day basis. Did you just now come to this "moment of clarity" or have you been holding back on us?

I'll be honest and say that I did not feel this way when Bush was President. My perspective isn't different because of Obama, but rather because I've come to see my anger and disdain for Bush to be uncalled for and overreaching. I do believe he was a very bad President, but I have let go of the vitriol. It's a remarkably thankless and difficult job, and my feelings about Bush served no purpose other than to degrade my own view of the world.

People's ridiculous outrage about Obama's policies has also helped me to see how ridiculous much of my outrage was under Bush.

[kicker]

So I'm curious. Everyone was just as outraged when George W. Bush used the executive privilege 6 times during his administration, right?

I was.

[falconsd56]

I see there is a new understanding and compassion for the job of POTUS and the difficult decisions they are faced with on a day to day basis. Did you just now come to this "moment of clarity" or have you been holding back on us?

Most people understand this.

You act like there was this incredible vile behavior vs Bush.

When there were not. Yes there were some people who were patently stupid but Bush has not faced anything REMOTELY close to the BS that gets spewed about Obama.

[Rambler]

So I'm curious. Everyone was just as outraged when George W. Bush used the executive privilege 6 times during his administration, right?

What ticks the right off about this time is because Obama used as it as a gimmick to garner more votes. Even Obama said last year he didnt have the right to do this but faced with sagging poll numbers he did an "about face". I cant defend all of W`s uses of executive privilege but I dont believe you can point to a single example of him using it to boost his popularity or gain votes.

[Peyton]

I'm the opposite. I thought Bush was wrong when he hid things and made up laws, and I think Obama is wrong too. Maybe not legally wrong, but morally wrong.

[falconsd56]

What ticks the right off about this time is because Obama used as it as a gimmick to garner more votes. Even Obama said last year he didnt have the right to do this but faced with sagging poll numbers he did an "about face". I cant defend all of W`s uses of executive privilege but I dont believe you can point to a single example of him using it to boost his popularity or gain votes.

Really??

Can you name a thing he did that did NOT try to garner votes with his base??

Btw what did Obama do an about face on??

[kicker]

Most people understand this.

You act like there was this incredible vile behavior vs Bush.

When there were not. Yes there were some people who were patently stupid but Bush has not faced anything REMOTELY close to the BS that gets spewed about Obama.

Seriously? How many protests would you like me to show images of? Obama is fortunate that Brian Terry's mom is not as motivated as Cindy Sheehan.

[Rambler]

You guys on the left need to come to terms with the fact that you passed over a much better qualified candidate in Hillary Clinton and went Justin Bieber crazy over Obama for no good reason. Hillary would have never been as stubborn as Obama over legislation and would have been a lock for a second term.

[kicker]

You guys on the left need to come to terms with the fact that you passed over a much better qualified candidate in Hillary Clinton and went Justin Bieber crazy over Obama for no good reason. Hillary would have never been as stubborn as Obama over legislation and would have been a lock for a second term.

I completely agree. Clinton will probably go down as the best Secretary of State in history.

[Rambler]

I completely agree. Clinton will probably go down as the best Secretary of State in history.

And would kick Obamas azz if she had ran against him this time around.