Comments on: Attorney General Holder vs Congress: render unto Caesar or be Held in Contempt of Congress.

By: PowerToThePeople

PowerToThePeople — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:01:14 +0000

that Obama was telling the truth when he stated he had no knowledge of F and F. The reality is, he was involved, knew about it, discussed it, hence he can invoke Executive Privilege.

Now sure why anyone is worked up about him invoking privilege as it does more damage to Obama in the populace’s eyes than anything found in that paperwork. F and F was basically a forgotten issue, contempt charges against Holder would have done little to hurt Obama and I doubt we had the votes anyways, but now with the EP granted by Obama, he is a liar and a man willing to do anything to cover up his BS.

Romney should and will remind voters of this right up to election day and it will have the biggest impact in getting Obama out of office. I have a feeling Issa knew long ago where this was headed and that Obama would invoke EP, and it was quite cunning.

By: hanoverhenry

hanoverhenry — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:48:47 +0000

…to mean that anybody who works for the executive branch can invoke it any time to avoid being investigated and/or questioned by the legislative branch. It was meant as my article plainly spells out, to protect the client, similar to the attorney-client privilege. It is not to protect the “lawyer” or the “adviser.” Hence, if the President is already on record saying he never even discussed the matter with his Attorney General, then it cannot be construed as “Executive Privilege” unless the President retracts his earlier claim that he AND HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL did not authorize, or know about or even discuss with each other, this topic. And thanks for the “recco” by the way.

By: gflyer3364qt

gflyer3364qt — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:25:18 +0000

Watching the Democrats trying to defend Holder, delay the proceedings, and argue that Holder was cooperating all along was funny, amusing, saddening, and infuriating at the same time. They did NOT want to have to go on the record voting on the issue. Haha…too bad. No Dems on the committee voted in favor of the contempt proceeding but they’re all die hard liberals. There weren’t any moderate Dems on the committee. ALL Republicans voted in favor. Can’t wait for the full House vote where ALL the Dems have to go on record on the issue in an election year.

By: gflyer3364qt

gflyer3364qt — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:15:05 +0000

This guy set it straight on the contempt issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WtXo-mSKpIA

By: Viet71

Viet71 — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 00:02:05 +0000

That’s the constitutional question.

Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all have invoked executive privilege. The existence of the privilege was recognized in U.S. v. Nixon (1974); but there it was given a narrow scope and denied to President Nixon.

Certainly its EXERCISE by presidents is not unduly stretched by what Obama has done. The real question is, is Obama on solid ground constitutionally.

IMO, no.

Reason: The Burger Court in U.S. v. Nixon hung its hat on the need for the president to get unqualified, unvarnished advice from his subordinates. That policy does not come into play with respect to the F and F documents.