Executive Privilege

[heironymouspasparagus]

Maybe somewhere in 2007. Let's live for today how about.

Because if you don't know history or understand it, then you are susceptible to fall for any old kind of carp that comes down the road.  (Should we mention some of your past posts?)

Your quote;
Like I've said before, bad behavior does not justify bad behavior.


I happen to agree completely.  I also apply an additional litmus test of relativity, which is one of the complaints about Gaspar's approach - if you have 1 unit of bad behavior compared to 10 units of bad behavior, yes, they are both bad.  But which do you really think is the more critical and/or urgent at any given point of time?  What is the relative "badness" between the two??  

Classic case is Billy Bob's lying to Congress about his hanky panky in the oval office.  Relative criticality/urgency compared to lying about getting us into a wasted war that has cost to date over 5,000 (approaching 6,000!) lives of YOUR contemporaries - and MY generation's kids and grandkids.  Not to mention the tens of thousands of wounded!

Plus the approx $2 trillion that it has heaped onto our debt - much of it "off budget" to make it less obvious.  Which one would you put the most weight on?  Would you really hold these to be equal in magnitude/gravity??


Gaspar puts the 1 equal to the 10.  Do you??

[Conan71]

And do you think Cheney et al didn't ask for the same during those instances?  This was a formality.  Either way, it's wrong to do.  But keep straying from my question as to why Gas didn't bring this up during the Bush administration.

Bush did it four times inside of six weeks in 2007.  Where was the outrage then?

And why was Rove claiming EP from this article?

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-10/politics/rove.subpoena_1_robert-d-luskin-subpoena-longtime-political-guru?_s=PM:POLITICS

Was Gaspar even a member of the forum in 2007? 

Why are you defending the Executive Branch trying to obstruct justice on behalf of the AG's office by referencing the actions of the previous administration?  The article you cited was an investigation into firing U.S. attorneys by those within the executive branch.  I might also add this is nothing new, as Presidents frequently do fire U.S. Attorneys.  Clinton cleaned house when he came into office in 1993, firing all but one.  The total was around 93.  Bush fired eight of them midway through his second term.  BFD.

The current investigation is regarding breaking numerous gun laws and trafficking weapons which have resulted in the death of U.S. law enforcement agents.  There's a major effing difference as to the magnitude of the investigation, and it's inexcusable.  A messed up arms operation which jeopardizes thousands of lives versus firing eight U.S. attorneys is a huge difference.  Focus on the message not the messenger.

[Hoss]

You mean like this outrage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bpwYh9TD6Nc#!

Just sayin...

Apples and oranges.  You ignore the fact I'm specifically asking why Gas didn't have the outrage.  That's my question.  Keep rotating it around as you see fit, but the question remains to be answered.

Myself?  At the time, it didn't bother me.  I never said anything about it because back in 2007 I wasn't near as versed in policy and politics as I am now.

[Hoss]

Was Gaspar even a member of the forum in 2007? 

Why are you defending the Executive Branch trying to obstruct justice on behalf of the AG's office by referencing the actions of the previous administration?  The article you cited was an investigation into firing U.S. attorneys by those within the executive branch.  I might also add this is nothing new, as Presidents frequently do fire U.S. Attorneys.  Clinton cleaned house when he came into office in 1993, firing all but one.  The total was around 93.  Bush fired eight of them midway through his second term.  BFD.

The current investigation is regarding breaking numerous gun laws and trafficking weapons which have resulted in the death of U.S. law enforcement agents.  There's a major effing difference as to the magnitude of the investigation, and it's inexcusable.  A messed up arms operation which jeopardizes thousands of lives versus firing eight U.S. attorneys is a huge difference.  Focus on the message not the messenger.

You guys are not reading what I'm saying evidently.  I'm NOT defending anyone here.  I'm simply asking why Gas has the outrage now but didn't have it back then.

It's that simple people.  You're twisting my intent.  But, that's not surprising.

[erfalf]

Was Gaspar even a member of the forum in 2007? 

Why are you defending the Executive Branch trying to obstruct justice on behalf of the AG's office by referencing the actions of the previous administration?  The article you cited was an investigation into firing U.S. attorneys by those within the executive branch.  I might also add this is nothing new, as Presidents frequently do fire U.S. Attorneys.  Clinton cleaned house when he came into office in 1993, firing all but one.  The total was around 93.  Bush fired eight of them midway through his second term.  BFD.

The current investigation is regarding breaking numerous gun laws and trafficking weapons which have resulted in the death of U.S. law enforcement agents.  There's a major effing difference as to the magnitude of the investigation, and it's inexcusable.  A messed up arms operation which jeopardizes thousands of lives versus firing eight U.S. attorneys is a huge difference.  Focus on the message not the messenger.

That's exactly the point. We could have a hypocrisy competition all freaking day long. It still doesn't justify the behavior. I am not trying to justify Gas's opinion if and when he had them. I am saying that what is happening appears to be in the wrong, and let's focus on that now. In the present tense.

I'm not twisting Hoss's intent, I'm just saying it doesn't matter to the discussion. Hoss, like our current administration are trying to discredit the messenger regardless of the facts when presented. It is immaterial to the discussion at hand.

[Hoss]

That's exactly the point. We could have a hypocrisy competition all freaking day long. It still doesn't justify the behavior. I am not trying to justify Gas's opinion if and when he had them. I am saying that what is happening appears to be in the wrong, and let's focus on that now. In the present tense.

I'm not twisting Hoss's intent, I'm just saying it doesn't matter to the discussion. Hoss, like our current administration are trying to discredit the messenger regardless of the facts when presented. It is immaterial to the discussion at hand.

I'm not trying to discredit the messenger any differently aside from the selective outrage.  I know the facts here.  It's YOU who are defending the messenger.

[Conan71]

You guys are not reading what I'm saying evidently.  I'm NOT defending anyone here.  I'm simply asking why Gas has the outrage now but didn't have it back then.

It's that simple people.  You're twisting my intent.  But, that's not surprising.

No, I don't have it wrong, you are focusing on the messenger being hypocritical.  I don't know that we ever discussed the dismissals of the U.S. Attorneys and whether or not Gaspar ever posted on it.

Would initiating a post about the Bush admin using executive privilege be a prerequisite for posting about it when the Obama admin uses it?  

[Hoss]

No, I don't have it wrong, you are focusing on the messenger being hypocritical.  I don't know that we ever discussed the dismissals of the U.S. Attorneys and whether or not Gaspar ever posted on it.

Would initiating a post about the Bush admin using executive privilege be a prerequisite for posting about it when the Obama admin uses it?  

If so then why did you ask me this?

Why are you defending the Executive Branch trying to obstruct justice on behalf of the AG's office by referencing the actions of the previous administration?  The article you cited was an investigation into firing U.S. attorneys by those within the executive branch.  I might also add this is nothing new, as Presidents frequently do fire U.S. Attorneys.  Clinton cleaned house when he came into office in 1993, firing all but one.  The total was around 93.  Bush fired eight of them midway through his second term.  BFD.

I never defended anyone here, either administration.  Like you said, I was pointing out the selective outrage.  Why ask me that question?

EDIT:  To add...I can see why someone might think I'm defending the administration here.  Fact of the matter is, I've NEVER liked the EP.  It's a copout and always feels like something is being hidden.

If you want to answer questions about Scott's selective outrage ... fine.  But otherwise I'm not getting baited again to answer about something I never asserted in the post.  Silly I even have to say that.   

[Conan71]

EDIT:  To add...I can see why someone might think I'm defending the administration here.  Fact of the matter is, I've NEVER liked the EP.  It's a copout and always feels like something is being hidden.

That's all I was looking for and yes, that's where you lost me as the way you brought up Rove was almost like a justification for the current admin using EP.  Thanks for the clarification.

[Gaspar]

You guys are not reading what I'm saying evidently.  I'm NOT defending anyone here.  I'm simply asking why Gas has the outrage now but didn't have it back then.

It's that simple people.  You're twisting my intent.  But, that's not surprising.

Ok, I'm back from lunch.  I have outrage or at least suspicion every time any president invokes Executive Privilege.  There are times when it seems more justified than others, such as in reasons for terminating employees or protecting the executive knowledge of clandestine operations.

Again, what makes this case unique is that this president is extending Executive Privilege beyond the executive.  The power of Executive Privilege is designed to protect the Executive, not friends, girlfriends, or other entities.

The worst abuser of executive privilege was Bill Clinton, invoking it 14 times to protect himself on everything from various bimbo eruptions, fraudulent land deals, and a host of other stuff.  Each time from George Washington to Nixon to Clinton, executive privilege has been used to protect the President from possible criminal prosecution.

Now we see it used for a completely new reason, or is it?

[Teatownclown]

Using Executive Privilege while fighting a war necessitates keeping secrets.

Sorry....too bad. Witch hunts for political gain waste huge amounts of money and time.

Paging Ken Starr....we will find out this all started under a Bush.   http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=dlj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dexecutive%2520privilege%2520bush%2520reno%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CGAQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1173%2526context%253Ddlj%26ei%3DPurhT6i4LqmU2QXG6bHsCw%26usg%3DAFQjCNEEdQ2B1Qa3raFIprdEOieg3AdcmA#search=%22executive%20privilege%20bush%20reno%22

Clinton 14 times
Bush 6 times
Republijerks going after POTUS Obama for not having enough gun control...this whole thing is a joke.

[Red Arrow]

You guys are not reading what I'm saying evidently. 

Yes we are.  We just don't care why Gas was not outraged 5 years ago.

[Hoss]

Yes we are.  We just don't care why Gas was not outraged 5 years ago.

That's what I thought.  A pattern emerges.

[Gaspar]

That's what I thought.  A pattern emerges.

Why on earth would you get the impression that a libertarian would be OK with Bush exerting Executive Privilege?  The only defense I would give him is that it wasn't to hide dry cleaning bills.

[RecycleMichael]

Don't hate the player, hate the game.