Obama invokes executive privilege as Holder faces contempt vote

[Glocktogo]

I want the sorry idiot out of office as bad as anybody, but I do have to post the history of modern Presidents that have used Executive Privilege in the past.

President Ronald Reagan: 3
President George H.W. Bush:1
President Bill Clinton:14
President George W. Bush: 6
Obummer: 1

Presidents have the right to invoke executive privilege to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative inquiries.
Presidents have asserted that privilege 25 times since 1980

Yes they have the right to invoke it. However, it's not always upheld in court. I think Obama will havce a very difficult time proving it's applicability here if Congress takes him to court on it.

Obama and Holder are absolutely arrogant enough to force their hand. I for one hope they do!

 

[rawhide]

Presidents have the right to invoke executive privilege to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative inquiries that are vital to national security
Presidents have asserted that privilege 25 times since 1980

Not to save their own backside. Holder, the chief legal servant of the people doesn't have much of a history of serving the interest of the people or the rule of law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120102403.html

 

[Old Timer]

Is executive privilege, in this case, sort of like pleading the fifth?

I think O is paying Holder back for testifying that he did not know about F&F.

 

[fredkrueger]

I want the sorry idiot out of office as bad as anybody, but I do have to post the history of modern Presidents that have used Executive Privilege in the past.

President Ronald Reagan: 3
President George H.W. Bush:1
President Bill Clinton:14
President George W. Bush: 6
Obummer: 1

Presidents have the right to invoke executive privilege to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative inquiries.
Presidents have asserted that privilege 25 times since 1980

This may be true but I am sure the other executive orders issued were for different reasons than what Obama has done it for. Obama doesn't want Holder to get in trouble because he is anti-gun. Obama wants him to continue doing his job which is to cause as much problems for 2A as he can. Holder is guilty and so is Obama. They are both crooked as can be. Just take a look at the video of Eric Holder in 1995 stating that they should brainwash people into believing that there should be strong gun control. That is the kind of scum that Obama supports, and is supporting.

 

[870WingBlaster]

Sure. He has throngs of Kool-Aid guzzlin' zombies backing him.

Grace: Oh, he's very popular Ed. The sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads - they all adore him. They think he's a righteous dude.

This has got to be in the top ten posts of 2012.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I figured you guys would be happy, he's becoming more Bush-like every day!

After the election, he'll become Reagan-like and start banning guns!

This.

In all honesty though, gotta praise Barry for keeping his nose clean thus far. Our "Modern" presidents:

W. Bush: 6 over 2 terms
Clinton: 14 over 2 terms
H.W. Bush: 1 over 2 terms
Reagan: 3 over 2 terms

I guess he had to do something right. He at least doesn't always appear openly deceptive.

And this.

IN spite of liberal attempts to rewrite history

Really? I can't listen to 15 minutes of conservative talk radio without hearing another blatant lie about history, with the exception of Boortz.

and evidently they're succeeding

Considering how Republicans like to place Reagan on a pedestal above God, I think the "conservatives" have succeeded in their rewrite. Ever read church sermons regarding separation of church and state quoting early SCOTUS opinions? Most of those take a hypothetical about the negative impacts of integration and quote it out of context claiming that the SCOTUS supported integration of church and state. I don't fault the preachers for not checking facts on the sermons they repeat, though - I fault the authors for misleading the public.

it was after he left office that he lent support to the brady bill

He also supported the failed efforts in Congress during his term.

If you are refering to the firearms protection act of 86, then you would need to be aware of the abuses of power of the atf under Jjmmy Carter, to have any appreciation at all as to what was happening.

So because the ATF abused their power under Carter, it's okay for Reagan to support specifically the amendment to prohibit the private ownership of full autos manufactured after May ##, 1986? Or his VERY vocal support and lobbying in Congress for passage of the 1994 AWB?

 

[RugersGR8]

Lets see now, the leftwing lib MSM has said that there is a conspiracy directing the efforts of the Republicans in the matter of Fast and Furious/Eric Holder. They made accusations of such things as GOP attempts to get rid of Holder to protect state-level voter ID laws, election-year politics, and racism against Republicans. Well then, lets just make an analogy between what the Obama adminstration has done and "what if" Walmart had done the following things in the article below:


http://www.okshooters.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=145137
What If Walmart Sold 2500 Guns Illegally, Walked Them into Mexico, and Hid the Documentation from Congress?
by AWR Hawkins23 Jun 2012, 11:26 AM PDT

 

[gaseous maximus]

This.



And this.



Really? I can't listen to 15 minutes of conservative talk radio without hearing another blatant lie about history, with the exception of Boortz.



Considering how Republicans like to place Reagan on a pedestal above God, I think the "conservatives" have succeeded in their rewrite. Ever read church sermons regarding separation of church and state quoting early SCOTUS opinions? Most of those take a hypothetical about the negative impacts of integration and quote it out of context claiming that the SCOTUS supported integration of church and state. I don't fault the preachers for not checking facts on the sermons they repeat, though - I fault the authors for misleading the public.



He also supported the failed efforts in Congress during his term.



So because the ATF abused their power under Carter, it's okay for Reagan to support specifically the amendment to prohibit the private ownership of full autos manufactured after May ##, 1986? Or his VERY vocal support and lobbying in Congress for passage of the 1994 AWB?

As I said the rewriting of history, by the liberal media. Which is obviously where you got/ get your facts, since if your posted age is right, you were born in 86.

 

[wiley_coyote]

Why does God always get dragged into these discussions? Do you really think that God fearing, conservative, christian republicans would put Reagan or anybody else on a pedestal above God? I believe that idea would certainly go against a christian's core beliefs. Of course this only MHO. Also what in the world does this statement have to do with Obama invoking executive privilege?

 

[vvvvvvv]

As I said the rewriting of history, by the liberal media. Which is obviously where you got/ get your facts, since if your posted age is right, you were born in 86.

So based on my birth year, I must be someone who likes to be spoonfed by the lying media, both liberal and conservative? Watching both sides of the media is like watching a pissing contest on who can be the most dishonest with their audience, and its currently a tossup.

I get my facts from reliable sources. Unless you're one of those that believes that transcripts of Congressional proceedings, memos, legal proceedings, and Treasury data have all been "doctored by the dims".

Do you really think that God fearing, conservative, christian republicans would put Reagan or anybody else on a pedestal above God? I believe that idea would certainly go against a christian's core beliefs. Of course this only MHO.

You don't listen to much Sean Hannity, do you? Or Rush Limbaugh? (seriously... "get your @Reagan.com email address so you don't feed evil companies like Google"...)

Also what in the world does this statement have to do with Obama invoking executive privilege?

It's another piece of evidence that Obama is just like the real Reagan and not the "conservative"-rewrite of Reagan.