home
Reminds me, whatever happened to Harriet Miers? (none / 0) (#3)
by jerry on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:27:25 PM EST
What's up with the Harriet Mier's contempt charges?  I assume that our gutless Senate is going to pretend they never threatened to bring those charges up, and that the Rethugs are going to pretend the whole thing never occurred.

Why aren't we seeing bloggers raising hell about this?  Olbermann, Cafferty, ....

Well, you see there is something (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:35:03 PM EST
called executive privilege that keeps just standing there in the way of the imperial Congress....

Has to do with rule of law... you know... that thing you probably think you believe in.

[ Parent ]

Help me here (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:42:25 PM EST
called executive privilege that keeps just standing there in the way of the imperial Congress

I can find the part in the Constitution where Congress makes the laws and the president has to enforce them, and where Congress has the authority for oversight of the Executive branch through the power of impeachment, but I can't find "executive privilege" or any legal definition of its limits and authority.  Can you direct my attention?

[ Parent ]

If you don't understand the (1.00 / 1) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:53:33 PM EST
very real principles of "executive privilege" then your education has been sorely lacking.

I suggest you go back to middle school.

Or perhaps try Google.

[ Parent ]

I understand the real principles (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:30:55 PM EST
And I understand that historically the first line of defense by a criminal president is to to claim executive privilege.

Maybe there is a rube, somewhere on the planet, so removed from reality that he doesn't realize that George W. Bush is a liar and is hiding his criminal activities behind a claim of executive privilege.

But that would be a pretty mean thing to say about rubes.

[ Parent ]

I didn't know George Washington was (1.00 / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 09:19:34 AM EST
a criminal president.

In 1796, President George Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents which were relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with England.

And do you also lump Clinton into your definition of criminal??

BTW - Do you also believe that your attorney must also be forced to reveal his conversations with you?

How about your Doctor?? Wife??

The attorney, doctor and wife do not fall directly under executive privilege but it goes back to the principle that a person should be able to have conversations, seek advice, postulate various situations without anyone else knowing about them.

A President is no different.

A President's decision to invoke EP may be believed by you that it means that he is a criminal. That is your right to exercise. You also have the right to be totally and continually wrong. An ability that you have certainly demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt.

You know Repack, we have in our constitution
something called "impeachment" and "elections."
The Demos know that the former is not doable and that if they try it will cost them in the "elections."

[ Parent ]

PPJ, what RR wrote (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 01:41:42 PM EST
historically the first line of defense by a criminal president is to to claim executive privilege.

Doesn't equal "when a president claims executive privilege, it's because he's a criminal using his first line of defense."

Really, you don't fool anyone with your transparent words games.

RR is obviously against EP when used to shield criminal activity and conduct, but your attempt to move the goalposts is risible, if only for the futility of your self-appointed task.

TTFN

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft