Posted by Guest (Post 508965)

I don't know ANY of the details of this case, Bucco or Richie. But you're not going to convince me that Congress spending a lot of time on this issue or case is more important that dozens of other issues facing the country. All this is is an excuse for political posturing and purposely avoiding spending Congressional time and effort on real issues.

Posted by Guest (Post 508776)

Now Cologal.....are you implying that there is some relativity to what you say to today ? If that is the case, we should just shut down and every-time something bad happens, say "hey they did it" !!!!

I don't know but surprised at you taking the same tact as others on here.....Bush did it !!!

While I am curious about what could possibly be so sensitive, and also curious about....well, if you watched the hearings, the administration (and by that I mean Holder, et all, not necessarily the President) has been just plain lying in memos and testimony.

My biggest thing about this guy is again...he actually demeaned others...not just politics, he spoke of others who do this in such a demeaning way.....which is what he does and then rolls over. He has done this so many times with things that Bush did and where he publicly did just short verbally lynch him and that either continues the same policies or repeats them and we are supposed to just accept that blindly !!!

That is my biggest problem....of course there actually could be a valid reason, but he is playing everyone for a fool with his talk versus action and has for years !

Posted by Guest (Post 508989)

My point was not to bash Bush but to point out Ex Privilege has been widely used before. I think 14 times by Clinton.

I didn't watch the hearings this time....I do know that Holder appeared to be copied in some memo's or emails. It appears that no other official has ever been found in contempt by Congress.

Do you remember Gonzales's amnesia?

Really don't understand what they need to hide....its always better to bring things into the light.

Posted by Guest (Post 509146)

the justification by pointing to others who did or said something similar is about as logical as claiming it is OK to go through a red light because the car in front of you did.

Two wrongs, except maybe in politics, do not make a right.

btk

Posted by Guest (Post 509177)

I am not sure that a "wrong" has been committed, and either way, a "wrong" is often in the eye of the beholder. I would argue that your analogy is off base. I think the posters bringing up the number of times executive privilege has been excercised by previous president are not excusing the act as much as they are questioning why some people are outraged by one president using it and not outraged by its use by previous presidents.

Posted by Guest (Post 508698)

This was President Obama's first use of "Executive Privilige" since being elected three and a half years ago, compared to George W Bush's six time, Bill Clinton's 14 times and Ronald Reagan's 20 plus times. FYI

Posted by Guest (Post 509226)

The article I read agreed with your count except for Reagan in which the number was 3....just saying

Posted by Guest (Post 508992)

He's claiming executive privilege for something he's been claiming for months of knowing nothing about..............come on.........seriously.

Posted by Guest (Post 509272)

You are quite right. I heard it wrong. Should have been 24 times since Reagan, not Reagan 20 times. Sorry about that.