If you can't trust the AG who can you trust? Anybody remember the Mitchells?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

I can't believe I'm saying this to YOU, but that is quite naive.

Originally Posted by Bucco

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 !

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.

Originally Posted by cologal

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.

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

Seriously.

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

Things that make you go hum...

All the while, the anti-America pro Obama libs shouting we don't care! - we don't care! - we don't care!

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

Originally Posted by billethkid

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

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.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

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.

e - do you not think that a.g. eric holder lying to congress is wrong?

Originally Posted by janmcn

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

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

I think the fact that there have been so many unanswered question about this presidency that no one is trusting what any one is saying. Even the left side questions what is going on you have to admit that. And it will continue.

Originally Posted by rubicon

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

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

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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

Ok...so for months Obama or would that be Holder? I remember Holder saying he didn't read his emails or that memo. Anyway if Obama said he didn't know anything about it and then looked into it and then found out there was some National Security thing ... then it would make sense he would then invoke the previlege.

Not saying I agree just proposing.....

I believe they have turning some of the requested paperwork.

Originally Posted by janmcn

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

not in the article I read but then were addressing a situation occuring now and not in the 1980's

I'll try that with my boss next time. Sorry, I didn't read my emails.