Executive Privilege and the Divine Right of Kings

reply to post by dragonridr


3rd Holder went entirely rogue

ok,, so then when that Lady Senator,, that got her bill attached,, said rouge ATF, Agents,, she was just being stupid?
3rd Holder went entirely rogue,,so now Holder is Rogue,,
geez,, now its like whack a mole,, lol,,
anyone do a gif. ? lol

reply to post by dragonridr

As far as using executive privilege something is wrong here.In an election year he could have thrown Holder under the bus and let him deal with congress.But he didnt hes putting himself into this battle this tells me theres something that can do far more damage politically if its released. You know if he sat back and let congress go after Holder he could have played this as purely political made a speech about attacks on the executive branch and made congress look like partisan hacks.Instead he was so worried about something coming to light he gave up an ace in the hand in an election year think about that.

While I do not disagree with your assessment, there is another strategy that might be in play here. First, let me remind you that Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had WMD's when he knew full well he did not. Why? It was a strategy of his. I am not saying Obama is employing Hussein's strategy only that there may be nothing at all incriminating in the documents Holder has withheld, but that this incident is being used to help Obama's image.

Obama, whether consciously or unconsciously relied heavily on Christ like and Messianic imagery for his first election campaign. He could be, whether consciously or unconsciously, completing that cycle and seeking a crucifixion before the election in hopes it will get him elected so he may arise from the dead and complete the mythology into ascension.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

obstruction is only a crime, when a crime has been committed to obstruct.

how can someone obstruct justice when justice has no reason to occur?

but a belief in Divine Right of Kings, requires a belief in God.

edit on 21-6-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)

There was a crime committed in fast and furious atf officers ignored US gun laws.Then theres illegal trafficking of weapons into a foreign country.Let not forget those weapons were used in violent crimes against Mexican citizens which violates several laws including being co conspirator to murders committed. Then theres the border agent killed by those guns as well.If Holder knew this operation existed and didnt stop it immediately he was a co conspirator. If he lied to cover up his involvement thats adds perjury charges.This is far worse then Nixon no one died in the break in.

As far as using executive privilege something is wrong here.In an election year he could have thrown Holder under the bus and let him deal with congress.But he didnt hes putting himself into this battle this tells me theres something that can do far more damage politically if its released. You know if he sat back and let congress go after Holder he could have played this as purely political made a speech about attacks on the executive branch and made congress look like partisan hacks.Instead he was so worried about something coming to light he gave up an ace in the hand in an election year think about that.

Here where i speculate i can think of 3 reasons for Obamas decision.
1st that fast and furious can directly be traced to Obama his idea wont speculate as to why but i have a theory.
2nd Obama mentioned he wanted to crack down on guns crossing the border in a speech and this was the best plan Holder came up with and when it started going south involved the president meaning he was aware only after the operation started.
3rd Holder went entirely rogue and through being incompetent thought this was a good idea.Never informed Obama and he is doing this out to help Holder at great personal expense.Not a likely scenario for a politician.

all this may be the case. but Obama and Holder don't have to incriminate themselves in these crimes.

Issa is going to have to make a specific accusation of a crime...what is it that I am saying that isn't computing in your brains?

the Media is reporting the CIA is arming Syrian rebels...how is this different?

you guys don't want to get it.

reply to post by michaelbrux


CIA is arming Syrian rebels

cia never heard of them,,anyone else?? ,,,

cia,,,arming rebels since Wild Bill.

cia,, naw,,they only work outside of the Country,,thats the rules.

p.s, dont break the rules.

reply to post by michaelbrux

my situation wasn't unfortunate. and the SEC always investigates and prosecutes financial transaction crimes.

I do not believe "insider trading" to be a crime, and a crime must have a victim. The only victim in the Martha Stewart fiasco was Martha Stewart.

my comment was to inform you quite clearly that I am far more knowledgeable concerning US law than you will ever be.

You've undone your self with this remark and exposed your own ignorance of law in the process. Law must be universal in order to be law. The right to life is law and is universal. The right to defend ones life, others life or ones own property is law and is universal. The right to speech is law and is universal. Your mistake is equating legislation with law. You can have your superior knowledge of U.S. legislation and keep it forever, brother. The beauty of the Constitution for the United States of America and all state constitutions is that my understanding of law will trump your vast knowledge of legislation every time.

The law will set you free. As you've handily demonstrated in this thread, legislation all to often will imprison you...unless you know the law.

Martha Stewart should've challenged the jurisdiction of the federal investigators and then kept her mouth shut. Had she done that she never would have gone to prison, and I assure you, sport, ain't no legislation authorizing the challenge of jurisdiction. You just do it and force those asserting jurisdiction to prove they have it. Legislation alone ain't enough to accomplish that.

Good luck with your vast knowledge.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Jakes51

 

This controversy has been going on for years. Why the cloak and dagger approach by the Attorney General, Eric Holder's, Justice Department? What are they trying to hide?

Bingo! What is the big deal in turning over documents that are not necessarily the fault of Obama's? Obama didn't create Fast and Furious, he inherited it. What is the big deal? What are they trying to hide?

Fast and Furious was started in 2009, months after George W. Bush was out of office.Since im typing here any way let me ask a question.

Ok ATF gets calls from gun dealers saying we have some large purchases going on we suspect its a front for buying arms for drug running.ATF contacts superiors who say ok let them sell the guns will track them. Then doesnt add tracking devices or inform the Mexican government so they can help track shipments and make arrests. Then once the guns have crossed the border nobody would have found out this occurred if it wasnt for a border agent dying using a gun traced back to a gun shop.The gun shop owner told them ATF told me to sell it to him. Now finnally my question This was supposed to stop gun trafficking into Mexico but how did the ATF expect it to do that when they had no idea where the guns went or to whom?

Obviously there was another reason this operation was given the green light and it had nothing to do with trying to prevent gun trafficking so whaqt other reason could they have was this terrorism against Mexico?

JPZ,

If you'd be so kind to help me understand this better...

The supreme court ruled executive privilege legitimate because of the separation of powers and the "supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity."

It confuses me that the SC could rule that the executive branch can invoke EP because it resides within the executive's constitutional powers, when no such powers are explicitly granted in the first place?

Is this privilege actually written out anywhere?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Bingo! What is the big deal in turning over documents that are not necessarily the fault of Obama's? Obama didn't create Fast and Furious, he inherited it. What is the big deal? What are they trying to hide?

That is the Crux of the problem.

In other words, you could say it was a program the Obama administration inherited. But you can also bet your bottom dollar that Attorney General Eric Holder wouldn’t be withholding documents from Congress and President Barack Obama wouldn’t be claiming executive privilege to protect them if whatever went disastrously wrong with Operation Fast and Furious could be laid at the feet of his Republican predecessor.

Obama’s stalling on Fast and Furious files hints at secrets

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


insider trading doesn't have a victim?

tell that to all the investors and traders that didn't have access to the same information.

i'll continue to outdo myself as long as you arbitrarily decide what a victim is or is not.

when I was at Nationsbank...Banc America Securities was down the hall. inside information was readily available.

Specifically, I remember receiving a tip on Red Hat...I just ignored the freak that was talking to me.

the company went galactic in a day or two...and I never regretted it. why...because insider trading is a crime and only a pig would use it.

news.cnet.com...

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

insider trading doesn't have a victim?

tell that to all the investors and traders that didn't have access to the same information.

i'll continue to outdo myself as long as you arbitrarily decide what a victim is or is not.

Save your Marxist anti rights attitude for some other thread, sport. Silly legislative acts such as "insider trading" inventions do nothing to take the gambling out of purchasing stock. It remains speculation.

It is you arbitrarily inventing victims where none exist. Especially since we are talking about Martha Stewart who sold stock based upon bad information she got about an FDA approval that went the opposite way she was told it would go. What a joke.

In the meantime people consistently call the police because they've been burglarized only to deal with snobby police officers who act as if they're wasting their time, while people like you invent new "victims" and demand we all cry for them.

Is this the vast knowledge of "law" you speak of?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


it is the law that I speak of.

now we both know where our lines are.

have fun on your side of it.

reply to post by dragonridr

Fast and Furious was started in 2009, months after George W. Bush was out of office.Since im typing here any way let me ask a question.

2006

In early 2011, the operation became controversial when it was revealed that Operation Fast and Furious and other probes under Project Gunrunner had allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels since as early as 2006.

reply to post by michaelbrux


Red Hat..ok i know u will understand,,
SANDISK,, 75 cents a share!,,
thats right 75 cents,, see their are deals, the Old Fasioned Way,,
intelligence,,being one,,
insider is for the weak minded.
at least thats what i think.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

it is the law that I speak of.

now we both know where our lines are.

have fun on your side of it.

Yep. Because there are people that advocate the tyranny of legislation, such as you, there will always be the need for people that advocate the rule of law and the unalienable rights of all people everywhere, like me.

I would hate to think you are actually having fun gleefully advocating the expansion of the very prison system you claim you were once an inmate in, but thanks for entering my thread and insisting we trail off topic. I suppose that was your goal all along.

Obama does not need people like you defending him, it only makes him look worse.

reply to post by METACOMET


Ironically, the Supreme Court acknowledged the legitimacy of executive privilege in United States v. Nixon where they ruled against Nixon:

Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of [p685] Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution.

Although the courts will afford the utmost deference to Presidential acts in the performance of an Art. II function, United States v. Burr, 25 F.Cas. 187, 190, 191-192 (No. 14,694), when a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice

The SCOTUS is acknowledging it exists, but also acknowledging the very narrow scope of which it does exist.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


people, like you I imagine, called for Obama's impeachment before he was even inaugurated.

it never mattered what he did, you'd have found something to complain about.

its your style.

to compare a US President and Executive Privilege to the Divine Right of a King just shows, to me at least, you have no problem whatsoever misrepresenting even the most ancient of philosophical concepts to fit into your current necessities for survival.

You degrade the idea of a King by comparing him to a President.
You misrepresent the idea of a President.
You know nothing of either office.

Its no wonder why you think a Sheriff has constitutional authority...you have no regard whatsoever for structure or order.

all you speak of is chaos.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Please excuse my ignorance

Since the SCOTUS has acknowledged EP exists, where exactly does it exist from? Where is the language from which it stems?

Originally posted by METACOMET
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Please excuse my ignorance

Since the SCOTUS has acknowledged EP exists, where exactly does it exist from? Where is the language from which it stems?

From the same language that the SCOTUS found the power of judicial review. Implication.

reply to post by michaelbrux

people, like you I imagine, called for Obama's impeachment before he was even inaugurated. it never mattered what he did, you'd have found something to complain about.

That's the problem with your imagination, it just has nothing at all to do with reality. I have never called for Obama's impeachment. Never.

to compare a US President and Executive Privilege to the Divine Right of a King just shows, to me at least, you have no problem whatsoever misrepresenting even the most ancient of philosophical concepts to fit into your current necessities for survival.

Your profound reverence for divine right doctrine say's it all sport.

You degrade the idea of a King by comparing him to a President. You misrepresent the idea of a President. You know nothing of either office.

Keep digging that hole, brother. Deeper and deeper you go, entrenching yourself as a sycophant of tyranny.

Its no wonder why you think a Sheriff has constitutional authority...you have no regard whatsoever for structure or order.

I'm out of time and have to go, otherwise I would bury you with state Constitutions and government websites making it perfectly clear that Sheriffs do indeed have Constitutitional authority:

To fulfill the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office constitutionally mandated functions, a staff of one Captain, three Sergeants and eighty-one Deputies are assigned to provide a variety of duties.

Read it and weep, sport. Or, I guess you could keep playing your game: "Well, in my personal opinion I don't think they do" and then follow that with "I know more about the law than you ever will".

Sleep tight.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Right, ok.

So where is the language that might express or imply such a power?