When Republicans investigate something, it's "ammunition for political combat." When Democrats do it, it's because "Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed."

I don't know whether Obama is right or not, but yet again we have an example of the Republicans setting a precedent and having a Democrat use it against them. We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

Mentat: I don't know whether Obama is right or not, but yet again we have an example of the Republicans setting a precedent and having a Democrat use it against them. We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

And people will continue to do this because nobody really does anything about it, and sticking it to the other side is more important than the truth.

Obama claims to know nothing about this. If that is true, why is he invoking executive privilege? I would think that he would want to know the truth as much as anyone.

BillCo: Obama claims to know nothing about this. If that is true, why is he invoking executive privilege? I would think that he would want to know the truth as much as anyone.

My understanding is that at first Congress wanted information about the F&F investigation. They got the documents they wanted, then found out that Justice was lying about how much they knew and when they knew it. Then Congress started asking for internal documents relating to F&F and the Justice Department's response to the investigation as well as any internal discussions pertaining to F&F after the operation was concluded.

Mentat: We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

It's like Gitmo and the Patriot Act. Once a government gets a power, they don't give it up even after a change in leadership. Still, starting it is worse than not stopping it.

Let's just shoot them all and start over. This process should be repeated every 4-8 years.

reality: both democrats and republicans love executive privilege, only put a show on when it's politically convenient

/could be said for a lot of things people don't like about our country really
//what ya gonna do about it?

Lets all just agree that Obama is terrible

Mugato: Mentat: We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

It's like Gitmo and the Patriot Act. Once a government gets a power, they don't give it up even after a change in leadership. Still, starting it is worse than not stopping it.

Not stopping it when you run on the platform you are against it and are going to do something about it is a hell of a lot worse.

Mentat: I don't know whether Obama is right or not, but yet again we have an example of the Republicans setting a precedent and having a Democrat use it against them. We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

Because Bush was the first one to use executive privilege to hide something naughty, amiright?

/the mentat monicker surely doesn't apply here

Mentat: I don't know whether Obama is right or not, but yet again we have an example of the Republicans setting a precedent and having a Democrat use it against them. We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

You do know that Clinton used it 14 times to Bush's 6.

Useful piece of information.

BillCo: Obama claims to know nothing about this. If that is true, why is he invoking executive privilege? I would think that he would want to know the truth as much as anyone.

NRO cleared the White House of any wrong doing yesterday.

Well considering that this President was trying to protect agents in the field and the last President had no problem outing them, I think there's a world of difference.

Context: it matters.

AmazinTim: Let's just shoot them all and start over. This process should be repeated every 4-8 years.

It could be take care of it by voting, but as Fark It pointed out "... nobody really does anything about it, and sticking it to the other side is more important than the truth."

Mentat: I don't know whether Obama is right or not, but yet again we have an example of the Republicans setting a precedent and having a Democrat use it against them.

Are you under the impression that history started when you were born or sometime thereafter? Executive privilege was not a precedent set by Republicans. It's been used since long before that party was founded.

In this country, it goes back to the days of the Federalists, Whigs and Democratic-Republicans (the party which is now the Democrats). But none of those parties invented it either. We continued the British practice and, before that, the English practice.

Mugato: Mentat: We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

It's like Gitmo and the Patriot Act. Once a government gets a power, they don't give it up even after a change in leadership. Still, starting it is worse than not stopping it.

that's kind of thin... somebody can start something and not know or see the full consequences, but if somebody knows and sees the full consequences but still does nothing (if not fully embrace it) i'd say that's far worse

it's not like Obama somehow takes the fall for abusing executive privilege tho, it's been abused for awhile now and nobody no matter how saintly is going to give it up anytime soon

I'm quite sure there are several examples of the right-wing media who are jerking it rapidly to the current situation also condemning the previous invocations of privilege.

AmazinTim: Let's just shoot them all and start over. This process should be repeated every 4-8 years.

This. I have been saying this for years. Hard term limits. After 8 years, you're done. You are no longer eligible to run for any office. Go home, get a farking real job and quit sucking that government teat and expecting the taxpayers to foot your bill.

It's like reverse welfare for representatives.

GoodyearPimp: I'm quite sure there are several examples of the right-wing media who are jerking it rapidly to the current situation also condemning the previous invocations of privilege.

Yeah, but it's probably so rare you'd have to dig through archives for hours to find it.

This is my shocked face.

Wait, bias in the media? Say it ain't so!

Hermione_Granger: Well considering that this President was trying to protect agents in the field and the last President had no problem outing them, I think there's a world of difference.

Context: it matters.

What agents? We were told this has stopped. Are they still giving guns to the cartel?

Hermione_Granger

Context: it matters.

You do know that a Border Patrol agent died because of what DOJ did in all this. Right?

Mentat: I don't know whether Obama is right or not, but yet again we have an example of the Republicans setting a precedent and having a Democrat use it against them. We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

Funny how it's not bad when THEIR guy does it. And yes, I told people the same thing. They are too busy herpa-derping to remember.

Sudlow: You do know that a Border Patrol agent died because of what DOJ did in all this.

He died because someone shot him. The DOJ never ordered any hits from what I know.

Mugato: Mentat: We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

It's like Gitmo and the Patriot Act. Once a government gets a power, they don't give it up even after a change in leadership. Still, starting it is worse than not stopping it.

THIS, mainly because yes once the toothpaste is out of the tube....

AdamK: that's kind of thin... somebody can start something and not know or see the full consequences, but if somebody knows and sees the full consequences but still does nothing (if not fully embrace it) i'd say that's far worse

Bush or rather Cheney knew exactly what they were doing when they used the Patriot Act to wipe their ass with the Constitution and open up the abomination to everything the country stands for that became Gitmo. Erasing all of that is a little bit harder than it was to start it, even if Obama wanted to.

Perhaps the letter will help (MamaMia.com.au). Or perhaps not.

From my reading, sounds like there were bitter battles between the mother and father. The judge decided that the father wouldn't be a great single parent, and to alleviate any possibility of further mother-father battles, he simply removed the possibility that the father could see the children.

Wonderful. :-P

This isn't the other thread! :o

Raug the Dwarf: This. I have been saying this for years. Hard term limits. After 8 years, you're done. You are no longer eligible to run for any office. Go home, get a farking real job and quit sucking that government teat and expecting the taxpayers to foot your bill.

Be careful what you wish for. That would hand most of the power to the career bureaucrats, as they build entrenched power. They'll be the only ones who stay, and they write and enforce all the regulations.

No system works if you select amoral leaders. Most are tolerable with competent moral leaders.

austin_millbarge: Mentat: I don't know whether Obama is right or not, but yet again we have an example of the Republicans setting a precedent and having a Democrat use it against them. We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

Funny how it's not bad when THEIR guy does it. And yes, I told people the same thing. They are too busy herpa-derping to remember.

Just as you are too busy herpa-derping to remember that Clinton did it more.

Mentat: I don't know whether Obama is right or not, but yet again we have an example of the Republicans setting a precedent and having a Democrat use it against them. We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

The Washington Post (not a tea party rag) ran an article on how often exec privilege had been invoked over the last 60 years. I can't post it as a graphic, but you can look here. The thing that jumped at me wasn't that Obama has only done it once and that Bush II did it six times, but that Clinton had invoked it 14(!) times, and how fluid the process seems to be. Kennedys policy was different from everyones, and apparently Clinton could somehow do it on the down low without it being in writing.

/Grist.

Point of order. No one is defending the NYT? Thread over.

Mentat: We told you when Bush was using executive privilege to hide everything from letting the oil companies right energy policy to legalized torture that someday a Democrat would do the same thing. It's amazing and sad how often this has turned out to be true.

A.K.A. "The Hillary Test": OK, you want to give Bush this power. Will you be OK with it when President/Attorney General/Senate Majority Leader/etc. Hillary Clinton uses it ?

the response was generally "Shut Up, America-hating Saddam-loving Terrorist Sympathizer Commie! WITH US OR AGAINST US /fap/fap/fap"

Raug the Dwarf: AmazinTim: Let's just shoot them all and start over. This process should be repeated every 4-8 years.

This. I have been saying this for years. Hard term limits. After 8 years, you're done. You are no longer eligible to run for any office. Go home, get a farking real job and quit sucking that government teat and expecting the taxpayers to foot your bill.

It's like reverse welfare for representatives.

I love when people trot out the counter argument to your excellent point, the one of "But then nothing will get done!"... THAT'S THE POINT. Congress was initially set up so it was extremely hard to pass laws. It's one of the reasons Senators were state appointed, not directly elected. We have far too many stupid laws and too much money going to stupid things. Hell, we've got far too much money going to smart things too.

Get the federal government back to what it's supposed to do under the Constitution, instead of all the made up Commerce Clause BS and the ignored 9th and 10th amendments. Make the government leaner and meaner, and able to take care of the things it's impractical to do at a state and local level.

The gray lady has been senile for a while, at least a couple decades, stop paying attention to her.

spamalope: Raug the Dwarf:

Be careful what you wish for. That would hand most of the power to the career bureaucrats, as they build entrenched power. They'll be the only ones who stay, and they write and enforce all the regulations.

No system works if you select amoral leaders. Most are tolerable with competent moral leaders.

Under my system, there would be NO career bureaucrats. That's the whole point.


tgambitg: Raug the Dwarf: AmazinTim:

I love when people trot out the counter argument to your excellent point, the one of "But then nothing will get done!"... THAT'S THE POINT. Congress was initially set up so it was extremely hard to pass laws. It's one of the reasons Senators were state appointed, not directly elected. We have far too many stupid laws and too much money going to stupid things. Hell, we've got far too much money going to smart things too.

Get the federal government back to what it's supposed to do under the Constitution, instead of all the made up Commerce Clause BS and the ignored 9th and 10th amendments. Make the government leaner and meaner, and able to take care of the things it's impractical to do at a state and local level.

Your jib, I like the cut. Thank you.

HAHA REPUBLICANS, HOW DOES IT FEEL? YEAH, SUCK ON IT. AND THERE'S FOUR MORE YEARS WAITING FOR YOU. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE UNTED STATES, GTFO.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Jon Stewart handled this beautifully
Link

tgambitg: Get the federal government back to what it's supposed to do under the Constitution

no two people agree on what "what it's supposed to do" means. the people who wrote it didn't even agree what the government was supposed to do. the people who decided to run Britain out of the colonies didn't agree, either. that's why the Bill Of Rights is maddeningly vague and open-ended - it had to be broad and loose enough to please everyone in the room

PoliticalDerp: HAHA REPUBLICANS, HOW DOES IT FEEL? YEAH, SUCK ON IT. AND THERE'S FOUR MORE YEARS WAITING FOR YOU. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE UNTED STATES, GTFO.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Eloquently put.

PoliticalDerp: HAHA REPUBLICANS, HOW DOES IT FEEL? YEAH, SUCK ON IT. AND THERE'S FOUR MORE YEARS WAITING FOR YOU. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE UNTED STATES, GTFO.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

your name is comically appropriate for this type of comment.

/derp

i hate election season

Mugato: AdamK: that's kind of thin... somebody can start something and not know or see the full consequences, but if somebody knows and sees the full consequences but still does nothing (if not fully embrace it) i'd say that's far worse

Bush or rather Cheney knew exactly what they were doing when they used the Patriot Act to wipe their ass with the Constitution and open up the abomination to everything the country stands for that became Gitmo. Erasing all of that is a little bit harder than it was to start it, even if Obama wanted to.

So I take it you are all over Obama for his healthcare bullshiat, then...

Good to know.

Fark It: When Republicans investigate something, it's "ammunition for political combat." When Democrats do it, it's because "Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed."

Given that most House Republicans were elected on jobs-creation etc. platforms and have done everything they can to stifle the President's efforts and suggested none of their own (yay could they waste more time on socially divisive stuff like killing subsidized birth control that marginally over half the population thinks is an excellent use of taxpayer money) I'd say it's very fair to question their motives.

uatuba: So I take it you are all over Obama for his healthcare bullshiat, then...

And what healthcare bullshiat is that?

Crotchrocket Slim: Fark It: When Republicans investigate something, it's "ammunition for political combat." When Democrats do it, it's because "Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed."

Given that most House Republicans were elected on jobs-creation etc. platforms and have done everything they can to stifle the President's efforts and suggested none of their own (yay could they waste more time on socially divisive stuff like killing subsidized birth control that marginally over half the population thinks is an excellent use of taxpayer money) I'd say it's very fair to question their motives.

Because "change" involves lining auto unions, auto executives, health executives, and banking executives wallets with tons of cash..

/people who hold politicians to campaign promises are naive, since there is no expectation for them to actually hold up their end of the bargain

Sudlow: Hermione_Granger

Context: it matters.

You do know that a Border Patrol agent died because of what DOJ did in all this. Right?

AFAIK, there's no evidence that the round that killed the agent came from the F&F gun.

"Democrats and Republicans equally corrupt, and those who don't recognize this are idiots. Story at 10."

/from Kansas City, where the news is on at 10, like God intended.