Agree, EXCEPT.57Coastie wrote:I will assure you that I realize this "F&F thing" has been going on for quite a while, as has the chatter here about executive privilege. They have particularly been going on for a long time on this forum. I have been silently watching it, expecting that someday someone will come forward to explain that there is more to the concept of executive privilege than executive wrongdoing.Heartland Patriot wrote: ...So, you're saying they are only going after Obama because of the election...would that be anything like Obama giving hundreds of thousand of illegal aliens near-amnesty in an election year? BTW, this F&F thing has been going on for quite a while, in case you haven't heard...
The postings here, including the language quoted above, prove once again that three ancient adages remain viable. First, if an untruth is stated often enough it hardens into accepted fact. Secondly, when those untruths are repeated within a group, appealing to that group's common builtin beliefs, they soon become accepted by that group as being held by an overwhelming majority of persons, even those not in the group. Lastly, when a rational rebuttal is unavailable, change the subject.
Perhaps there is even another, as demonstrated by the language quoted above: if one is guilty of one wrongdoing, he must be guilty of yet another with which he is charged, even though the two are unrelated.
I would never say that there was no wrongdoing, or at least just old-fashioned stupidity, on the part of elements of the federal government where F&F is concerned. From what I have seen in the biased liberal mainstream media I am shocked by it. I do say that it is my opinion that the concept of executive immunity is neither weakened by executive wrongdoing nor does it imply executive wrongdoing.
It is a "privilege." Just like the privilege between an attorney and his client, which applies with equal strength whether or not the client admits his guilt to his attorney. It is like the privilege between the penitent and his priest or minister of a Christian church, which applies with equal strength whether or not the penitent admits a cardinal sin or a hideous criminal act. The executive privilege receives even greater strength from our Constitution, which is built around the concept of the separation of powers.
Jim
IMHO the claim of executive privilege is being trotted out at an awfully convenient time for bambam and his minions.
These days it seems that "taking the fifth" is seen as a tacit admission of guilt, and an awful lot of people seem to be of a similar persuasion about executive privilege in general, probably due to the way it has been wielded in our recent history. The fifth is to protect against self-incrimination and can be taken for many reasons, none of which necessarily have to do with the guilt of the party taking it, only that by giving the testimony it would "tend to incriminate." The same applies to executive privilege, it's not
My issue is two pronged and has nothing to do with assigning assumed guilt, except for the timing and the fact that Holder and bambam have claimed no prior knowledge of the whole deal. If the White House and the Attorney General actually had no prior knowledge, then it is hard to imagine that any executive privilege would attach, making this seem like a last minute ploy to avoid having to turn over papers that the committee has subpoenaed. If that is really the case, which is yet to be determined, then someone at high levels is lying and trying to cover it up.
If executive privilege is being claimed due to advice and counsel given after the fact, then it is equally hard to imagine that it is legitimate because the committee is looking for evidence of prior knowledge and how could it attach unless somehow that aft6er the fact advice indicated that prior knowledge did indeed exist, which makes it a criminal act and thus not protected under executive privilege anyway.
