Executive Privilege Abused Once More

Same goes for you , Art. You might watch the PBS NOW segment I linked to above. You could see what I've been talking about all in about 20 minutes.
 
I notice that people are trying to reason with Art Vandelay as though he were a rational human being.

Why?
 
Art Vandelay said:
The judicial branch doesn't have oversight. So if they refuse executive oversight, then there's no oversight.
Click to expand...
First, all three branches have some form of oversight or another over the other two. The executive branch exercises oversight over the legislative in the form of vetoes. The legislative branch can, in overly simplified terms, modify the standard by which the judicial branch determines the laws to be constitutional. The judicial can rule the legislative and executive determined laws unconstitutional.

I don't think you'll find any branch of government, who will make the claim that no other branch gets to exercise oversight.

Second, which "they" are you referring to in your second sentence? The judicial or the executive? The executive has no say on the matter. They can claim executive privilege, but the judiciary gets to make that determination whether or not Congress must respect that claim.

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that it can be invoked when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.
Click to expand...
(source)
 
Dr Adequate said:
I notice that people are trying to reason with Art Vandelay as though he were a rational human being.

Why?
Click to expand...
It just seems like it should be so simple. Yet no matter how clear one gets, (Just answer this...) folks like Art, and actually quite a few others, just go on living in their make believe world.

I'm informally exploring Art's kind of personality. And other personalities as well. There's another thread, don't want to risk insulting anyone by saying which one, where I'm flabbergasted at the acceptance of various versions of regular repeatable marketing schemes as 'real' for whatever reason. How could you grow up in this society and not learn about all those marketing schemes? Yet there they are, unaware what they are buying into is as phony as Monopoly money.
 
Tokorona said:
URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902625.html?hpid=topnews

"Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege."

Also reminds me of: Nixon. Wonder what happened to him?
Click to expand...
At the risk of being accused of making a Tu Quoque argument, Clinton was a big fan of Executive Privilage.

Of course Republicans were all up in arms over Clinton. Funny how things change.
 
Once again, you are looking at the wrapper and ignoring what's inside. Clinton did not use the DoJ to intimidate voters. Clinton did not replace career employees by the thousands in order to install party loyalists in every department from the Peace Corp to the FDA. Clinton did not run campaign strategy meetings complete with Rove prepared PPT presentations at special employee luncheons of the GSA. Clinton did not suspend habeas corpus or expand federal wiretapping essentially ignoring the FISA laws.

So don't try to tell us Clinton did it too. Horsefeathers!
 
If you think I belong on that list then add yourself, Rand. No matter your politics, there is no way anyone can say I don't support my conclusions with more than sufficient evidence.

You show your inability to discriminate between rational well supported argument you just happen to not agree with and someone like Art. That is exactly his problem and apparently yours as well.

When you can't make an argument based on logic and evidence, attack the messenger, that's your style, Rand.
 
Last edited:
skeptigirl said:
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president "Power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Since the action one would take against Bush would be an impeachment action, then the fact he could not be convicted on the obstruction of justice laws would be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Are you honestly that clueless? Libby wouldn't be the one being impeached, therefore his offenses are fully pardonable, with no constraints. All your quote means is Bush can't pardon himself to prevent an impeachment, but we were talking about a potential pardon for Libby, and the part you quote has nothing to do with that. You're still engaged in wishful thinking, believing that because you'd like the constitution to work that way, it does. Well, that's not the way things work.
 
You are missing the point Ziggy. The point is no one is talking about reversing Libby's pardon. Impeachment on grounds of obstruction of justice are dependent on the vote of Congress, not the findings of a court. The pardon can still be seen as evidence of obstruction regardless of it's legality.

But this is a total sidetrack since there are plenty of crimes here in addition to the Libby pardon and the Plame case.
 
skeptigirl said:
If you think I belong on that list then add yourself, Rand. No matter your politics, there is no way anyone can say I don't support my conclusions with more than sufficient evidence.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. The source of your problem. You think that volume equals compelling. It doesn't.

You show your inability to discriminate between rational well supported argument you just happen to not agree with and someone like Art. That is exactly his problem and apparently yours as well.
Click to expand...
I wish you would make arguments rather than simply asserting claims.

When you can't make an argument based on logic and evidence, attack the messenger, that's your style, Rand.
Click to expand...
Sure, that's what I do. Right.
 
skeptigirl said:
You are missing the point Ziggy. The point is no one is talking about reversing Libby's pardon. Impeachment on grounds of obstruction of justice are dependent on the vote of Congress, not the findings of a court. The pardon can still be seen as evidence of obstruction regardless of it's legality.
Click to expand...

But the pardon isn't illegal, regardless of what anyone thinks it's obstructing, which bloody well is the point. Obstruction of justice, as a crime, must fit statutory requirements, not just your concept of what justice is. And a pardon cannot meet those statutory requirements, for reasons stated earlier. You are right in one sense, though: Congress is capable of voting for impeachment even in cases where they know no crime has been committed. But to do so is a gross abuse of constitutional power, and should worry you tremendously. Apparently it doesn't, though.
 
I concede the pardon itself is apparently allowed in the Constitution even if it is related to a possible crime of the President who is granting it. And sadly it was legal for Clinton to grant pardons for sex or money if that is what he pardoned anyone for. The writers of the Constitution weren't thinking of such things when they wrote the clause and that's too bad.
 
Rand you can draw any conclusion you want about the sufficiency of the evidence, just be sure to put, "In my opinion", in front of your opinion rather than claiming to speak for everyone else in the forum.
 
RandFan said:
He is not alone *cough* Ion, Oliver, skeptigirl.

The ignore function has it's benefits.
Click to expand...
And of course, Dr A. Since I long since tired of his ravings and made him the inaugural member of my ignore list, I don't know whether he's contributed anything to this thread other than the usual personal attack that you quoted, but anyone is welcome to prove me wrong. Can anyone quote any substantive response he's made to me?

:crickets:

Oh, and the ignore list has its benefits.

As to your quote of skeptigir "No matter your politics, there is no way anyone can say I don't support my conclusions with more than sufficient evidence": I have said it, and and I'll say it again. You don't support you conclusions with sufficient evidence. If anyone other than you or Dr A disagrees, they can quote where, exactly, you proved your claims that:

Three fourths of Americans believe that Saddam was behind 9/11.

"That is what Bush and his pals have been doing by installing party loyalists in the federal attorney jobs. And Congress had plenty of evidence this is what was going on with the attorney firings." http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2790222#post2790222
 
skeptigirl said:
Rand you can draw any conclusion you want about the sufficiency of the evidence, just be sure to put, "In my opinion", in front of your opinion rather than claiming to speak for everyone else in the forum.
Click to expand...
That's a fair request. But to be sure folks who would normally agree with you on issues have taken you to task for your arguments and questionable evidence. But it is a fair request and I will honor it.

RandFan
 
As to the attorneys I find it an interesting situation. I don't think it ok to pressure attorneys to act in a political manner the way this administration did. On the other hand Clinton fired en masse Republican attorneys when he took office. So firing without cause is ok so long as there is no apparent political motivation. Clearly Clinton's motivations were not as specific as this administration's but is it really ok to simply fire someone because of party affiliation? Maybe Bush's error was not following Clinton's lead and hiring folks that were loyal from the beginning (assuming that was Clinton's motivation).

Finally, I don't like the shenanigans of this administration at all and I won't attempt to justify but I will note that outrage typically seems based on party loyalty. I would be a bit more comfortable with the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth if it were consistent regardless of who was in office. When a Democrat takes office you can be sure there will be scandals and they will be sized upon by Republicans for proof of the poor character of that administration and defended by Democrats and we all know that and we don't even know what those scandals are yet. But we know it will happen.

Of course, one could argue that Democrats are by and large, inherently immune to corruption.
 
BTW, as one example among many of the hypcrisy of Dr A saying I can't be reasoned with, he once threw a hissy fit because I referred to his doctorate as a "degree", and he refused to acknowledge that it is a perfectly valid use of the word in American English. The guy's a loon.
 
RandFan said:
That's a fair request. But to be sure folks who would normally agree with you on issues have taken you to task for your arguments and questionable evidence. But it is a fair request and I will honor it.

RandFan
Click to expand...
I have seen little evidence refuting the material I have posted. I conceded the pardon clause in the Constitution. Care to point out where all the rest of this "taken to task" evidence is? You have yet to post any evidence whatsoever. You just deny the facts and pretend someone refuted them.

Show me these rebuttals, make a list of the evidence.

Fund was refuted by multiple sources and I posted the evidence he was a liar. Take the evidence which refutes Fund and show us where it is wrong.

You can't. So stop claiming you already have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom