|
|
| Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents (951524) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (951524) | |
Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:21:48 2012 If memory serves, this didn't work for Nixon either:http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/06/20/white-house-reaction-fast-and-furious-executive-privilege Looks like the SCOTUS may have to school Obama AGAIN. |
|
|
| (951526) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by mr mabstoa on Wed Jun 20 13:23:57 2012, in response to Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:21:48 2012. Did Richard Nixon do the same thing? |
|
|
| (951528) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Wed Jun 20 13:24:44 2012, in response to Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:21:48 2012. Well, in all fairness, Pres. Bush used it six times during his presidency. |
|
|
| (951530) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:27:38 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Dave on Wed Jun 20 13:24:44 2012. And Obama once so far. |
|
|
| (951532) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:29:35 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by mr mabstoa on Wed Jun 20 13:23:57 2012. Yes, regarding the tapes Court held that while executive privilege exists, the greater need to conduct significant criminal investigations overruled the need to protect executives from politically-motivated investigations by Congress. Watergate was just about a burglary and perjury, Fast and Furious is about murder, particularly one man named Brian Terry. |
|
|
| (951535) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:32:22 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Dave on Wed Jun 20 13:24:44 2012. Yes, he applied the privilege properly, to shield himself and his administration from political witch hunts, not to shield his attorney general from a potential criminal investigation. Clinton and Reagan also invoked it. |
|
|
| (951538) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:37:15 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:27:38 2012. But never in such a serious manner. The political implications of this are enormous. People will compare Obama to Nixon. His operatives in the media now have to defend the politically indefensible. That "media loves and protects Obama" meme the right loves will be underscored severely in the coming days (MSNBC is already in damage control mode). But most importantly, it strongly indicates that the President was directly involved in the Fast And Furious operation, the coverup, or both. EP applies to the President, meaning what he wants to withhold is potentially damaging to him, not just Holder. |
|
|
| (951539) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:37:39 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:29:35 2012. In Watergate, there was evidence of administration complicty in the crimes. In Fast and Furious, there is not. There is only evidence of extreme stupidity. |
|
|
| (951540) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:43:31 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:37:39 2012. Re-read the thread. We now have strong indications of executive complicity. EP would not apply without executive complicity in whatever is being investigated.My opinion is that the documents Issa wants pertain to conversations relating to the motive behind F&F. Those on the right are insisting that the entire operation was run as a means of allowing illegal guns to get into American criminal hands, spike the murder rate and create a political climate more favorable for gun control laws. If so, Holder could be charged with a crime in the Terry murder and it would destroy Obama's re-election effort. |
|
|
| (951543) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 13:49:56 2012, in response to Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:21:48 2012. How does one assert executive priviledge over something they haven't seen and didn't even know exists? |
|
|
| (951544) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:50:30 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:37:15 2012. People will compare Obama to Nixon.If they want to be stupid about it. The Watergate burglars were caught in a criminal act, and it soon became evident that their actions were directed by White House officials. We found out later that those White House officials were directed by the President. The border agent was murdered by Mexican drug dealers. No one claims that their actions were directed by Justice department or White House officials. The obvious claim is that Operation Fast and Furious was designed so recklessly as to endanger, and cause the death of, a federal agent. The next claim is that the Obama Administration is trying to cover up the reasons for its idiocy. But even you aren't claiming that they set out with the goal of having a federal agent murdered, are you? |
|
|
| (951545) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:51:32 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 13:49:56 2012. Exactly. You can't. This pretty much confirms Obama's direct involvement in some or all of Operation Fast & Furious. |
|
|
| (951546) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:52:29 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:43:31 2012. Designed to spike the murder rate? Give me a break. That is so ridiculous. That's like saying Bush allowed 9/11 to happen so that he could have an excuse to get back at the Muslim extremists. |
|
|
| (951548) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:54:04 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 13:49:56 2012. So are you buying into Chris's suggestion that Obama designed this program to spike the murder rate to build up support for gun control? |
|
|
| (951550) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 13:54:17 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:37:39 2012. Don't go calling our President extremely stupid. |
|
|
| (951551) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:55:30 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:50:30 2012. The Watergate burglars were caught in a criminal act,But the Watergate Committee was investigating Nixon's role and the role of his cabinet in the subsequent coverup. Nobody died over Watergate. Fast and Furious led directly to the death of a border patrol agent and countless Mexican gun crime victims. The border agent was murdered by Mexican drug dealers. By a gun which was specifically allowed to make it's way into said criminal's hands due to a direct act by the DOJ. That's, at worst, criminally negligent homicide. |
|
|
| (951552) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jun 20 13:56:02 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:50:30 2012. Maybe they are covering up that the president knew that "fast and furious" was a recklessly conceived operation and let it continue. Unless you have all the facts, how are you to know? Are you against having all the facts? More to the point, are you against responsible members of congress having all the facts? |
|
|
| (951553) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jun 20 13:57:38 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:54:04 2012. Charles said what he said. Why do you feel the need to twist other people's words? That's the same liberal bullshit tactic over and over. |
|
|
| (951554) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:57:44 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:54:04 2012. It's not my suggestion, it's the leading theory of those who opposed the operation when it was initiated. I don't know if it's true or not.Stop acting like bingbong. A truly non-aligned moderate cannot possibly buy the administration's spin on this. |
|
|
| (951555) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 13:58:34 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:54:04 2012. I don't know who designed it or why they would. It certainly seems like we have learned that our AG has been far from truthful on the matter.What do you think? Was Holder lying about the President not knowing, or is President Obama desperately trying to hide the facts from coming out? |
|
|
| (951556) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jun 20 13:58:51 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:52:29 2012. That's what some of your fellow extremist liberals have said here. |
|
|
| (951557) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jun 20 14:01:22 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 13:58:34 2012. [ ] Was Holder lying about the President not knowing,[ ] is President Obama desperately trying to hide the facts from coming out? [X] All of the above |
|
|
| (951558) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:01:43 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jun 20 13:56:02 2012. It would be really interesting to see what the administration is so worried over. The most damning thing is the confirmation of the suggested political motive for launching the operation. Basically Obama would get crucified for allowing people to be killed to further a political policy initiative. Next would be direct evidence he was thwarting Issa's probe and that Holder lied through his face last Friday before Congress. That would be politically damaging, but having Holder resign would mollify it to some degree. It would be an impeachable offense, but no way is that happening before the election. It would give the Romney camp yet another narrative to bash Obama that would probably resonate with independents. |
|
|
| (951559) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:02:51 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jun 20 14:01:22 2012. It must be stated that we have no evidence for both. That's what Issa's inquiry is trying to uncover. It certainly makes Obama appear guilty of something. |
|
|
| (951561) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:08:58 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jun 20 13:58:51 2012. And they're nuts too. |
|
|
| (951563) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:12:25 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 13:55:30 2012. OK, so you (not you literally) think it might be criminally negligent homicide?Then make a case against lower level people, to put the squeeze on them. You can be sure that those lower level people would then squeal that they were doing it under Holder's orders, if true. Why is that not happening? Because you can't make the case for criminally negligent homicide. So instead you rummage around trying to implioate Holder in stupidity. |
|
|
| (951565) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:13:24 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:52:29 2012. Except no one related to the military has gone public and on the record as stating they believed Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. And if they did, you can bet Bush would have used every privilege on the books to block that from ever being proved.There are other, less sensational theories as to why Obama could have gotten involved with this operation. That's what Issa is charged with finding out. |
|
|
| (951566) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:13:33 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Train Dude on Wed Jun 20 13:57:38 2012. I'm asking, not saying. |
|
|
| (951567) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Jun 20 14:13:45 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 13:50:30 2012. The right has wanted a democrat watergate since watergate so it's expected they won't be able to keep it in their pants, as you can see. I wonder if any of that info may be classified .Oooooohh, Executive Privelege! Your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (951571) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:16:46 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Fred G on Wed Jun 20 14:13:45 2012. I agree. The witchhunt that was Watergate opened the door to similar witchhunts, one which lead to Clinton being impeached. You cannot really bitch when your enemy seeks revenge and plays by the same rules your side did. When you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind. |
|
|
| (951572) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:18:54 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 13:58:34 2012. I'm sure Holder is not eager for embarrassing facts to come out. I have no idea who might be embarrassed or if he has lied to prevent that.These situations come up in every administration. But Chris's suggestion that this might have been a deliberate attempt to spike the murder rate goes to a whole new level. |
|
|
| (951573) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:19:13 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Fred G on Wed Jun 20 14:13:45 2012. Remember that absurd investigations relating to the October Surprise? Millions wasted on bogus bullshit because of the insanity Watergate led to. |
|
|
| (951581) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 14:28:20 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:18:54 2012. Of course, nobody is eager to have embarrassing facts come out about themself. But that isn't the question. The question is whether or not Holder lied about the President not knowing about this, or whether the President is now desperately trying to protect AG Holder from having embarrassing facts revealed. Which do you think it is? |
|
|
| (951582) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:28:44 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:18:54 2012. It's NOT my suggestion. It was the suggestion of three officials within the ATF who opposed launching the operation in 2009. It's also been alleged by many in the Mexican government whose citizens have born the brunt of the blood related to it. |
|
|
| (951583) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:30:02 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 14:28:20 2012. The invocation of EP negates that latter interpretation. EP does not apply to potential evidence pertaining solely to the actions of an administration member. It must apply to the chief executive himself. |
|
|
| (951584) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Jun 20 14:32:14 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:16:46 2012. Watergate was obvious criminal activity - burglars and shit.It's hard to view that as simply a witchunt. Your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (951585) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 14:34:05 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Fred G on Wed Jun 20 14:32:14 2012. Are you implying that inserting illegal guns into the hands of criminals isn't something that would generate criminal activity? You know, murders and shit. |
|
|
| (951586) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:35:20 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:13:33 2012. Ask yourself this: If the President feels that invoking privilege is the more desirable political situation, just how BAD can the information in the documents Issa's committee subpoenaed be? Really, Obama and Holder decided that doing THIS was the more attractive alternative available to them. |
|
|
| (951589) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:37:39 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Fred G on Wed Jun 20 14:32:14 2012. Deliberately allowing hundreds of dangerous firearms into the hands of murderous Mexican criminal syndicates isn't? You really want to assert a "3rd rate burglary" which didn't even result in any bodily injury as worse than this?If so, go ahead. I've won. |
|
|
| (951591) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:39:14 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 14:34:05 2012. Making life easier for criminals through stupid strategies is not the same thing as directing subordinates to engage in criminal activity. |
|
|
| (951592) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:39:50 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:37:39 2012. Carelessness and deliberate orders to engage in criminal activity are different things. |
|
|
| (951594) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 14:41:53 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:39:50 2012. So criminally negligent homicide is not a crime in your world? |
|
|
| (951595) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:42:05 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:39:50 2012. Recklessness is criminal, if you can demonstrate that the consequences were forseen. The Bush administration foresaw them, which is why they never engaged in such activities. |
|
|
| (951596) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:42:44 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 14:41:53 2012. You're good. |
|
|
| (951600) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:55:05 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Charles G on Wed Jun 20 14:41:53 2012. See my other post on that topic. There hasn't been an iota of evidence that I've heard of that the carelessness came up to that level. |
|
|
| (951601) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:55:48 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 14:42:05 2012. So why has no one tried to prosecute the actual agents running the operation? Probably because there's no evidence. |
|
|
| (951603) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 15:00:17 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 14:55:05 2012. That's why Issa's investigating. You want evidence? Tell the President to release the subpoenaed documents! |
|
|
| (951604) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 15:01:49 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 15:00:17 2012. Issa isn't a prosecutor. |
|
|
| (951605) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 15:03:28 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 15:01:49 2012. Constitutionally, he is. |
|
|
| (951607) | |
Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jun 20 15:04:16 2012, in response to Re: Obama goes full Nixon, asserts executive privilege on subpoenaed documents, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jun 20 15:03:28 2012. No. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|