SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JBTFD who wrote (102592)7/11/2007 4:21:16 PM
From: Lazarus_Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Speaking of having something to hide ,,,,
ashbrook.org

"Day after day, we see him invoking Executive Privilege on select staff members in order to prevent them from talking to the grand jury. "
american-partisan.com

Even Shrillary claimed it.
"The closest the courts have come to extending the privilege to such discussions was in the 1993 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. v. Hillary Clinton. That case raised the question whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA") applied to the health-care-reform panel chaired by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. And that question, in turn, depended on whether the First Lady is, or is not, an officer or employee of the government."
writ.news.findlaw.com



To: JBTFD who wrote (102592)7/11/2007 4:34:09 PM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
I believe in the Constitution and I can see both sides of the argument.....Congress has a legitimate oversight authority and the Preisdent has a legitimate claim of privilege. That's why the Courts are there...to settle such matters.....The Founding Fathers were clever in the way they set up the system. The system is working as it is supposed to work....

J.