Obama Asserts Fast and Furious Executive Privilege Claim for Holder’s Wife

a reply to: Xcathdra

You are also looking at people who have some level of immunity in order for them to do th3eir jobs

I wanna ask this from a human perspective...a decent honest human being....remind me again...why do people need to be above accountability in order to do their jobs ? What kind of jobs are these that you need to be immune from prosecution ?

Don't you feel sick even saying it ?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Immunity in this case is based on lawful actions. When actions become unlawful that immunity is non existent. The best way to describe would be like judges and prosecutors (at least in my state). They are immune so long as they are in office. The reason is to prevent people from filing lawsuits every other decision.

Now, if the action is criminal then immunity is not going to protect them.

When it comes to our government you have to view it not as individuals, but individuals representing the government. Could you imagine how much more dysfunctional our government would be if anyone could file a lawsuit?

Is this making more sense?

a reply to: Xcathdra

The best way to describe would be like judges and prosecutors (at least in my state).

I see no reason for them being prosecuted based on their decisions in court. There are other mechanisms for that. You can file an appeal if you're not satisfied with the court decision.

What I see immunity as, is a way to stay above the law. There are many criminals...as in your state, like so in mine...that are immune from prosecution for various reasons.

It is a well known fact, that certain diplomatic channels...which are immune from prosecution as a perk of the position, are used for various criminal activities...one being smuggling of contraband. In many instances, they will not be even investigated by the local authorities...because of said immunity. In our human civilization...it works like this...if you give a group or an individual certain power...it is only a matter of time when it will abused. It also entices shady characters to even go for that position in order to gain power.

All this stuff only reminds me...law is for cattle...

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Hence the reason they are granted qualified immunity from their actions (Judge, Prosecutor or member of government). If they break the law there are mechanisms in place to deal with it and it usually requires the person to be removed from their position before criminal action can be taken.

As for Diplomatic immunity there are differing levels of it, depending on position and classification. While the general thought it Diplomats have immunity, which they do, its not absolute. Diplomatic Immunity does not grant the person the right to break the laws of the country they are in. Diplomatic Immunity can be waived by the diplomats home country for local prosecution.

Depending on the crime committed a Diplomat can be held by law enforcement and requires immediate notice to the State Department.

As an example if our government did not have certain immunities then we would most likely see the opposing party forcing an agenda via lawsuits.


In this particular thread immunity gives way to not individuals, but different branches of government going at each other. Congress trying to exercise its Congressional oversight and the Executive with its authority to execute the laws / prosecute for it.

I am still lost as to why Obama thinks he can invoke EP on documents the courts already ordered released.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I am still lost as to why Obama thinks he can invoke EP on documents the courts already ordered released.

Let's wait and see...but...looking at the pattern of EP used so far...I see your presidents have been known to use it to cover up crimes...without even blinking. Nixon paid for it...sort of...Bush hasn't. And I'm eagerly awaiting that day...I just hope he doesn't die before the hammer drops on him....if ever.

Although flawed, I think I like my country's government system a bit more...a president can not override congress. Laws are based on constitution. No one has elevated privileges to bypass the law set in place...not legally anyway.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Ironically executive privilege is not in the Constitution. It was a legal theory Nixon used to try and cover up Watergate. The Federal courts are reluctant to get in the middle of 2 branches of government duking it out and the 2 branches of government have argued the courts have no business butting in (although SCOTUS has rejected that on occasion).

Obama renewing the EP is what's baffling to me. The DOJ already seriously pissed of the Federal judge by trying to argue for a delay in release until after the elections. The judge said absolutely not so imo I think this is an attempt to block the most damming evidence until after the election.

Since Valerie Jerrit is linked into this now I don't see the White House getting out from under legal action against them.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The judge said absolutely not so imo I think this is an attempt to block the most damming evidence until after the election.

agreed...simply by a precursor sentence...

release until after the elections

everyone knows what this means...

Heaven forbid the voters get some information prior to voting...that would be...undesirable. I just love politics.