It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Executive Privilege and the Divine Right of Kings

page: 7
37
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by michaelbrux
 




all this may be the case. but Obama and Holder don't have to incriminate themselves in these crimes. Issa is going to have to make a specific accusation of a crime...what is it that I am saying that isn't computing in your brains? the Media is reporting the CIA is arming Syrian rebels...how is this different? you guys don't want to get it.

When and where was Obama accused of anything in F&F? His invoking executive privilege is what brought the idea to the fore. The investigation has been going on for over a year and that whole time the justice dept has been delaying it. This is not a normal court case this is a congressional hearing and for the potus to get involved like he did is very telling. He might as well come out and say I am involved, because the other option is his use of executive privilege was just to protect Holder. Which is not very ethical and the opposite of what he and his party allegedly stand for. Holder and his justice dept dragging their feet is what has turned this into a election issue and his boss needs it to go away. Too bad for him he just brought more attention to it


Going after Holder is intended to be an indirect attack on the President.

As long as this keeps going, the Republicans in the House would have no problem with portraying the President as a direct participant in the deaths of those Agents; as if he was at the scene of the crime and pulled the trigger himself. that's the foul type of game they play in that town.

we've got an election coming in less than 140 days and the House is managing this whole affair in a manner such that it can hit a climax just before the elections in order to have its greatest impact. its a performance.

the documents probably reveal nothing about how the guys died and show nothing revealing wrongdoing by the administration; they were shot and killed by mexican gangbangers...nothing to see here.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
there is only one King and He lives in Heaven.

everyone else is a pretender, regardless of what titles or positions they give themselves, they're a human being.


your supposed "King who lives in Heaven" is the greatest pretender of all.

God NEVER called himself "King" in any scripture, even if you are a believer.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
Monarchy may be a divine right, but regicide is a divine imperative. The execution of Charles I was a glorious thing.

edit on 21-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)


Its not. There is no divine right to pyramids. That wasn't taking counsel with Family Above, maybe the odd Et, but not truly Family.

While I on the other hand, can not stand to every have anyone harmed physically, even the bad guys. Could never allow a system like that. You can't take off the "angel in training wheels hat" and put on the "violent demon hat" and then switch. Be truly One Thing and Stand For It! Except if you stand for the demon hat, there are people born into the system to nudge you to make a U-Turn.

edit on 22-6-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


people, like you I imagine, called for Obama's impeachment before he was even inaugurated.

it never mattered what he did, you'd have found something to complain about.

its your style.

to compare a US President and Executive Privilege to the Divine Right of a King just shows, to me at least, you have no problem whatsoever misrepresenting even the most ancient of philosophical concepts to fit into your current necessities for survival.

You degrade the idea of a King by comparing him to a President.
You misrepresent the idea of a President.
You know nothing of either office.

Its no wonder why you think a Sheriff has constitutional authority...you have no regard whatsoever for structure or order.

all you speak of is chaos.



What a subjective partisan post.

Equality of the people and Virtues is NOT CHAOS. That is the Family Above, there are no Laws only Free Will and Virtues, with the exception that its a Frequency Match so you can't get there until you can stand in their Light.

Due to the abuse of legistlation, I don't like the word LAW at all, as it bespeaks crimes not virtues, slavery, not freedom.

However, basic common law is based on the true Virtues from above.

There is no office of king, that is a massive crime of slavery.
edit on 22-6-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 





obstruction of justice, in my personal opinion, to be a crime requires, first, that a crime, or at least some reasonable belief, evidence, that a crime has been committed to obstruct.


Your personal opinion is worth #. It really is.

They claimed to be doing everything within their power to rein in F&F. There is reason to believe they didn't. To clarify this, they are requesting the internal communications to prove that it was even discussed, let a lone put into action.

That, in itself, is an investigation. The fact that Holder is withholding those documents and refuses to release them, it is CLEARLY obstruction of justice.

your little analogy of the state putting everyone into detention, while being completely ludicrous, has no bearing or relation to the issue being discussed here.

And man, I'm only half way through the thread, and I'm already sick of listening to your willful ignorance.

You were wrong, continue to be wrong, and will always be wrong.

Just admit it bro.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 





the documents probably reveal nothing about how the guys died and show nothing revealing wrongdoing by the administration; they were shot and killed by mexican gangbangers...nothing to see here.


Really? Well there you go guys and gals, if that isn't evidence that this guy isn't even reading your posts, I don't know what is....

They aren't requesting the documents to see if they can connect them, or content within, to the death of that border agent.

They are requesting the documents to prove or disprove the claim that they were attempting to rein in and end the program.

The death of that agent has been investigated, he was more than likely killed by illegals, but they can't even prove the bullet that killed him came from a F&F gun...

But again, that isn't the point and never was, it's about the internal documents that can prove or disprove the claim that they were attempting to rein in and bring the F&F project under control.

Wow man wow

JPZ might like to use the word Obtuse, but man, you are being a textbook definition of it.
edit on 22-6-2012 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)


....

Food for thought. What happens if they do get those documents and they disprove the claims that they were trying to do something about it?

Will someone be held accountable for the death of that border agent? What does the Mexican government think of the US agents walking guns into their country?


edit on 22-6-2012 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Admit what?

you stated that the crime they are being accused of is willful negligence to reign in F&F and that the documents being requested will show this.

the crime is negligent homicide.

entirely consistent with what i've been asking for a number of pages...all I asked you...What Crime is being alleged that the AG is in Contempt?

Issa needs to go on the record and make this accusation before a full House against the Attorney General and the President of the United States.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
and Holder said all their efforts to end the program occurred after the deaths of the border agents and that he wasn't aware of the details of the project before being made aware of the deaths.

what Issa is then saying is that Holder knew everything all along and instead of stopping it he did nothing contributing to the death of those agents by neglect and that the documents being withheld will prove this assertion.

Issa needs to tell the whole House his beliefs.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


If executive privilege is being used to claim authority above the law, then it is claiming special privilege indeed, and yes, Obama could just simply pardon Holder were he charged.




Finally! Something on which we can disagree


I think Obama can only pardon Holder after he is convicted, not just charged.

I know it's just a small point, but it bothers me when I seem to agree with someone 100% of the time. It's annoying when I have to respect someone who makes me feel stupid by comparison.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
we've got an election coming in less than 140 days and the House is managing this whole affair in a manner such that it can hit a climax just before the elections in order to have its greatest impact. its a performance.


The Obama Administration could have made Holder Resign along time ago. They didnt. They waited,thinking they were above the American Public,above Brian Terry,those Mexicans,and shall I say,maybe more American deaths..


Originally posted by michaelbrux
the documents probably reveal nothing about how the guys died and show nothing revealing wrongdoing by the administration; they were shot and killed by mexican gangbangers...nothing to see here.




I would think Brian Terry would disagree.Brian Terrys Parents, disagree.

edit on 22-6-2012 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The Divine Right of Kings is a doctrine that established royalty and political legitimacy of king - particularly in the West - that asserts that a monarch is not subject to any earthly authority and derives his political and royal power from God directly.

Executive Privilege is a power not expressly granted by the Constitution for the United States of America and only impliedly so if that privilege clearly demonstrates the Constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

The Separation of Powers doctrine applied in the Constitution for the United State of America is done so to keep each branch of government distinct and separate providing natural checks and balances preventing any one branch from becoming more powerful than the others, and to prevent collusion between the three branches that would have the effect of usurping the Constitutional mandates set forth for these branches.

White House Spokesman: Executive Privilege Is 'Entirely About Principle'

Sigh.



Excellent post and thread!

The Supreme Court ruled that Executive Privileged was a function of Separation of Powers, to protect the presidency from usurpation by the congress essentially, and that the necessity of garnishing presidential materials was an element in justice which had to be sufficiently demonstrated by a prosecutor.

Nixon and other presidents since then, used EP as a means of holding back information that would implicate them in crimes, thus circumventing justice.

Though Nixon was convicted of high crimes, he was pardoned by Pres. Ford because it was seen as shameful and politically hypocritical that a former president would go to prison.

It is my opinion that this is a show of arrogance toward the entire democratic process by elites and that it has been another sign of the eminent collapse of American democracy from within.

While the average American is preoccupied by so-called external threats (IE...terrorism), the former Bush regime created a coups d'état using the 911 attacks that could have been prevented by the best intelligence community on the planet.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


You tap into a very important aspect that has become so diluted, so complexly treated that few even understand the principles of ethics, let alone understand what is ethical and what is not. Today, we have "ethicists" as if they were the priest class sect of ethics, and here in lies the real problem when it comes to ethics. From "ethicists" come "animal ethicists" or "political ethicists", "family ethicists" and on and on and on as if ethics is a malleable concept that changes from circumstance to circumstance.

It is an educated guess, but my guess is that Obama is well versed in The Prince by Machiavelli and fully embraces the odious concept that the end justify the means. The reality is, as it has always been, that whatever the end, that end was obtained by the means that got it there.

In terms of ethics simplified, it is simply said by Aristotle. The greatest good to the greatest amount. That is ethics in its simplest form. The complexity of ethics comes with determining what the greatest good is and how to ensure the greatest amount (preferably all) can get this greatest good.

The beauty of the rule of law is its equality. All are equal under the law, whether it be plumbers or presidents. Presidents are no more above the law than outlaws are.






JPZ, I know your disdain for the lawyer class, mine may be worse then yours, but I'll venture into the lawyer waters for a moment to illustrate a point.

RE: Ethics. I was involved in a lawsuit that extended for years. At the end it turned out the "ethical" lawyer, who often proclaimed his ethical foundation, did some incredibly unethical stuff (he was my friend to boot). When I forwarded a complaint to his own controlling agency - the BAR, with proof that he violated their own ethical codes and foundational procedures, their response was "so what?" The point was as clear as "lawyers don't steal 100 dollars from the client" and I sent them documents to show the "lawyer stole 100 dollars from the client." Documented in his own hand. He responded to the allegations with lawyerspeak, and their response, to their own codes being broken was, "so what, it was only 99 dollars?"

El Presidente is a lawyer, a member of a foreign organization whose loyalty is, first and foremost, to that organization and, correct me if I am wrong, the Queen. It became clear in my experience that the BAR complaint system was a concession to allow that company, British Accreditation Registry, to ply its trade in the US, but it wasn't there for the consumer of their product. The BAR, of which the President is a member, is there to protect their own via an ethics system that has no rules for them, only rules for the people they use. There is zero ethical system in place for lawyers that isn't controlled by lawyers - I had to go to a member to file a complaint against another member and request that a third member - a judge, look into it when the complaint was dismissed.

I bring this up as I ties into the ethics problem here. The lawyer game is not a human game, nor is it a part of the universal law reality you and i wish were in full force, it is a system by which the members, create "ethics" to suit their game and, in the long run, to protect themselves. To get kicked out of the BAR is near impossible and since the only recourse in a BAR controlled reality is from that same BAR.... well you get the point.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


i read the article about Brian Terry's parents earlier, but I think, after a number of pages, that I refined my understanding of this issue. Please point out all of my mistakes...both in grammar and understanding of the situation.

The White House is saying very little about the project was known before the deaths of the Agents and any efforts to end it occurred after Terry was killed.

The House is saying the White House knew about the project and simply refused or neglected to stop it making the AG and President responsible for Terry's death and that the documents Holder refuses to produce will show this.

This is sounding more and more serious after each and every page.

Issa needs to bring those charges against these men and any Co-Conspirators.

But to expect a criminal to admit their crimes is not reasonable and there is nothing unusual about Obama's actions. I'm certain Obama consulted with his Legal Staff before invoking Executive Privilege; it seems even the timing was well planned.

...Issa's going to have to pump up the volume and let everyone know he's not playing games anymore.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I think the question really is, is it being used to obfusticate and hide.....? Executive privilege seems too convenient in this ......... Will Obama ever come clean about anything or continue to write fiction. You know waht they say about peeing down my neck and telling me it's raining.........



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plotus
I think the question really is, is it being used to obfusticate and hide.....? Executive privilege seems too convenient in this ......... Will Obama ever come clean about anything or continue to write fiction. You know waht they say about peeing down my neck and telling me it's raining.........


Perhaps it is being used to do what you asked.

but I think Issa isn't completely committed to his position. He's hedging...almost seems if he thinks this is a game of poker or something. and his bluff won't be called.

He needs to say from his mouth to a full House that the President of the United States is covering up a Negligent Homicide in which he also participated.

If Issa does that...Obama would probably be compelled to release all documents in full, if Issa finds nothing...he can be remembered as the guy that accused the President of Negligent Homicide...its a win win for him.
edit on 22-6-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by crankyoldman
 


You tap into a very important aspect that has become so diluted, so complexly treated that few even understand the principles of ethics, let alone understand what is ethical and what is not. Today, we have "ethicists" as if they were the priest class sect of ethics, and here in lies the real problem when it comes to ethics. From "ethicists" come "animal ethicists" or "political ethicists", "family ethicists" and on and on and on as if ethics is a malleable concept that changes from circumstance to circumstance.

It is an educated guess, but my guess is that Obama is well versed in The Prince by Machiavelli and fully embraces the odious concept that the end justify the means. The reality is, as it has always been, that whatever the end, that end was obtained by the means that got it there.

In terms of ethics simplified, it is simply said by Aristotle. The greatest good to the greatest amount. That is ethics in its simplest form. The complexity of ethics comes with determining what the greatest good is and how to ensure the greatest amount (preferably all) can get this greatest good.

The beauty of the rule of law is its equality. All are equal under the law, whether it be plumbers or presidents. Presidents are no more above the law than outlaws are.





Unfortunately, our presidents and others in government all seem to have read "The Prince", without having also read "The Once and Future King" - both should be required reading before swearing any oath of high political office.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by sonnny1
 


i read the article about Brian Terry's parents earlier, but I think, after a number of pages, that I refined my understanding of this issue. Please point out all of my mistakes...both in grammar and understanding of the situation.

The White House is saying very little about the project was known before the deaths of the Agents and any efforts to end it occurred after Terry was killed.

The House is saying the White House knew about the project and simply refused or neglected to stop it making the AG and President responsible for Terry's death and that the documents Holder refuses to produce will show this.

This is sounding more and more serious after each and every page.

Issa needs to bring those charges against these men and any Co-Conspirators.

But to expect a criminal to admit their crimes is not reasonable and there is nothing unusual about Obama's actions. I'm certain Obama consulted with his Legal Staff before invoking Executive Privilege; it seems even the timing was well planned.

...Issa's going to have to pump up the volume and let everyone know he's not playing games anymore.



I think you are probably on the right track. Whatever the truth is about the culpability of the president is questionable at this point and any investigation would by its nature last for months and cast a shadow over the president's campaign by a hostile congress.

Anything at all negative that hits the public arena through the media would produce a ground work for those who want to see the president fail in his presidential reelection bid. Personally, I see this investigation as being largely political rather then a quest for justice.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by g2v12
 


micheal is no where near on the right track and it has all ready been pointed out in this thread that Obama could have demanded Holders resignation a long time ago, and Congress did not force, nor even suggest that Obama involve himself the way he has in this Oversight by invoking executive privilege.

It is way past disingenuous to suggest that an Oversight committee tasked with oversight is playing politics because they are investigating the clear and present failures of a highly dubious strategy employed by the FTA.

It is way post odious to suggest that the illegal activities of an administrative agency should be overlooked during election cycles only so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety. It is improper to use elections cycles as a get out of jail free card, or even a get out of being investigated card.

Obama needn't have involved himself in this Oversight at all. That was his decision.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Obama could have had Holder resign...he chose not to.

Obama didn't have to get involved...he chose to do so.

the House isn't getting anything...deal with it.

and the Contempt vote is a bluff...Issa's going to look like an impotent fool in front of the entire viewing audience.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
In the early days of the Watergate scandal, there were countless Nixonites who insisted this was all just political opportunism by the Watergate investigators...as time went on this "political opportunism" revealed vast corruption and criminality at the highest levels of the executive office.

On June 20th of 2012 the House Oversight Committee issued this press release:


“The Oversight Committee voted to hold Attorney General Holder in contempt for his continued refusal to produce relevant documents in the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious. This was not the outcome I had hoped for and today’s proceeding would not have occurred had Attorney General Eric Holder actually produced the subpoenaed documents he said he could provide.

“The President’s assertion of Executive Privilege this morning took us by surprise but did not alter the Committee’s conclusion that documents had been inappropriately withheld. Executive Privilege only applies to materials that directly pertain to communications with the President and his senior advisors. This assertion indicates that the White House’s role in Operation Fast and Furious and the response to whistleblower accusations has been greater than previously acknowledged. Just yesterday, the Attorney General indicated a willingness to produce a small subset of documents on the condition that the Committee end its investigation before they were described or made available for review. Today, the President asserted Executive Privilege to ensure they are never produced.


Nixon tried the same thing and destroyed his political career as well as forever tarnishing the Presidency. Obama supporters will ignore all rule of law in the same way Nixon supporters did during his rogue days as President. Obama supporters will gleefully praise Obama's rogue strategies and demand, not suggest, not imply, but openly demand that We the People need to just "get over it".

We shall see.




top topics



 
37
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join