Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Asserting executive privilege shows desperation in the Obama White House
Bookwormroom.com ^ | 6-20-2012 | Bookworm

Posted on 06/20/2012 1:27:30 PM PDT by servo1969

Wow!

Wow!

From a lawyer’s point of view, it’s hard to imagine anything more stupid than for the Obama White House to assert executive privilege as to the Fast and Furious documents. The subpoenaed documents must have some pretty damning information for the White House to make this move.

More than that, by having asserted the privilege, the lawyer-led White House showed either a profound misunderstanding of the nature of privilege or is conceding that the Fast and Furious scandal — which saw the Justice Department pour thousands of guns into criminal hands in Mexico, resulting in the murders of two American law enforcement officers and untold numbers of Mexican and American civilians — goes all the way up to the White House.

Wow!

If you’re wondering why those two conclusions (either the White House is dumb as a collective post or guilty as sin), here’s a little information about legal “privileges.” Once a case is in the legal system, the law imposes upon each party a duty to reveal information, provided that the opposing party properly requests that information. When I’m advising people who are contemplating litigation, I always warn them that filing suit means giving up lots of their privacy. They’ll be required to turn over vast numbers of documents and to answer intrusive questions, provided that the other side can credibly show that the information sought is reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

A typical (and appropriate) discovery request might read “Please produce all communications between you and any realtors other than the defendant regarding the sale of your home at 123 Any Road in Nowhere Town.” Those “communications” would cover writings, emails, phone messages, etc. I’ve worked on cases that have involved the production of hundreds of thousands of pages, answers to hundreds of questions, and innumerable live depositions.

There are relationships, however, that the law considers so important it insulates from discovery or testimony any original communications between the parties to those relationships. The law will not involve itself in trying to ferret out communications between a priest and a penitent, nor will it interfere with the bond between husband and wife. Likewise, recognizing that an attorney cannot give counsel to a client without full and free communications between the two, the law protects any direct communications between an attorney and his client.

In my years as an attorney, I would have to say that “attorney client privilege” is the privilege I see asserted with the greatest frequency. What I also see is lawyers who assert it in the hope that no one notices that a lawyer isn’t actually involved in the communication at issue — or, at least, wasn’t involved initially.

The deal is that you cannot shield otherwise unprivileged information by lodging it with your attorney. For example, if your corporate client has a memo on file that says “I’ve got a great idea for defrauding our competitor,” your client cannot prevent the other side from discovering that document by mailing it to you, the lawyer, with a cover letter saying, “You need to know about this document.” However, to the extent your client writes you a long letter explaining everything he knows about the case, good and bad, that letter to you is privileged. In the same way, your response explaining the legal consequences of the events described in the letter is also privileged.

More simply put: in order to assert any legal privilege, both of the parties covered under the privilege must have participated in the communication and must have exchanged original information that does not exist independent of the privilege.

Because of the way privilege operates, we can understand Obama’s assertion of executive privilege in only three ways.

(1) Obama’s White House was either involved in Fast and Furious, which is bad;

(2) or it means that Obama’s White House doesn’t understand the nature of a privilege, which is embarrassing, especially with a lawyer at the helm;

(3) or it means that the documents Holder is hiding are so dreadful that Obama’s White House would rather risk looking criminal or stupid than take the risk of allowing Congress and the public to see those documents.

No matter how you look at it, by inserting itself into this struggle between Holder’s Justice Department, on the one hand, and Congress, on the other hand, the White House made an already bad situation look much, much worse.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012; 2deadfeds; 300deadmexicans; atf; banglist; bhocorruption; bhofascism; corruption; dea; democrats; dhs; doj; fastandfurious; fbi; ffexecutiveprivilege; fraud; gunrunner; gunwalker; holder; ice; murdergate; obama; obamatruthfile; tyranny
A good explanation of legal “privileges” from a lawyer.
1 posted on 06/20/2012 1:27:31 PM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: servo1969

I am sure Obama is working on the pardon for Holder he will issue on Nov 7th.


2 posted on 06/20/2012 1:32:22 PM PDT by 11th Commandment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
He doesn't address "Executive Privilege", which is special to the government and the Constitutional separation of powers.

I do agree that this action makes the Obama Administration look guilty as sin, especially considering that people have died. The Administration could have submitted documents and blacked out names of informants and such.
3 posted on 06/20/2012 1:33:50 PM PDT by kenavi (Obama doesn't hate private equity. He wants to be it with our money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

(4) All of the above.


4 posted on 06/20/2012 1:34:04 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
In other words, claiming Executive Privilege was NOT an option here.
5 posted on 06/20/2012 1:35:17 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Committee just voted to hold Holder in contempt. What is more important is that all the Democrats voted no. That supports my theory that Democrats are communists and have no respect for the law.

This now will go to the full House where you can expect that it will be by party line and the communists Democrats will all vote no. Then it will go to the Senate where all the likewise Democrats will vote no and this will end the rule of law. ALL DEMOCRATS ARE COMMUNISTS AND THEY WILL AND HAVE DESTROYED THE RULE OF LAW. I STRESS AGAIN. DEMOCRATS ARE COMMUNISTS.


6 posted on 06/20/2012 1:35:47 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
(4) Bush did it too.
7 posted on 06/20/2012 1:37:44 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

Has the WH given grounds for invoking EP?


8 posted on 06/20/2012 1:40:27 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Also very important is the fact that one cannot claim “partial” privilege. Holder and the DOJ have already provided info about the February 4th, Ron Weich letter, for example. It is not legally permissible to now claim privilege on the remainder of that documentation. When part of it is out, the rest becomes fair game!!! One cannot testify and then claim 5th Amendment protection for the REST of what he was going to testify to!!!!


9 posted on 06/20/2012 1:41:47 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
If that happens there is only one hope, and that is that in Nov the GOP takes both houses and prosecutes afterwards.

And that is a slim reed.

10 posted on 06/20/2012 1:42:56 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

This is all about gun running right?

Well at one time it was. Now it’s also about dead U. S. Law Enforcement officers, dead Mexican nationals, and more than likely other dead U. S. Citizens.

If this were a Republican administration, at this point this would all be about...

1. the president not respecting law enforcement
2. the president betraying the INS (who cares what the flavor of the day name now is)
3. the president being a racist, for not caring about dead Mexican nationals

The media loves to play up where we rank in the world these days, because in some cases it makes the U. S. look bad.

I’ll bet they won’t be reporting the ranking of the nation’s press anytime soon. It’s dead last.

We even get some truth out of Egypt, Syria and Iran these days.

When it comes to the U. S. and the Leftists, we sure don’t get any out of our press.


11 posted on 06/20/2012 1:44:16 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

I wish I knew if it was online as a video, but judge Napolitano, this morning on Fox News, gave a more direct explanation of Executive Privilege as it pertains to the WH. There are 4 areas where the SC has ruled the president can claim EP. The two that could be pertinent are 1) National security, and 2) Presidential confidentiality. The president/Holder could be claiming that dealings under F&F could fall under national security. OTHO, the 2nd category directly involves the president in the scope of the discussions.

I don’t believe for a minute Obama wasn’t involved with F&F from the get go. What I’m very curious about, is the fact the information about the claim of executive privilege came from Holder and, as yet, there’s no direct correspondence from the WH.


12 posted on 06/20/2012 1:46:06 PM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
Then it will go to the Senate where all the likewise Democrats will vote no and this will end the rule of law.

I could be wrong, but from what I have read, it does not go to the Senate. Technically, Holder is being charged with being in contempt of the House, so as long as the House votes in the affirmative, the contempt charge is referred to the US Attorney for prosecution.

Of course, anyone who could prosecute the case works for Holder, so nothing will happen.

13 posted on 06/20/2012 1:52:40 PM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: servo1969; RummyChick; LucyT; STARWISE; kcvl; thouworm; jcsjcm; kidd; KGeorge; jiggyboy; Nachum; ...

FYI.... Some legal thoughts of what has happened and is about to happen with F&F.


14 posted on 06/20/2012 1:52:52 PM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

My lights keep dimming.

Must be all the paper shredders cranking up in DC.


15 posted on 06/20/2012 1:54:27 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

16 posted on 06/20/2012 1:54:47 PM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (Resurrect the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC)...before there is no America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

17 posted on 06/20/2012 1:56:13 PM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (Resurrect the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC)...before there is no America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

My understanding is that the House can issue a contempt citation without the involvement of the Senate.


18 posted on 06/20/2012 1:56:43 PM PDT by Lucas McCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: servo1969; a fool in paradise
Where are those brave journalists Redford and Hoffman whe we need them?


19 posted on 06/20/2012 1:56:54 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969; RummyChick; LucyT; STARWISE; kcvl; thouworm; jcsjcm; kidd; KGeorge; jiggyboy; Nachum; ...

FYI.... Some legal thoughts of what has happened and is about to happen with F&F.


20 posted on 06/20/2012 1:57:45 PM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

‘Obama goes Nixon, claims executive privilege on F&F’

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa notes that this means that Obama is claiming privilege for documents it has been claimed he never saw.

AP:
“The assertion of executive privilege raises monumental questions,” Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said in a statement released Wednesday shortly after the president’s move. “How can the President assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the President exert executive privilege over documents he’s supposedly never seen? Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme? The contempt citation is an important procedural mechanism in our system of checks and balances. The questions from Congress go to determining what happened in a disastrous government program for accountability and so that it’s never repeated again.”

Grassley is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has previously called a Justice Department investigation into the “Fast and Furious” gunrunning operation “botched.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/obama_goes_nixon_claims_executive_privilege_on_ff.html


21 posted on 06/20/2012 1:58:27 PM PDT by Hotlanta Mike (Resurrect the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC)...before there is no America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Seems Holder retracted that accusation.
I find it very interesting and underappreciated that he retracted that accusation.


22 posted on 06/20/2012 2:00:49 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

Vote next week

Here a phone numbers and addresses of congress critters. Let them hear from you. As many as thirty Rats may vote with the majority.

Holder feet to the fire!


23 posted on 06/20/2012 2:02:22 PM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment
I'm wondering what other executive orders he’Z got up his sleeve before he has to pack his things and get the hell outta our house.

Ban the sale of high capacity mags and or semi-auto rifles?

I mean, really. Obozo seems to be throwing all kinds of stuff up against the wall to see what sticks.

Damn, I thought I'd seen it all with Slick Willey. This guy makes Clinton look like a sophomoric little horn dog teenager unable to control his urges.

Obozo’s truly a Marxist.

24 posted on 06/20/2012 2:02:22 PM PDT by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I think they are only claiming EP for that part of the documentation set that involves discussions with the White House, so a partial claim is possible if there have been no releases of such communications (which I think is the case).


25 posted on 06/20/2012 2:02:32 PM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
either the White House is dumb as a collective post or guilty as sin

I don't think this is necessarily an either-or proposition. I think they are BOTH dumb as a post AND guilty as sin.

26 posted on 06/20/2012 2:02:39 PM PDT by JaguarXKE (If my Fluffy had a puppy, it would look like the puppy Obama ate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Vote next week

Here a phone numbers and addresses of congress critters. Let them hear from you. As many as thirty Rats may vote with the majority.

Holder feet to the fire!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2895739/posts


27 posted on 06/20/2012 2:04:31 PM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

bookmark


28 posted on 06/20/2012 2:04:31 PM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

The retraction doesn’t matter. The original accusation was out there for a couple of news cycles so it has become truth.


29 posted on 06/20/2012 2:09:14 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

I’m sure they are busy wrting the script now for the next movie: “All the President’s Contemptuous Butt-Monkeys.”


30 posted on 06/20/2012 2:12:19 PM PDT by JaguarXKE (If my Fluffy had a puppy, it would look like the puppy Obama ate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

What the hell does law have to do with it when you have the MSM covering for you and the threat of major riots as your ace in the hole


31 posted on 06/20/2012 2:13:39 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Now it’s 0bama’s turn to stonewall F&F. He will claim some alternate definition of Executive Privilege and defy anyone to prove him wrong. The MSM will carry that water into the gates of hell for him.


32 posted on 06/20/2012 2:15:11 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
This now will go to the full House where you can expect that it will be by party line and the communists Democrats will all vote no. Then it will go to the Senate where all the likewise Democrats will vote no and this will end the rule of law.

NOPE: Does not need to go to the Senate, thank God or it would die there.

The House can vote and if the yeas prevail, hold the most corrupt, biased, racist, Atty General this country has ever had, in contempt on its own.

33 posted on 06/20/2012 2:15:44 PM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Another aspect of claiming Executive Privelege is that Holder no longer has the option of submitting the documents before the vote takes place in the full House.

To do so would be a violation of Executive Privelege!

This WILL go to a full House vote.


34 posted on 06/20/2012 2:16:55 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
From here:

Before the final vote to approve a contempt resolution against Holder, the committee passed an amendment with many reasons why Obama's executive privilege is not valid. Some of the reasons include the fact that the time Obama should have claimed executive privilege was 8 months ago when Eric Holder was first called to testify, and also the fact that the president has not even claimed executive privilege and instead they have heard it from the DOJ who is not authorized to invoke the privilege.

So has the White House (aka Obama) actually invoked the much ballyhooed Executive Privilege or hasn't it?

35 posted on 06/20/2012 2:19:26 PM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Shows more stupid than anything to me. Really by this point shouldn’t they all know it never works. No president has ever gotten executive privilege to stick. Of course with an election he’s looking like he might lose looming it might actually work for him, just drag the process out another few month and nobody will care.


36 posted on 06/20/2012 2:20:50 PM PDT by discostu (Listen, do you smell something?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/06/20/attorney-general-holder-letter-to-rep-issa-regarding-president-obama-grant-for/

.....please do not hesitate to contact this office if we can be (of is missing) assistance .....

holders request to obama

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/06/20/attorney-general-holder-letter-to-president-obama-requesting-executive/

where is obamas reply?????


37 posted on 06/20/2012 2:32:10 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

Historically most such pardons are issued in the last couple of days the President is in office. In other words, sometime in January before the new POTUS is sworn in.


38 posted on 06/20/2012 2:37:09 PM PDT by Truth is a Weapon (Truth, it hurts so good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Thank you for this post & hoosiermama for the ping.
I’m wondering if they panicked & outed themselves accidentally. Anyway, it’s done now. What’s really beautiful is that there are at least a few dems who know it- and most wondrous of all, they aren’t getting immediately piled on. That’s *really* unusual.


39 posted on 06/20/2012 2:50:01 PM PDT by KGeorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Another aspect of this that has gone completely unnoticed...since F&F involved running guns across an international border, the State Department had to have known about it and approved....meaning Hilliary Clinton is involved.


40 posted on 06/20/2012 2:50:27 PM PDT by rottndog (Political Correctness KILLS...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
Thanks for ping.

Slightly OT: Are you listening to Levin? He just said after the full House passes the contempt vote, Issa should file a civil lawsuit against Holder in Federal court in DC and seek expedited action.

41 posted on 06/20/2012 3:29:23 PM PDT by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone
Six letters:

"C Y A !!"

and...

"C M A !!"


42 posted on 06/20/2012 3:33:12 PM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I don’t know about that. The media need a good summer show, a real stemwinder of a Constitutional Crisis so that people tune in, watch Sam Ervin all day and buy the tampons, anti depressant pils that may or may not make you want to commit suicide or give you an erection that lasts for 12 hours.

The impeachment of Barak Obama just may be the feel good hit of the summer! A blockbuster.

And just think, the EP redefinition which screws Obama was written up by. . . Wait for it. . .

Miss Hillary Rodham herself during the Richard Nixon inquisition in 1973-74.

Absolutely delicious.


43 posted on 06/20/2012 3:57:44 PM PDT by atc23 (The Confederacy was the single greatest conservative resistance to federal authority ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Nothing to disagree with you on the substance, but I object to
I’ll bet they won’t be reporting the ranking of the nation’s press anytime soon. It’s dead last.
the usage of “the press” in that context. Freedom of the press is a right of the people, not a privilege of a nobility or a priesthood.
Accordingly it is presumptuous of journalists to call themselves “the press.” Freedom of the press is a right which pertains to you whether you own a press yet or not.

In fact, since you have a computer with internet access (and probably also a printer, for that matter) you do have “a press” in the sense that you have spent money for technological means to transmit your opinions to a wide audience. The Constitution explicitly promotes technological progress

Article 1 Section 8.
The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
so the contingency of technological progress in transmitting opinions to a wide audience cannot be considered foreign to the Constitution, requiring or allowing government regulation. If in fact it is determined that government regulation of modern opinion-transmission technology is needed, the Constitution has provision to accommodate such a contingency:
Article V - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The conclusion is that wire service journalism, which is homogenizing influence on journalism, should not be allowed to arrogate to itself the term “the press” as if it were a title of nobility or a priesthood.

44 posted on 06/20/2012 3:59:22 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which “liberalism" coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: atc23

Maybe. I’ve been waiting for the MSM’s inherent shark nature to kick in but they have passed up dozens of juicy (and meaty) stories about The Won to date.


45 posted on 06/20/2012 4:03:45 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

Good idea.

Heard that since the crime happened in AZ the family could charge WithHolder and 0 in a civil suit for wrongful death.


46 posted on 06/20/2012 4:18:45 PM PDT by hoosiermama ( Obama: " born in Kenya.".. he's lying now or then?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

Just announced today:

ICE agent’s [Jaime Zapata] family files wrongful death claim against Justice Dept.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2897565/posts


47 posted on 06/20/2012 5:28:11 PM PDT by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

When I first started to read our post, I was afraid it was going to weave into a defense of the press.

In reality, you expanded the group that should be considered to be a part of the press. So yes it was a defense of the press, but in truth you and I are included. Anyone with a voice and a way to disburse it, even if only to provide their own editorial opinion, is a part of the press.

I appreciate you reinforcing this tenet.


48 posted on 06/20/2012 6:06:20 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson