Skip to comments.Contemptible - Holder, Obama and Nixon
Posted on 06/20/2012 8:24:36 PM PDT by guyshomenet
Ill indulge in some measure of fiendish joy by suggesting to my left-leaning San Francisco neighbors that Barak Obama and Richard Nixon may soon share adjoining pages in history books.
Disposing of partisan puffery, and being a member of no major political party, my partisanship is simply nonexistent, the country has almost witnessed the unfolding of a White House cover-up. I say this because some members of the mainstream media and the Obama re-election committee (am I being redundant?) have avoided reporting on the Fast and Furious gun running operation. For NBC Nightly News viewers, allow me to recap the important and indisputable facts thus far.
Holders fidelity to delivery of documents matches Bill Clintons fidelity to Hillary.
With Eric Holder unwilling to cooperate in ways that transparently illuminate the case, a congressional committee voted to declare the head of U.S. law enforcement to be in contempt of congress. Granted, every thinking American has contempt for congress, but this legal charge is equivalent to a judge siccing the police on you for failing to appear at your hearing. The properly vested authority for congress to investigate governmental illegalities has been functionally ignored by the government agency charged with enforcing the law. So Barack Obama intervened, taking a chapter from the Nixon playbook.
We all know how well that worked out.
Obama called upon executive privilege, a quaint piece of constitutional law that allows a president to not play with congress when it interferes with him performing his duties. Naturally this begs the question What duties were Obama involved in that led to gun smuggling and border agent homicide? Senator Chuck Grassley asked the same question, saying 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?
Obamas maneuver has Tricky Dick cranking 4500 RPMs in his casket.
Of all presidents to protect themselves under the guise of executive privilege, Nixon played the game hardest and lost large. Having participated in a cover-up of a burglary in which, unlike Fast and Furious, nobody died Nixon invoked executive privilege to obstruct congress and justice. This caused investigators to sue Nixon and the case rapidly reached the Supreme Court, who eventually rejected the notion of absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process.
Dick Nixon resigned 15 days later.
The timing of Obamas intervention does not bode well for his reelection. The Supreme Court is about to recess until the first Monday in October, five weeks before the election. It took the Supreme Court less than three weeks to rule against Nixon, and given the deeper degree of precedence that created, it should take the Supremes even less time to obviate Obama. Since undecided and independent voters tend to make up their minds in the last weeks before an election, losing this decision and having to disclose potentially damaging documents in October will torpedo Obamas already leaky reelection ship.
Fall may be an appropriate word to use this October.
You can add William the Impeached, the Bent One. He was equally contemptable.
No way... Bork Obunga will be on the same page as Boris Godunov.
Indeed leftists everywhere should be forced to submit to the Nixon Test whenever they start to whine that Obama/Holder are beinf persecuted by those evil right-wingers: if Nixon had suddenly resorted to Executive Privilege the day after his Attorney General had promised to turn over sought-after documents on Watergate, would they abandon all intention of impeachment? - I think not.....
“Barak Obama and Richard Nixon may soon share adjoining pages in history books.
Disposing of partisan puffery, and being a member of no major political party, my partisanship is simply nonexistent”
So is your grasp of history.
Nixon’s Executive Priv sins pale into insignificance when held to This fiasco.
Break ins and buggings of the other party’s turf were Not uncommon then, and according to Gordon Liddy the Watergate break in was not first and foremost about spying on the Dems. That was a secondary target with the primary target being the acquisition of a photo album of working girls servicing visiting Dems.
One of those working girls later married the guy who testi-lied to Congress to get the burglars tried and convicted.
Nixon wasn’t running guns to Mexican Narco-Trafficantes, but yes, considering who it is who Writes the history books, Nixon and Obama most certainly will get tied together at the neck, probably with Nixon as the worse of the two for setting the example Obama learned from.
I hate articles like this. Say what you want about Nixon, but he is not even in same league as this racist, Marxist, lawless, American hating Obama.
Watergate didn't get anyone killed.
Watergate wasn’t trying to disarm America either.
The author’s premise is dead wrong; whatever his sins, Richard Nixon had a great many excellent achievements to his credit.
Obama, on the other hand, has done absolutely nothing worthy of note, while driving the American economy to its knees and sending the national debt soaring into the stratoshpere.
There can be no legitimate comparison between the two.
The premise was that both used executive privilege to avoid investigation, not who did a good or bad job otherwise.
Flawed premise, flawed conclusion.
To assert that both presidents using executive privilege to avoid investigation is a flawed premise is willful ignorance, and not worth further discussion.
The “flawed premise” is that the acts were morally equivalent. They weren’t. Nixon was an embattled president who inherited LBJ’s mess and had to deal with it, trying to hold together a nation coming apart atthe seams.
Obama, on the other hand, lies because it’s native to his personality. And Holder backs him up.
The premise is fatally flawed and false, whether you “like it” or not.