Research
Print

Fox's Attempt To Scandalize Routine Use Of Executive Privilege Shows Contempt For Reality

June 20, 2012 4:18 pm ET — 49 Comments

Following the Obama administration's assertion of executive privilege over some documents related to the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious, Fox News has rushed to label the move improper, or evidence that President Obama himself lied about involvement with the failed operation. In fact, the documents in question deal with the administration's response to the operation after it became public, an area with which the administration has previously acknowledged the White House participated, and such claims of executive privilege are well in line with historical precedent.

Fox News In Lockstep With Republicans Claiming Executive Privilege Assertion Is Either Improper Or Proves Obama Administration Dishonesty

Fox's Jarrett: Either "Executive Privilege Does Not Apply" Or President Obama Is "Not Telling The Truth." On the June 20 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, anchor Gregg Jarrett stated that if Obama "was not involved" in Operation Fast and Furious "then executive privilege does not apply," and if he was involved then previous administration statements to the contrary are false:

JARRETT: If the president was not involved then executive privilege does not apply. If the president was involved, then three things, either Holder was not telling the truth in front of Congress, and or the White House was not telling the truth when it denied the White House and the president were involved, and the president himself may have not been telling the truth when he made statements, including in an interview on camera with Univision, that he knew nothing about it and was not involved. So how big is this?

BILL KRISTOL, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well we will have to see. But I would say this. There is only one person who can use executive privilege, I believe, and that is the President of the United States who is in charge of the executive branch. [Fox News, Happening Now, 6/20/12]

Speaker Boehner's Spokesman On White House: "Were They Lying" In The Past "Or Are They Now Bending The Law To Hide The Truth?" In a June 20 statement, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said:

Until now, everyone believed that the decisions regarding 'Fast and Furious' were confined to the Department of Justice. The White House decision to invoke executive privilege implies that White House officials were either involved in the 'Fast and Furious' operation or the cover-up that followed. The Administration has always insisted that wasn't the case. Were they lying, or are they now bending the law to hide the truth? [Talking Points Memo, 6/20/12]

Sen. Grassley: "How Can The President Assert Executive Privilege If There Was No White House Involvement?" From a June 20 statement by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA):

The assertion of executive privilege raises monumental questions. 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. [Talking Points Memo, 6/20/12]

Assertion Of Executive Privilege Is Consistent With Past Obama Administration Statements

Obama Stated Neither He, Nor Holder, Authorized Fast And Furious. In the March 2011 interview with Univision referenced by Jarrett, Obama stated that neither he nor Holder authorized the operation and that he had not been aware of it before it became public:

JORGE RAMOS, UNIVISION HOST: The Mexican government complains that they were not informed about the Fast and Furious operation. Did you authorize this operation and was President Calderón properly informed about it?

BARACK OBAMA: Well first of all, I did not authorize it. Eric Holder, the attorney general, did not authorize it. He has been very clear that our policy is to catch gun runners and put them into jail. So, what he's done is he's assigned an IG, an inspector general, to investigate what exactly happened here.

RAMOS: So who authorized it?

OBAMA: Well we don't have all the facts. That's why the IG is in business.

RAMOS: And you were not even informed about it?

OBAMA: Absolutely not. This is a pretty big government. The United States government. I've got a lot of moving parts. But I want to be very clear and I spoke to President Calderón when he came to visit just a few weeks ago. Our policy is to ramp up the interdiction of guns flowing south because that's contributing to some of the security problems that are taking place in Mexico. [CBSNews.com, 3/23/11] 

DOJ Asked Obama To Exert Executive Privilege Only Over Documents Created After Fast And Furious Was Terminated In January 2011. From a June 19, 2012 letter from Holder to Obama:

The [House Oversight] Committee has made clear that its contempt resolution will be limited to internal Department [of Justice] "documents from after February 4, 2011 related to the Department's response to Congress." Letter for Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, from Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives at 1-2 (June 13, 2012) ("Chairman's Letter"). I am asking you to assert executive privilege over these documents. They were not generated in the course of the conduct of Fast and Furious. Instead, they were created after the investigative tactics at issue in that operation had terminated and in the course of the Department's deliberative process concerning how to respond to congressional and related media inquiries into that operation. [Department of Justice via CNN, 6/19/12]

Fox News White House Correspondent Ed Henry: Executive Privilege Assertion Does Not Contradict Any Administration Statements On Fast And Furious. In a later segment on Happening Now, Fox's chief White House correspondent Ed Henry explained how "nothing that has happened this morning" contradicts previous administration statements:

JARRETT: You know Ed, we did a little research this morning and there were several statements coming from the White House over the course of the last year in which they have categorically denied White House involvement in Fast and Furious, the president's involvement in it, and in fact we looked up a Univision interview in which the president also said he knew nothing about it, no involvement, zero. Now this. What's the sense there?

HENRY: Well there is an important distinction right there to answer your question first, then I'll take you inside the deliberations here at the White House and how this came to be. When the White House has been saying for the last year, the president, his top aides here at the White House, have not been involved in Fast and Furious.Nothing that has happened this morning necessarily contradicts that. What they were referring to is whether the president himself was involved in the gunrunning operation, in approving it, involved in that investigation itself. What they are asserting this morning on executive privilege is something different. Is that on the internal deliberations within the Obama administration, about how to deal with the fallout from that scandal that you mentioned over the last year or so as it's been bubbling. The internal deliberations. They are exerting executive privilege about the conversations between Justice Department officials about, maybe, Justice Department officials and White House aides. [Fox News, Happening Now, 6/20/12] 

Holder Has Already Publicly Stated That He Worked With White House Counsel's Office In Response To Media And Congressional Inquiries Into Fast And Furious. From Holder's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on June 7, 2012:

REP. RANDY FORBES, (R-VA): Have you ever had any consultation with the White House, or anyone with the campaign, or with Mr. Axelrod about messaging related to Fast and Furious?

HOLDER: About messaging with regard to Fast and Furious?

FORBES: Yes. Comments that were made. How you were going to message it. Any of that.

HOLDER: Well we have certainly talked about the way in which we could deal with the interaction between the Justice Department and Congress about ways in which I would -- we would --

FORBES: But nothing about press messaging at all?

HOLDER: Well I mean in terms of trying to get a message out that was consistent with the facts and make sure that it was done in an appropriate way, I've had conversations like that with people in the White House counsel office. [House Judiciary Committee hearing via C-SPAN, 6/7/12] 

Past Administrations Have Asserted Executive Privilege Over Material Produced Outside Of The White House

Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey On Environmental Protection Agency Documents: "The Privilege May Be Invoked To Protect Executive Branch Deliberations Against Congressional Subpoenas." From a letter authored by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to President George W. Bush:

The doctrine of executive privilege also encompasses Executive Branch deliberative communications that do not implicate presidential decisionmaking. As the Supreme Court has explained, the privilege recognizes "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 705. Based on this principle, the Justice Department -- under Administrations of both political parties -- has concluded repeatedly that the privilege may be invoked to protect Executive Branch deliberations against congressional subpoenas. See, e.g., Letter for the President from John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Re: Assertion of Executive Privilege with Respect to Prosecutorial Documents at 2 (Dec. 10, 2001) (available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/executiveprivilege.htm) ("The Constitution clearly gives the President the power to protect the confidentiality of executive branch deliberations."); Executive Privilege With Respect to Clemency Decision, 23 Op. O.L.C. at 2 (explaining that executive privilege extends to deliberative communications within the Executive Branch); Assertion of Executive Privilege in Response to a Congressional Subpoena, 5 Op. O.L.C. 27, 30 (1981) (opinion of Attorney General William French Smith) (assertion of executive privilege to protect deliberative materials held by the Department of Interior). [Department of Justice, 6/19/08] 

Bush Administration Asserted Executive Privilege Over Justice Department Documents. From a December 14, 2001 article published by the New York Times:

President Bush invoked executive privilege today for the first time in his administration to block a Congressional committee trying to review documents about a decades-long scandal involving F.B.I. misuse of mob informants in Boston. His order also denied the committee access to internal Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fund-raising tactics. [The New York Times, 12/14/01] 

Executive Privilege Has Been Asserted By Every Administration Since At Least 1980. From a June 20 Washington Post article listing the number of times administrations have invoked the privilege:

President Barack Obama: 1
President George W. Bush: 6
President Bill Clinton: 14
President George H.W. Bush: 1
President Ronald Reagan: 3 

[The Washington Post, 6/20/12] 

— T.W.J.
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by confer (June 20, 2012 4:40 pm ET)
      8 11
      There is nothing scandalous about it, and it certainly has been done by previous presidents - but it does go to to show you how different things look from the outside as opposed to when you're in that oval office; given what then candidate Obama said in March 2007 condemning the Bush administration's use of executive privilege "every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place" and urged that administration to "come clean."

      That stuff always comes back to bite you.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Chameo (June 20, 2012 4:52 pm ET)
        10 5
        Except that the two situations have nothing in common other than the invocation of executive privilege. The president specifically referred in that statement to the appearance that there was no national security risk in releasing the documents requested. In this case, the situation involves incidents that involve another nation, law enforcement, the use of confidential informants and other issues that seem quite likely to involve a national security risk.

        As far as transparency goes, looks like the Obama WH has been about 14 times more transparent than the Clinton WH and 6 times more transparent than the Bush 43 WH, at least where "hiding behind' executive privilege is concerned.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dashriprock1999 (June 20, 2012 6:01 pm ET)
          1 1
          So that makes it OK.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mari2jj (June 21, 2012 2:04 am ET)
          1 1
          That is for certain. I am a Republicans and I am sick of the Republican's "let's make Obama look bad even if it means mucking our entire country" so I am out of there now. This is happening even if the future of our country is at stake. I doubt there has ever been such a drag on the patriotism of our party of Lincoln as these goofs are displaying.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by danielsangeo (June 20, 2012 5:26 pm ET)
        6 5
        Someone in another thread had a great analogy:

        Someone criticizes another person for taking penicillin for any sniffle that someone has. Then the first person contracts bacterial pneumonia and takes penicillin. The first person is not a hypocrite because the situation is entirely different.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by confer (June 20, 2012 6:11 pm ET)
          5 4
          You're both reading way too much into what I said, did you miss my very first sentence? I wasn't saying both situations were the same, and I certainly didn't say, nor imply, that Obama is a hypocrite.

          In fact, I believe I was defending him by saying how much easier it is to criticize how issues are handled and situations are confronted when you're not actually having to make the tough decisions, as president. Obama rightly said something similar when countering what Romney has stated with regards to foreign policy. Easy outside looking in.

          My point was about perception, which is a critical factor in elections and campaigning.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by danielsangeo (June 20, 2012 6:16 pm ET)
            8 6
            No. Since Obama was criticizing Bush for something entirely different, it's not "coming back to bite" Obama. It has nothing to do with "outside looking in". It has to do with entirely dissimilar circumstances.

            Now, cut it out.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by confer (June 20, 2012 6:27 pm ET)
              5 4
              All you're interested in is enticing an argument, of your own making, of which I have no interest.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by danielsangeo (June 20, 2012 6:52 pm ET)
                6 5
                I was responding to the very text of your post and saying that you are entirely mistaken. And I'm at fault?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by dashriprock1999 (June 20, 2012 11:09 pm ET)
              1 1
              "something entirely different"? Yes it is. Executive Privilege regarding people getting fired from their jobs & Executive Privilege regarding our government providing weapons to Mexican drug gangs that resulted in multiple murders are different. I think the latter is "slightly" more serious and deserves concrete answers that Holder is determined not to provide.

              When the Right claims Executive Privilege then the Left says they have something to hide.

              When the Left claims Executive Privilege then the Right says they have something to hide.

              The only thing that is the same is both sides usually have something to hide.

              I don't think Holder should be able to determine what evidence he provides since he has been caught lying about this fiasco. He still hasn't said who was responsible for allowing the weapons to go untraced into Mexico. He's the head of the department and is ultimately responsible but is taking no responsiblity. Many deaths have been caused by these weapons and he says "I've given you enough documents and provided you no answers as to those responsible and you should just forget about it & go home". This from the Head of the Justice Department.

              Obama says he was in no way involved but claims "Executive Privilege".

              This thing stinks of gross negligence and Obama is covering for Holder. It's obvious the plan is to delay until the election.

              It's not the sort of action you expect from the President who boasted of his "transparent administration".
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Chameo (June 20, 2012 6:52 pm ET)
            4 3
            And my point was that then-Senator Obama wasn't condemning the Bush WH for using executive privilege "every time there's something shaky going on." In fact, he clearly stated that in that one particular instance, he saw no reason for the administration to invoke executive privilege -- maybe you didn't see the rest of the quote:

            You know, there's been a tendency on the part of this administration to -- to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place. And I think, you know, the administration would be best served by coming clean on this. There doesn't seem to be any national security issues involved with the U.S. attorney question. There doesn't seem to be any justification for not offering up some clear, plausible rationale for why these -- these U.S. attorneys were targeted when, by all assessments, they were doing an outstanding job. I think the American people deserve to know what was going on there.
            By that time, the Bush administration had invoked executive privilege about a dozen times. This is the first time the Obama administration has invoked it.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by insert ideology here (June 20, 2012 6:28 pm ET)
          4 8
          what kind of sniffles are they? Are they the pathogenesis of a virus or bacteria? You can't differentiate the pneumonia as bacteria (probably mycoplasma)but the sniffles as just the sniffles. Penicillin or any antibiotic is useless for viruses, but are the treatment for bacteria. Therefore, you'd need to clarify that the sniffles are viral for the mother to say its dumb. But then your analogy falls apart unless you believe that there are different oversight investigations ala viruses and bacteria.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Chameo (June 20, 2012 6:41 pm ET)
            8 2
            You made the same nonsensical argument on the original post. In fact, that's exactly the point of the analogy. The item on which I made that comment included a quote from someone saying that the president is a hypocrite because he thought the Bush administration should just "come clean" back in 2007 but now he's using executive privilege himself. The situations are different and this particular situation actually contains the very condition that then Senator Obama said was lacking in the 2007 case -- a possible threat to national security. And the last sentence is totally a non sequitur. You don't do analogies well.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by insert ideology here (June 20, 2012 6:58 pm ET)
              3 6
              Situations are different being that the political parties are reversed? Or as you mentioned at the end as a caveat, these subpoenas deal with national security. However, the subpoenas for Bush wanted information on the Valerie Plame leak which I am not sure if you know entails a little international agency called the CIA directly involved with national security.
              You wanted to create a nice little analogy for what is usually referred to as IOKIYAR in reverse. Just say that you are partisan and believe the Obama administration is the best thing since slice bread. I mean it is blind partisanship, because we are bombing and murdering the hell out of civilians in random countries with spy drones for the sake of this national security (sounds similar, but hey we are saving money!!! the excuse). You want to differentiate the two so badly but you really can't and then you become pedantic (directed to the one below me) trying to separate the two occasions for the sake of your side winning. Carry on or hopefully you come to realize the sickness that is politics and how it infects all who get involved and kicks those with nobility out unless they get corrupted first.
              "Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice . . . you don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything." -George Carlin
              Report Abuse
              • Author by danielsangeo (June 20, 2012 7:16 pm ET)
                8 2
                No, situations are different because situations are different.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by insert ideology here (June 20, 2012 7:25 pm ET)
                  3 7
                  Yes, of course they are, one involves R and the other situation involves a D. Great qualification.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by Chameo (June 20, 2012 7:29 pm ET)
                8 2
                Actually, no. The situation that the president was talking about in 2007 was the firing of a large number of U.S. attorneys because they refused to prosecute "voter fraud" cases where no evidence of intentional voter fraud existed. It's pretty clear from the entire statement, you know, the part where he said:
                There doesn't seem to be any national security issues involved with the U.S. attorney question. There doesn't seem to be any justification for not offering up some clear, plausible rationale for why these -- these U.S. attorneys were targeted when, by all assessments, they were doing an outstanding job.
                Nothing to do with Valerie Plame or the CIA.

                You don't know me, but you accuse me of being a blind partisan and claim I think the Obama administration is the best thing since sliced bread. Nope to both. That's why I support local progressive candidates, to the point of working with and supporting an organization that grooms young activists to run for office and works to get them into office. Local offices are the farm team for national office -- and local officials affect out daily lives more than most people realize. If you're so cynical and disenchanted with the entire process, what are you doing to bring about the change you want to see?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by insert ideology here (June 20, 2012 7:46 pm ET)
                  3 3
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#cite_note-136
                  Before you declare that link false over it being wikipedia, check reference number 137. A nice little pdf of the subpoena itself asking for Valerie Plame emails over the investigation. You can differentiate all you want and believe that the then Senator Obama was only referencing the emails about the attorneys to justify his choice today by using the national security caveat. However the actual subpoena that went out was asking about Valerie Plame and a host of other information. Believe what you wish, and actually believe that you can enact some change and maybe someday you'll realize the meaninglessness of it all. Being cynical and disenchanted kind of implies the disregard for thinking that change is possible. You wouldn't be willing to defend the D in this case if you didn't have some wish to either honestly believe in D (which by your own accord you don't) or just a need to deflect the other side's obvious easy attack here (even if they do come off as hypocritical as well). Then again thats what I've been reiterating, much like religion, hypocrisy reigns king in politics.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by danielsangeo (June 20, 2012 7:57 pm ET)
                    5 3
                    Again, then-senator Obama wasn't talking about that. He was talking about the firing of attorneys.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by insert ideology here (June 20, 2012 8:05 pm ET)
                      3 3
                      Watch the clip again of his remarks on executive privilege. He directly references I wonder how this administration will respond to the call from Patrick Leahy, which implies the subpoena I linked to. Again, parse the words and other categories here to make the D look good. And you were the one who said I was being pedantic and then resorted to unsubstantiated statements declaring the righteousness of the D. But saw an opening here and replied, but will now probably reply with short quips w/o substantiating your claims.

                      And btw, what is being missed here, is the mass resignations that occurred during that controversy. Whereas in this controversy everyone is still at their posts.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by danielsangeo (June 20, 2012 8:25 pm ET)
                        6 3
                        Once more, this has nothing whatsoever to do with political party. If you can't understand that and accept that, I have nothing more to say.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by Chameo (June 20, 2012 8:03 pm ET)
                    5 1
                    Gee, you think it might have been because the WH claimed that they'd already sent the documents about the U.S. attorney firings in a bunch of stuff related to the Plame leak?

                    As far as believing in change, no one will ever take that away from me because I see the evidence of changes I've either enabled or enacted all around me. You can think I'm naive, uniformed, stupid, blind or willfully ignorant. I'll just keep on harvesting vegetables in the community garden that didn't exist until we got the city council to turn over the land and change the zoning so we could have one, and teaching people how to go up against the city and get the skate park they want, the change to tax assessments repealed and local business owners to go along with their initiatives.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by insert ideology here (June 20, 2012 8:14 pm ET)
                      3 3
                      Now there is a qualification on asking for Plame emails? Didn't the current administration only give a small percentage of the files that were asked for. I am taking a guess that a couple of emails about Plame were probably given but not all that were asked for, sound familiar? See I can venture that guess because I just have to think like a lawyer and parse out statements and determine how to legally protect myself. And most if not all administrations will also manipulate legal loopholes to serve their own interest. Gee and you wonder why I am so cynical. Why would I be when everything is so rosy and beautiful. Great job on effecting change in your community and establishing things that produce economic power and allow a few at the top to benefit the most from unless creating gardens and skate parks only utilized the very same citizens of the same community and the materials were all created within the community, and no one outside of it benefited from the projects. It is very similar to football stadiums being built, you know for the revenue it brings to the city, of course.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by danielsangeo (June 20, 2012 8:26 pm ET)
                        6 3
                        The difference is that Obama has cooperated fully with what the Congress was asking for and now the Congress is fishing for more information.

                        This is *ENTIRELY* different from refusing to cooperate entirely.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by Chameo (June 20, 2012 9:08 pm ET)
                        5  
                        Did you even read the pdf you instructed me to read? The qualification is stated in the first two paragraphs, and the attached subpoena is specific in requesting "such emails" that relate to the prosecutorial misconduct case. The paragraphs read:
                        At the hearing last Thursday and again in a letter dated April 25, 2007, I asked you
                        whether you would provide Karl Rove's e-mails in the possession of the Justice Department to the Committee without a subpoena. His lawyer stated publicly that these emails, many of which have been reported "lost", were turned over to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as part of the investigation into the leak of the identity of a covert CIA officer by officials in the Administration that led to the conviction of 1. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. You responded at the hearing that you did not know but would check and get back to me. I have not heard back from you since in response to my question or the letter.
                        Attached please find a subpoena compelling the Department by May 15 to produce any and all emails and attachments to emails to, from, or copied to Karl Rove related to the Committee's investigation into the preservation of prosecutorial independence and the Department of Justice's politicization of the hiring and firing and decision-making of United States Attorneys, from any (1) White House account, (2) Republican National Committee account, or (3) other account, in the possession, custody or control of the Department of Justice. This subpoena includes any such emails that were obtained by Mr. Fitzgerald as part of the Plame investigation.
                        You can venture all the guesses you want and parse it all you want, but that specifically requests documents related to the prosecutorial misconduct case, including documents related to that case which were supposedly already turned over to the special prosecutor in the Plame case. Note the word "such" rather than "all".

                        A one-acre garden on a vacant lot is no different than building a football stadium? Really? We didn't even buy lumber from Lowe's to build the raised beds. We edged them with rocks and bricks collected from the lot and neighboring backyards. But hey, feel free to go one feeding your cynicism. I know what poison does so I prefer my brand of practical idealism. I believe in dreaming as big as you want, as long as you understand that big changes start with little actions. Yeah. Pollyannaish. But it works for me.
                        Report Abuse
              • Author by The_Cat (June 20, 2012 9:11 pm ET)
                3 1
                And I think, you know, the administration would be best served by coming clean on this. There doesn't seem to be any national security issues involved with the U.S. attorney question. There doesn't seem to be any justification for not offering up some clear, plausible rationale for why these -- these U.S. attorneys were targeted when, by all assessments, they were doing an outstanding job.

                First of all, find Valerie Plame mentioned anywhere in this quote. It is specifically about the U.S. Attorney political firings, and that is ALL it's about.

                Second, the documents that are apparently being covered by Executive Privilege date from AFTER Project Gunrunner was shut down, including the various operations under it, such as Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. What possible help will these documents be in this witch hunt? Because, if it were merely an investigation, it would've died months and months ago from lack of evidence.

                You can quote Carlin. Big deal. Troll is still troll.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by danielsangeo (June 21, 2012 12:03 am ET)
                  1 1
                  I can quote Carlin as well. "Garbage in, garbage out." IIH has been exposed to nothing but garbage so IIH's worldview is garbage.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by danielsangeo (June 20, 2012 6:41 pm ET)
            3 2
            Now you're just being pedantic. You know precisely what it means.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (June 20, 2012 5:08 pm ET)
      3  
      "BILL KRISTOL, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well we will have to see. But I would say this. There is only one person who can use executive privilege, I believe, and that is the President of the United."


      Didn't the Bush admin argue that "executive priviledge" applied to the entire executive branch? I don't recall Kristol disputing that at the time.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by anotherGDlefty (June 20, 2012 5:10 pm ET)
      3  
      Maybe they can replace "Fair and Balanced" with "Contempt for Reality" as the FOXPAC slogan?

      Naw, it'll never happen because it would be truth in advertising and we can't have any truth slipping out over at FOXPAC.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by kittycreek (June 20, 2012 5:27 pm ET)
      2 1
      Ok, Couldn't President Obama sue the pants off Fox Noise for defamation of character? They do ALL THE TIME! OMG! Aren't there laws that protect people, especially the President, from constant slander? Yeah, I know - it's "free speech", but it is also lies and unscrupulous slander. I'm really sick of it on the president's behalf. I'm hoping someone will answer my question.
      Obama 2012!! ☺
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (June 20, 2012 10:52 pm ET)
        1  
        As a public figure he has little chance in a slander,or defamation of character, suit going his way.

        Fox won a court case in Florida defending their right to lie several years ago.

        Public action against some of the convoices has worked as well as anything.

        Some of us are waiting for the legal actions underway in England to involve Murdock's American companies.

        Probably will never surface in Darryl Issa's comittee, To Investigate Important Stuff. Dispite settlements against his companies involving industrial espionage.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kittycreek (June 21, 2012 8:48 am ET)
          1  
          Thanks for the informative reply. I tried to give you a thumbs up, but I'm having trouble getting MM website to work for me. It's very slow. I'm not having this problem with other sites. Is MM being sabotaged?

          I really, really dispise Fox News. I can't think of enough ugly things to call them or say about them!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by kittycreek (June 21, 2012 8:48 am ET)
             
          Thanks for the informative reply. I tried to give you a thumbs up, but I'm having trouble getting MM website to work for me. It's very slow. I'm not having this problem with other sites. Is MM being sabotaged?

          I really, really dispise Fox News. I can't think of enough ugly things to call them or say about them!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by eweston8542983 (June 21, 2012 10:29 am ET)
            2  
            Yah the site has been pretty clunky for the last week. The possibility of a cyber attack on the site has been brought up. I don't know how you would prove it though. I hope there are some good people working on what ever it is.

            While Fox leads the pack, there is little good to say about the rest of our national broadcast media.

            The new Pacific trade bill seems to give foreign companies sovereign rights over our own government agencies. I don't think that notorious liberal media has said word one about it.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by notsure5 (June 21, 2012 10:30 am ET)
            1
          Fox won a court case in Florida defending their right to lie several years ago.
          Technically, they won the right to fire an employee who refuses to lie for them. Their "right to lie" was not challenged because it is not illegal. That fact is exactly why Fox won that particular case.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by notsure5 (June 21, 2012 10:32 am ET)
             
          Fox won a court case in Florida defending their right to lie several years ago.
          Technically, they won the right to fire an employee who refuses to lie for them. Their "right to lie" was not challenged because it is not illegal. That fact is exactly why Fox won that particular case.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by CAL (June 20, 2012 5:38 pm ET)
      2 1
      It shows contempt for reality, but also a complete lack of respect for our President, our democracy, and our voting electorate.

      Even among the dullest of the dullards, one would think that FOXPAC's relentless 24/7 campaign to destroy this President would clue in at least a few of their devoted following that they are being spoon fed a big load of crap.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hoopvillain (June 20, 2012 6:32 pm ET)
      3 2
      Another faux nooze "scandal" in the making. These liars and buffoons will push this until the cows come home. This is what people do if they cant beat you on the facts.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by YouTubeJEFF9K (June 20, 2012 7:59 pm ET)
      3  
      Fox must hate their listeners, to constantly lie to them and trick them into voting against their own interests. Too bad viewers aren't smart enough to realize it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by BGko (June 20, 2012 11:52 pm ET)
         
      So this article is basically claiming that two wrongs make a right? There are unconstitutional uses of executive privilege, plain and simple. Which or how many administrations are guilty is irrelevant. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional no matter which way you slice it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (June 21, 2012 12:07 am ET)
        1  
        Unconstitutional is as unconstitutional does.

        You feel the redirecting efforts of an executive department, of the government, on where deportation against possible foreign nations is used is unconstitutional. How so?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (June 21, 2012 12:21 am ET)
          1 1
          Excuse me, I got distracted by the other current GOP sourced distraction.

          Current thought is some of those withheld papers implicate Bush and Chenney in the program's beginning. While this might be personally pleasing to me. The various legal actions in progress that would be compromised by their release, and the damage to some sources of information by the same do not sit well.

          The panels Republican's have voted for a contempt citation. B believes the parties leadership will not support this.

          Interesting showmanship seems to be the best guess for the future of this distraction. Brought to you by the folks intrusted with the nation's business. Such as they define it.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by danielsangeo (June 21, 2012 12:46 am ET)
        3  
        Just out of curiosity. How is this an unconstitutional use of executive privilege?
        Report Abuse

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.