BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 56,638
- 16,608
- 2,180
Wrong again Ray. Obama claimed Executive privilege over a very few sets of selective documents, he never ordered a blanket refusal of testimony or documents
Withholding is withholding. Now you're going to tell me it's about quantity that gives him a pass? Hypocrite.
Wrong again Ray. The corruption being investigated at Burisma occurred years before Joe's son was offered a job there. The anti-corruption measures Obama took were bipartisan, had the support of the EU and the IMF. There was no complaint about improprieties files against Obama's crime fighting measures. No Ambassador had to be smeared and removed. Obama didn't send in his personal attorney to put the "Fix"in. Nope he sent good ol Joe to tell them like it is and Joe got the job done.
Putin was pouting that day.
No, DumBama didn't smear any ambassador. He fired them all before he even entered the White House. They were all his people. How did Shokin get fired from a company that was investigated years before he started? You do know that Shokin claims the exact opposite of the Democrats. He said he was investigating Hunter when he got fired.
Courts have upheld Executive Privilege in limited instances and never in broad scope such as the blanket proclamation. The same rule applies to witnesses. Certain testimony can be excluded based on EP or if the witness claims the 5th.
Obama replaced most of the Bush’s politically appointed ambassadors. Obama didn't remove any of the career ambassadors. That is customary at the beginning of most all presidencies.