Although the "common sense" people are willfully ignorant of the history regarding their logic of executive privilege as an admission of guilt.
Nope. I disagree. Watergate ring a bell? Guilty!
I think you're being willingfully ignorant to the fact that several times when presidents have evoked EP, dare I say, they in fact were hiding something. In fact, you mentioned some of them down below.
I also believe you're making the leap that just because EP was evoked that everyone is assuming Obama was the decision maker. Youre making it an all or nothing issue. The documents could flesh out that Obama knew nothing until after the fact and that Holder only knew after the program was in full progess and his subordinates initiated everything.
That is what the report says, isn't it? That these people were carrying out the gun walking operation, and the information wasn't being passed up to Holder?
The report also says its incomplete because lack of documents. But somehow you're willfully ignoring that part.
Unlike some other posters here, I have thought about history and how executive privilege has been applied in previous presidential terms.
But you have come to a wrong or biased conclusions. More on that below.
A simple observation of the conclusions from historical uses of EP with the same presumptions at work here would provide ample counterexamples.
Now we're getting some where....
EP was invoked over the investigation of Pat Tillman's death. Applying the logic from here would mean that Bush was the cause of Tillman's death.
Nope. You're making a giant leap to an incorrect conclusion.
The correct conclusion to the logic is that when EP was evoked on this issue, it was in fact hiding and covering up government involvement that was greater than initially reported before and after the initial investigation.
In short, the EP was in fact a Govt cover up.
EP was invoked over the investigation of Abu Ghraib mistreatment. Applying the logic from here would mean that Bush was the cause of the mistreatment.
Nope. Youre again making a giant leap to an incorrect conculsion. Again, in this example, the EP was coving up governement involvment beyond what was admited by the government before and after the initial 'investigation'.
In short, the EP was in fact a Govt cover up.
What you have done is listed examples of how the government was covering up things by evoking EP that was later proven after getting the documents.
I listed another using Nixon. Again, a Govt cover up.
Despite your suggestions to the contrary, facts aren't consensus-based.
I never said that or eluded to it either. Again, you're making giant leaps here.
I asked you if you really think you're the Chistopher Columbus in this matter. Everyone was wrong but Columbus was right.
So please dont twist what I said to fit your agenda. The question still stands BTW.
And before you start accusing people of being less intelligent, see the following study regarding delusion among intelligent, educated individuals.
Whoa Whoa Whoa..... I NEVER accused anyone of being less intelligent!! I asked if you thought you more intelligent than everyone else.
I'll quote myself:
Do you honestly think that you are so much more intelligent than eveyone else that only you have a clear understanding?
So again, do not twist what I said to fit your own agenda.
You have done things like that several times in this thread. Twice with me from just one post of mine.
I suggest you stop that practice as that only undermines any point you're trying to make.
By your own examples, EP had historically been unsed as a Govt cover up and at least one time in recent modern history, it was used to cover up the Presidents' own involvment in crime.
You have just made the case even stronger that the EP is hiding something... based on history, the govenments involvement including, but not limited to, the possibility of hiding the Presidents and/or Holders involvement.