Comments on: Obama Issues Signing Statement, Can Withhold Information from Pecora Commission

By: Legion303

Legion303 — Fri, 22 May 2009 11:07:26 +0000

Jane, your NYT link is broken. Here’s where it looks like it should go:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.....038;st=cse

By: DrZen

DrZen — Fri, 22 May 2009 02:39:23 +0000

Kings rarely give up their powers without the application of force. You have made a king out of your president, and you have no means to apply force.

By: gannonguckert

gannonguckert — Thu, 21 May 2009 21:03:15 +0000

Right on. Your point is too little contemplated…I guess things haven’t got bad enough yet…

By: BooRadley

BooRadley — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:21:13 +0000

Seconded.

By: Janushka

Janushka — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:06:49 +0000

How could executive privilege protect what Geithner did while at the New York Fed?

Because the Treasury Department (under Paulson) was also involved in the AIG/Goldman machinations, Lehman etc.

It would be really sickening if Obama used executive privilege to cover-up things done under the Bush administration in order to protect Geithner.

Sorry to say, I believe he will

By: Knut

Knut — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:02:52 +0000

Good point and I think will stand up to court challenge, which I doubt Obama would mount. Geithner is responsible for his actions prior to becoming part of the administration. He will have some protection on some issues after having joined it. They should put Bernanke on the stand, too. Paulson is the critical one, but he may be protected.

By: Knut

Knut — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:56:42 +0000

I think it was the Clinton precedent that forced the signing statement. Obama likes to keep control of things — that’s how he ran his campaign, and that is how he is going to run the presidency. He looks down the road and sees trouble, he takes measures ahead of time. Tkhat’s the kind of presidency we have: Bush and Cheney created it, and it isn’t going to go away.

By: JoeBuck

JoeBuck — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:27:11 +0000

As head of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner was smack in the middle of many conflicts of interest surrounding Goldman Sachs, AIG, and the bank bailout. This signing statement could be used to protect him from inquiry.

I guess I’m missing something, Jane. The New York Fed isn’t even really part of the executive branch. It’s a quasi-independent entity. How could executive privilege protect what Geithner did while at the New York Fed? It might be an argument to hide communications that took place after he became head of Treasury.

In any case, I’d like to see executive privilege narrowed considerably. It was supposed to protect confidential advice given to the president.

By: dmac

dmac — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:08:55 +0000

yep, this one has me perplexed.

By: james

james — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:02:59 +0000

Bush’s third term with a Democratic veneer.

Anyone who thinks Social Security is safe or that this guy is anything other than the final assault on the New Deal is seriously in denial.