do we keep him or not?

[Tom523]

And what evidence is there that Obama broke the law? NONE. The subpoena of those documents is nothing more than a politically-based fishing expedition.

Issa claims that Obama's invocation of executive privilege shows he must have been involved, and has something to cover up. Yet, he didn't say a word when President Bush did the exact same thing in response to congressional subpoenas. Why do you suppose that is? Yes, it's a rhetorical question.

Like I said if the evidence in those documents proves that he is guilty of a crime, he will be impeached. When Issa gets the documents, and he will through the courts, he will determine if there is evidence enough to impeach Obama. You keep asking "What evidence?" Let's wait and see if there is any. The president invoking executive privilege does mean he is involved. Taking advantage of your fifth amendment rights is a sure sign of guilt but you are not incriminating yourself. It just means that investigators know your guilty and have to find other evidence to prove it. The president cannot invoke executive privilege on something his office is not involved in. If that was the case he could have gotten his friend Blagovich off by claiming executive privilege on the evidence against him.

[RoadToad]

Like I said if the evidence in those documents proves that he is guilty of a crime, he will be impeached. When Issa gets the documents, and he will through the courts, he will determine if there is evidence enough to impeach Obama. You keep asking "What evidence?" Let's wait and see if there is any. The president invoking executive privilege does mean he is involved. Taking advantage of your fifth amendment rights is a sure sign of guilt but you are not incriminating yourself. It just means that investigators know your guilty and have to find other evidence to prove it. The president cannot invoke executive privilege on something his office is not involved in. If that was the case he could have gotten his friend Blagovich off by claiming executive privilege on the evidence against him.

It remains to be seen whether or not they will get the documents through the courts. But your statements that "The president invoking executive privilege does mean he is involved" and "The president cannot invoke executive privilege on something his office is not involved in" show that you don't know the facts about executive privilege. By your logic, President George W. Bush was involved in the death of Pat Tillman. And speaking of Dubya, he himself invoked executive privilege in a situation very similar to the one with Holder. So are you telling me HE had something to cover up, and might have been impeached had it come out?

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/21/nation/na-epa21

[Tom523]

It remains to be seen whether or not they will get the documents through the courts. But your statements that "The president invoking executive privilege does mean he is involved" and "The president cannot invoke executive privilege on something his office is not involved in" show that you don't know the facts about executive privilege. By your logic, President George W. Bush was involved in the death of Pat Tillman. And speaking of Dubya, he himself invoked executive privilege in a situation very similar to the one with Holder. So are you telling me HE had something to cover up, and might have been impeached had it come out?

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/21/nation/na-epa21

That's exactly what I'm telling you. When Issa gets the documents and goes through them and finds evidence that Fast and Furious was just a big front to garner support for stricter gun laws supported by Obama, he can present the evidence to a grand jury and Obama will be indicted (impeached). Impeachment is just charging the president with a high crime or misdemeanor.