Posted on 06/05/2013 8:44:53 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
On Wednesday, Kathleen Troia “K.T.” McFarland, a former national security aide to Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan, claimed that United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice is being promoted to National Security Advisor in order to shield her from congressional scrutiny over her role in the response to the Benghazi attacks.
“I figure that was the payback for Benghazi,” McFarland said of Rice’s promotion to NSA on Wednesday. “The fact that she carried the administration’s water – carried it very badly, I might say – but carried it.”
[...]
“Obviously, they have a close, personal relationship,” noted Fox News Channel anchor Martha MacCallum. “You’ve stood by me all these years and this is a position where you’ll be protected, as you say. You won’t have to answer questions anymore.”
McFarland agreed. She said that Rice, “conveniently,” no longer has to testify before Congress relating to what she knew about Benghazi and can invoke executive privilege if asked to testify.
In a post on Fox News.com, McFarland repeated her theory. “By appointing Rice to NSA job means she can invoke executive privilege and doesn’t have to testify on Capitol Hill,” she wrote. “And she will certainly be a loyal soldier if she is now sitting 40 yards from the Oval Office.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
“Neither should Valerie Jarrett.”
Agreed.
The “Iranian of the Day!” should have come under scrutiny eons ago. (I believe that little insect-headed female calls the shots for lil’ Barry.)
Sadly, you are correct. Bluster on both sides.
(Please GOP. prove me wror.
I am not a lawyer or expert on much of anything much less national security and testifying before Congress, but I don’t understand how Rice can claim Executive Privilege for what she said/did before she was in a position that carries that privilege. I thought the SCOTUS cleared up just how far Executive Privilege extends (or not) during the Clinton years.
Admit to blindly typing via stupid-smart phone...
There is no such thing as ex post facto executive privilege. It would be like claiming attorney-client privilege with regard to a conversation you had with a non-lawyer which you subsequently talked to your attorney about.
The pressure at that level is intense, I’m sure.
All it takes is for one man or woman to say “No more”.
Flay me with your knives, kill my children but lie and intimidate no more.
In the prison business it was like- “ you can kill me, but you still ain’t getting a shower”(or phone call, or whatever).
Just takes one person with guts that is in the loop.
STARTING THINK?!!?
Issa got rolled the last time. He will get rolled again and again and again..
The GOP does not want to get to the truth or hold people involved accountable. They only want to fein enough outrage to pacify conservatives
and use it as a campaign tool to get conservatives to the polls.
They could ask her questions under oath.
Sure. SY she lies. Then what. Send her to holder for prosecution?
What this all has illustrated to me is that our check and balance system of government has utterly failed.
If any branch or all branches decide that they are going to go rogue and refuse to be held to account, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Whatever freedom we have today is the freedom that we have been allowed to have, and when they decide to take it, it will be gone.
The communists held a coup and we missed it.
There is not a thing he can do to prevent it from happening again. He doesn’t seem to have any idea what happened in the first place.
But it is most certainly up to the GOP prove you wrong or me wrong or to prove that their existence serves nay purpose whatsoever, and I do not believe that they can or will do it.
I will be very surprised if the GOP gets in there again. If they do, I expect the only thing they will do is the same thing they have done in the past, and that is expand government.
I know I’ve made a lot of people around here mad saying some of the things I say, but I simply don’t care.
It is as you say, please, GOP, prove me wrong.
They are the only ones who can.
I think the dodge will be that she was privy to a lot of information and people as UN Ambassador that is now information she uses as NSA. That overlap could be the fig leaf to claim privilege based on National Security.
Smart move by obama. Now she doesn’t have to testify. Or claim the 5th if she had.
“How can he shield her when the incident happened before she was elevated??? Something is wrong with the law if that is the law!”
I’m sorry, the precedent for seriously bending that part of the Constitution was set long ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
Well, true, but lets see here:
Obama, black and, well, um, male let’s say. Republicans too cowardly to attack that.
Mizz Lerner, white and female. Republicans are too cowardly to attack that.
Douglas Shulman, white and male. Republicans too cowardly to attack that.
Tea Party patriots, American women and men of all races, Republicans all for attacking that.
The problem here is that the Republicans are not who they say they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.