wants to create is one where he steps back. where maybe people in the senate negotiate some kind of compromise on sequestration. just as, for example, they ve done on immigration. because the problem is, if he endorsed something mitt romney was for in 2012, the republicans in the house, especially, are likely to be against it. so the permission structure has to let the process move forward without having the president s fingerprints or face all over it. i think he s willing to do that. i think it succeeded at several points earlier this year. but on the sequestration, it s tough. what amazes me is the republicans, the party of national defense, the party that has always favored a strong defense, is willing to see defense take draconian cuts, is willing to see elderly people go without meals on wheels to
is there a way to get the republicans to the table and end this sequestration, this putting all the problems of the people, the american people, on to the poorest people? i doubt it, but i know what he means by permission structure. the permission structure he wants to create is one where he steps back. where maybe people in the senate negotiate some kind of compromise on sequestration. just as, for example, they ve done on immigration. because the problem is, if he endorsed something mitt romney was for in 2012, the republicans in the house, especially, are likely to be against it. so the permission structure has to let the process move forward without having the president s fingerprints or face all over it. i think he s willing to do that. i think it succeeded at several points earlier this year. but on the sequestration, it s tough. what amazes me is the republicans, the party of national defense, the party that has always favored a strong defense, is willing to see defense take d
clearly divided. half want to stay away from being islamic state and lean toward the kind of stability and economic prosperity they had, such as it was under the mubarak regime and the other half wants to move to a society more focused on their religious principles, but the must lick brotherhood candidate says he doesn t want the country to become islamic state. but there is a lot of pretty religious muslim would voted against him out of fear it would become one, so as we see this process move forward, in clear victory with the resounding number, it is likely that the country will slip back into the kind of chaos they saw in post mubarak days. all this is the opposite of the outcome we would have thought a year ago when all of this starting when one government after another was toppled, now you have, you know, syria just defying international condemnation of the butchering of its people and now a military heard comes in and maybe parks himself there defying the will
current senator jeff merkel. dangerous precedent that the president s private conversations can be revealed. it will be a he said he said type of thing. it is one side of the story. i don t think that helps the process move forward. in that case, the president can i think and would rightfully exert executive privilege. i don t think he will because it will be simply more cover up and more obstruction and i don t think he has a strong legal foundation to succeed. new york times and the washington post reporting it is unlikely the president will assert executive privilege, but is this considering what we just heard an open question still? well, here are a few points to make and i think it is open until the white house says on the record that it is closed. courts have established since the watergate era, the president does not have absolute immunity
president s conversations, private conversations with be revealed. it will be a he said/he said type of thing. it s one side of the story. i don t think that helps the process move forward. so in that case the president can, i think and would rightfully exert executive privilege. i don t think he will because simply more cover up and more obstruction and i don t think he has the strong legal foundation to succeed. this doesn t fall so neatly along party lines but what s the likelihood that we ll see this assertion of executive privilege? it could go either way. you can flip a coin on it. legally speaking i don t think he has much of a chance of success. there are a couple of things i would add to what phil mattingly reported. there s no executive privilege for illegal conduct or conversations in furtherance of illegal conduct. the executive privilege is not absolute. we also found from the 1974 case