This also shouldn't fly under the (political) radar

[earendel]

Just to bring this up to date - President Obama has invoked executive privilege in order to withhold key documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious, but Rep. Issa still intends to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

http://tinyurl.com/brwnslx

[silverscreenselect]

From 2008:

President Bush invoked executive privilege to keep Congress from seeing the FBI report of an interview with Vice President Dick Cheney and other records related to the administration's leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003.

The president's decision drew a sharp protest Wednesday from Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of House Oversight Committee, which had subpoenaed Attorney General Michael Mukasey to turn over the documents.

"This unfounded assertion of executive privilege does not protect a principle; it protects a person," the California Democrat said. "If the vice president did nothing wrong, what is there to hide?" Waxman left little doubt he would soon move for a committee vote to hold Mukasey in contempt of Congress.

Bush's assertion of privilege prevented Mukasey from complying with the House subpoena for records bearing on the unmasking of Plame at a time that the administration was trying to rebut criticism from her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, of Bush's rationale for going to war in Iraq.

Waxman held off an immediate contempt citation of Mukasey, but only as a courtesy to lawmakers not present Wednesday and to give all members a chance to read up on the matter. He made clear that he thinks Mukasey, who requested that Bush invoke executive privilege to shield the records, has earned a contempt citation.

"We'll act in the reasonable and appropriate period of time," Waxman said.

In a Tuesday letter to Bush, Mukasey said the assertion of the privilege would not be about hiding anything but rather protecting the separation of powers as well as the integrity of future Justice Department investigations of the White House. Several of the subpoenaed reports, Mukasey wrote, summarize conversations between Bush and advisers.

"I am greatly concerned about the chilling effect that compliance with the committee's subpoena would have on future White House deliberations and White House cooperation with future Justice Department investigations," Mukasey wrote Bush. "I believe it is legally permissible for you to assert executive privilege with respect to the subpoenaed documents, and I respectfully request that you do so."

Plus ca change, plus ca meme.

[earendel]

From 2008:

President Bush invoked executive privilege to keep Congress from seeing the FBI report of an interview with Vice President Dick Cheney and other records related to the administration's leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003.

The president's decision drew a sharp protest Wednesday from Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of House Oversight Committee, which had subpoenaed Attorney General Michael Mukasey to turn over the documents.

"This unfounded assertion of executive privilege does not protect a principle; it protects a person," the California Democrat said. "If the vice president did nothing wrong, what is there to hide?" Waxman left little doubt he would soon move for a committee vote to hold Mukasey in contempt of Congress.

Bush's assertion of privilege prevented Mukasey from complying with the House subpoena for records bearing on the unmasking of Plame at a time that the administration was trying to rebut criticism from her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, of Bush's rationale for going to war in Iraq.

Waxman held off an immediate contempt citation of Mukasey, but only as a courtesy to lawmakers not present Wednesday and to give all members a chance to read up on the matter. He made clear that he thinks Mukasey, who requested that Bush invoke executive privilege to shield the records, has earned a contempt citation.

"We'll act in the reasonable and appropriate period of time," Waxman said.

In a Tuesday letter to Bush, Mukasey said the assertion of the privilege would not be about hiding anything but rather protecting the separation of powers as well as the integrity of future Justice Department investigations of the White House. Several of the subpoenaed reports, Mukasey wrote, summarize conversations between Bush and advisers.

"I am greatly concerned about the chilling effect that compliance with the committee's subpoena would have on future White House deliberations and White House cooperation with future Justice Department investigations," Mukasey wrote Bush. "I believe it is legally permissible for you to assert executive privilege with respect to the subpoenaed documents, and I respectfully request that you do so."

Plus ca change, plus ca meme.

From the Yahoo! article:

The White House, in an email to reporters announcing the move, noted that Obama's Republican predecessor President George W. Bush had invoked executive privilege six times, and former President Bill Clinton relied on the doctrine 14 times. Republicans hit back by sending reporters a snippet from a March 2007 interview in which Obama condemned the Bush Administration's use of executive privilege "every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place" and urged that administration to "come clean."

Yep, I'd say you're right.

[flockofseagulls104]

Yep,
As I've said before, you let your guys have powers they aren't supposed to have to do stuff you like, sooner or later, guys you don't like will have that same power to do stuff you don't like.

That's what the Tea Party is all about, people. And that's why the people that have the power and want the power continue to slam us. And too many people believe it.

asbtfr

[Bob78164]

Apparently the documents at issue here are fairly clearly "deliberative" documents as that phrase is used in discussions of executive privilege, and as such, the right to privilege would ordinarily be clear. The House Committee seems to be taking the position that the privilege somehow evaporated because of the Department of Justice's earlier misstatements regarding Fast and Furious.

Right now I have no idea which side is correct legally about the assertion of privilege. I strongly suspect, though, that no one else does either, including the judge or judges who will ultimately decide the matter should it reach that point -- in other words, I doubt that this issue (whether this fact pattern obviates a privilege that would otherwise apply) has ever been decided. In part that's because both Congress and the President have in the past been reluctant to take these disputes all the way down the judicial road to a final decision.

ear -- I think Senator Obama was inveighing against what he perceived as abuse of executive privilege, not any decision to exercise it. If my premises are correct (the right to assert privilege over these documents would ordinarily be clear, absent this new legal exception that the House Committee is trying to establish), I don't think the Administration's position can be characterized as abuse, particularly since this is the current Administration's first exercise of executive privilege. --Bob

[Flybrick]

Since this Administration has essentially been ignoring the Congressional supeona for well over a year, the claim of executive privilege hasn't been needed.


And, of note, is why now is the White House, you know, the Chief Executive's office, now saying the documents are covered? I seem to recall, actually have pointed out repeatedly, where both the President and the AG have said they knew nothing about this fiasco.

Now all of a sudden, they need to protect their communications about the matter.



Riiiight...


It's never the crime, it's always the cover-up.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Would that the Obama administration had cared as much about protecting the security secrets involving the Predator drone program, the bin Laden raid, the operations on the Afghan border and in Yemen, and the cyberwar against Iran as it is does about protecting the unknowns of Fast and Furious. A cynic might suggest the leaked release of national-security secrets were thought to have enhanced presidential stature, while those of gunrunning might diminish it; so we are left with vital national-security operations now known to all, and peripheral operations along the border known not even to Congress.

[silverscreenselect]

I don't think the Administration's position can be characterized as abuse, particularly since this is the current Administration's first exercise of executive privilege. --Bob

Bob, you have the same ability to see what's going on around you as Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz did.

[Bob78164]

And, of note, is why now is the White House, you know, the Chief Executive's office, now saying the documents are covered?

Because executive privilege applies to the whole executive branch, not just the President, and the Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. --Bob

[Bob78164]

I don't think the Administration's position can be characterized as abuse, particularly since this is the current Administration's first exercise of executive privilege. --Bob

Bob, you have the same ability to see what's going on around you as Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz did.

Whereas your view of President Obama's Administration is clear and unbiased.

Which part of my analysis above is factually incorrect (if any)? --Bob

[earendel]

I don't think the Administration's position can be characterized as abuse, particularly since this is the current Administration's first exercise of executive privilege. --Bob

Bob, you have the same ability to see what's going on around you as Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz did.

Whereas your view of President Obama's Administration is clear and unbiased.

Which part of my analysis above is factually incorrect (if any)? --Bob

I think the issue is "abuse". One could argue that a single invocation of executive privilege is "abuse" if it is intended to cover up malfeasance by someone within the administration.

[silverscreenselect]

Bob, you have the same ability to see what's going on around you as Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz did.

Whereas your view of President Obama's Administration is clear and unbiased.

Which part of my analysis above is factually incorrect (if any)? --Bob

I think the issue is "abuse". One could argue that a single invocation of executive privilege is "abuse" if it is intended to cover up malfeasance by someone within the administration.

As Henry Waxman said:

This unfounded assertion of executive privilege does not protect a principle; it protects a person.If the vice president did nothing wrong, what is there to hide?

Substitute AG for Veep, and you've pretty much got the present situation.

[Bob78164]

Bob, you have the same ability to see what's going on around you as Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz did.

Whereas your view of President Obama's Administration is clear and unbiased.

Which part of my analysis above is factually incorrect (if any)? --Bob

I think the issue is "abuse". One could argue that a single invocation of executive privilege is "abuse" if it is intended to cover up malfeasance by someone within the administration.

But there's no way to know whether that's why they're withholding the documents. Remember, if I'm right, the documents are clearly privileged absent this new exception the House is trying to manufacture. And under those circumstances, the Administration pretty much has to assert privilege or risk establishing a precedent for future Administrations that executive privilege, otherwise proper, evaporates when a Congressional Committee claims that it is investigating a misstatement by the executive branch.

Now of course it's inconceiveable that this Congress would ever press an investigation for political advantage. Still, the risk remains that a future Congress might do so. --Bob

[Flybrick]

Conceivable?

Sure.


But I think a dead Border Patrol agent, a dead DEA agent, and several hundred dead Mexicans might also deserve to know why they died via guns that our government knowingly, even actively encouraged the sale of, let get into the hands of really, really vicious bad guys.

But that's just me...

[Bob78164]

Conceivable?

Sure.


But I think a dead Border Patrol agent, a dead DEA agent, and several hundred dead Mexicans might also deserve to know why they died via guns that our government knowingly, even actively encouraged the sale of, let get into the hands of really, really vicious bad guys.

But that's just me...

And I suspect that the Committee already has all the information it needs to answer that question. The majority just doesn't like the answer so they're asking for more, more, more, in the hope of finding something politically embarrassing, rather than wrongful or even negligent on the part of political appointees. But that's just me.

[Flybrick]

"Suspect." "Political witchhunt." "Partisan."



A dead Border Patrol agent.

A dead DEA agent.

Several hundred dead Mexicans.

[Bob78164]

"Suspect." "Political witchhunt." "Partisan."



A dead Border Patrol agent.

A dead DEA agent.

Several hundred dead Mexicans.

No one (except the idiots who implemented it) ever thought Fast and Furious was a good idea. The Committee majority is trying to find a reason to blame Holder for not finding out about it and stopping it earlier. They've had an awful long time to find that reason, and they can't. Now they're grasping at straws. --Bob

[Flybrick]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... signation/

The National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 17,000 of the agency’s non-supervisory agents, called for the resignation Monday of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. for his role in the botched “Fast and Furious” gunrunning operation that resulted in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

[Bob Juch]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... signation/

The National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 17,000 of the agency’s non-supervisory agents, called for the resignation Monday of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. for his role in the botched “Fast and Furious” gunrunning operation that resulted in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

So what was Holder's role?

[mrkelley23]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... signation/

The National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 17,000 of the agency’s non-supervisory agents, called for the resignation Monday of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. for his role in the botched “Fast and Furious” gunrunning operation that resulted in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

So what was Holder's role?

Whether his role was active, passive, or ignorant, there is no way around the fact that he was in charge, and therefore responsible. This was far more widespread, and far more damaging, than the political firing of some political appointees (Gonzales) or the semi=purposeful outing of a CIA agent (Libby) or Nannygate (Baird and Wood), or even the pedestrian corruption of John Tower or Dan Rostenkowski. Hundreds of foreign nationals and several Americans dead already (and who knows how many more in the future). If Holder had a shred of decency, he would have resigned already.

[BackInTex]

If Holder had a shred of decency, he would have resigned already.

I believe this to be the definitive comment that answers pretty much all the whys.

[Flybrick]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/holder-re ... le/2500157

In a second major retraction over its version of the the gun-walking scandal, the Justice Department has retracted Attorney General Eric Holder's charge in a hearing last week that his Bush administration predecessor had been briefed on the affair.

[Flybrick]

The House has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal, the first time Congress has taken such a dramatic move against a sitting Cabinet official.

The vote was 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting in support of a criminal contempt resolution, which authorizes Republicans leaders to seek criminal charges against Holder. This Democratic support came despite a round of behind-the-scenes lobbying by senior White House and Justice officials - as well as pressure from party leaders - to support Holder.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77988.html

Another civil contempt resolution, giving the green light for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to sue the Justice Department to get the Fast and Furious documents, passed by a 258-95 margin. Twenty-one Democrats voted for that measure.

[Bob78164]

The House has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal, the first time Congress has taken such a dramatic move against a sitting Cabinet official.

The vote was 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting in support of a criminal contempt resolution, which authorizes Republicans leaders to seek criminal charges against Holder. This Democratic support came despite a round of behind-the-scenes lobbying by senior White House and Justice officials - as well as pressure from party leaders - to support Holder.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77988.html

Another civil contempt resolution, giving the green light for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to sue the Justice Department to get the Fast and Furious documents, passed by a 258-95 margin. Twenty-one Democrats voted for that measure.

According to The New York Times,

"[D]uring the inception and the participation through the death of Brian Terry, we have no evidence nor do we currently have strong suspicions” that Mr. Holder knew of or authorized the tactics used in the investigation.

That was yesterday. And the documents they're now fighting over all were written after the operation had come to light and was undoubtedly over. Thus, they have no bearing on how the operation came to be and why it wasn't stopped. So why is this worth a constitutional battle? --Bob

[Flybrick]

So why is this worth a constitutional battle? --Bob

Perhaps AG Holder and President Obama would care to answer the question?

A subpeona was issued by one branch of government concerning why it was misled (DOJ said "no gunwalking." Then 10 months later retracted that letter) Congress wants to know why it was misled.

Another choose to ignore it until the last minute when the claim of executive privilege was made.

A battle does seem to take two sides.