Obama Allows Holder to Assert Executive Privilege on Fast and Furious

ETA: Mods, please move or delete, story originally published Jun 20th.

Source

President Obama has granted Attorney General Eric Holder permission to assert executive privilege to withhold documents related to the failed gun-running operation Fast and Furious, The Associated Press reports, just as the House of Representatives was getting ready to vote on holding Holder in contempt of Congress for not turning the documents over. The House Oversight Committee, led by Rep. Darrell Issa, has been investigating the ATF's 2009 operation Fast and Furious, which let guns be trafficked into Mexico on purpose so they could be tracked. [...] Issa's committee has subpoenaed thousands of documents related to the case, and Holder has not provided all of them.

Update: House Republicans say the move won't stop them from proceeding on the resolution to hold Holder in contempt. NBC News reports Deputy Attorney General James Cole sent this letter to Issa today. The key part is in the first paragraph.

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa
Chairman
June 20, 2012
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:
After you rejected the Department's recent offers of additional accommodations, you stated that the Committee intends to proceed with its scheduled meeting to consider a resolution citing the Attorney General for contempt for failing to comply with the Committee's subpoena of October 11, 2011. I write now to inform you that the President has asserted executive privilege over the relevant post-February 4, 2011, documents.

We regret that we have arrived at this point, after the many steps we have taken to address the Committee's concerns and to accommodate the Committee's legitimate oversight interests regarding Operation Fast and Furious. Although we are deeply disappointed that the Committee appears intent on proceeding with a contempt vote, the Department remains willing to work with the Committee to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues.

Over the last fourteen months, the Department has provided a significant amount of information to the Committee in an extraordinary effort to accommodate the Committee's legitimate oversight interests. The Department has provided the Committee with over 7,600 pages of documents and has made numerous high-level officials available for public congressional testimony, transcribed interviews, and briefings. Attorney General Holder has answered congressional questions about Fast and Furious during nine public hearings, including two before the Committee. The Department has devoted substantial resources to responding to these congressional inquiries.
[...]

Snipped. Full letter can be read at source link.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Wow, how cool would it be to just tell the police that you are unable to provide them with a DNA sample or fingerprints? I guess if you commit a crime while in Obama's administration you can just 'lose emails' or withhold evidence. This from the most 'transparent' administration in history.

I've been saying for a while that "transparent" is a strange choice of word for them to use.

But they're transparent alright. So transparent, in fact, we can see right through their bullsnip.

a reply to: Metallicus

It is. Pay attention.

One corrupt bottom feeder protecting another.

Look at this way, as long as they never give up the info needed to hang them then Obama won't have to pardon them all in his last days.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Unless I am missing something the contempt vote on Holder already occurred. He was found in contempt of Congress in 2 areas. Criminal contempt as well as civil contempt.

Criminal contempt requires the DOJ to launch an investigation, which they refused to do.
The Civil contempt, instead of going to the DOJ, goes to a Federal judge who has the right to review the files in question and determine if executive privilege applies.

If I remember my Supreme Court cases Executive Privilege cannot be invoked to hide illegal activities.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, I somewhat jumped the gun and posted this before realizing the original article had been published on June 20th, then edited OP to add that fact at the top. Judging by response though, it was still news to some here on the boards.

Thanks for the clarification.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Unless I am missing something the contempt vote on Holder already occurred. He was found in contempt of Congress in 2 areas. Criminal contempt as well as civil contempt.

Criminal contempt requires the DOJ to launch an instigation, which they refused to do.
The Civil contempt, instead of going to the DOJ, goes to a Federal judge who has the right to review the files in question and determine if executive privilege applies.

If I remember my Supreme Court cases Executive Privilege cannot be invoked to hide illegal activities.

And to further our memories, I thought it was Obama who had already used executive privilege on these 30k plus documents which had already caused a brouhaha because you cannot assert Executive privilege unless you were aware of Fast & Furious of which he claims he was not. Holder was already in contempt of congress because of not releasing said documents for 18 months. Thats how I remember it, but I am an old guy and the memory isn't quite so good anymore.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

No worries man.. These scandals are dragging out an unusually long time. I had actually forgotten about this until you posted so thanks for the reminder.

My primary concern is how far will Obama go? If he is blatantly ignoring the Constitution, not to mention laws, it tells me he is approaching, if not already arrived, at the point of no return. Knowing the ramifications of what he is doing, he is continuing to do it.

Im not sure if the above is coming across correctly -

Essentially - A person who is planning on committing a crime is faced with 2 options -
* - Decides not to commit the crime knowing the consequences.

or

* - Decides to go balls to the walls knowing the outcome of his actions and vowing not to be taken alive. He has mentally committed himself to the criminal act and everything that follows along with it. He knows his act is illegal and decided this is the last chance he will get before incarceration / death if caught. If he comes out alive without capture his plan works.

(I am not applying the scenario to Obama, just the mental status he seems to be exhibiting).

I am wondering how any Supreme Court ruling reference the Republicans suing Obama for abuse of authority can apply to this case, if at all.

The 9 to nothing vote against Obama and his appointments to the NLRB by SCOTUS, ruling it unconstitutional, should have been a wake up call.



a reply to: MarlinGrace
Nope you nailed it. Holder was suppose to leave at some point before the end of this year however I don't think that is likely based on the large object careening at Obama and Holder at cosmic velocities.

If the Republicans keep the House and win the Senate I truly think Impeachment is a real possibility.

a reply to: Metallicus

Obama would have to be impeached and removed from office before criminal charges could be brought.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the more detailed insight, as its plain to see you stay more informed on these matters than I.

And yes, these scandals are being dragged out for an absurd amount of time due to stonewalling, such as this. And honestly, with so many investigations going on concurrently, they can be quite a handful to keep track of. Kind of like IRS emails, my those things are slippery!

I believe he's in the mindset that you presented in option 2, balls to the wall, consequences be damned. Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Although as far as impeachment goes, he is wholly deserving of proceedings being brought against him. Nixon was booted for far far less, but, Obama has a somewhat clever insurance policy; do we really want to see Biden in charge??

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

Fortuitous that you mention Nixon -

United States vs. Nixon
Background -

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. It resulted in a unanimous 8-0 ruling against President Richard Nixon and was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal. It is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any US president.

The suit revolved around Nixon refusing to turn over complete audio recordings of meetings related to the Watergate scandal. His administration released the tapes in edited versions. The action was challenged in federal court, eventually ending up at the US Supreme Court.

During oral arguments Nixon's attorney put forth that the issue at hand is between the executive and legislative and that the Court could not get involved. He also argued that Nixon is not subject to the judicial system in the US. Nixon invoked executive privilege to prevent the remainder of the info from being turned over.

SCOTUS, unanimously, ruled -

Sirica denied Nixon's motion and ordered the President to turn the tapes over by May 31. Both Nixon and Jaworski appealed directly to the Supreme Court which heard arguments on July 8. Nixon's attorney argued the matter should not be subject to "judicial resolution" since the matter was a dispute within the executive branch and the branch should resolve the dispute itself. Also, he claimed Special Prosecutor Jaworski had not proven the requested materials were absolutely necessary for the trial of the seven men. Besides, he claimed Nixon had an absolute executive privilege to protect communications between "high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in carrying out their duties."

Less than three weeks later the Court issued its decision. The justices struggled to write an opinion that all eight could agree to. The stakes were so high, in that the tapes most likely contained evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President and his men, that they wanted no dissent. All contributed to the opinion and Chief Justice Burger delivered the unanimous decision. After ruling that the Court could indeed resolve the matter and that Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment," the Court went to the main issue of executive privilege. The Court rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

As a con law professor Obama should already know this.

It also lends weight to the executive privilege argument in this thread. I think Boehner has a case.

a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

We are witnessing the most corrupt Admin in many many years.

Most transparent?? Yeah right. If you believe that, then I have some really safe property to sell you in Chicago.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

No worries man.. These scandals are dragging out an unusually long time. I had actually forgotten about this until you posted so thanks for the reminder.

My primary concern is how far will Obama go? If he is blatantly ignoring the Constitution, not to mention laws, it tells me he is approaching, if not already arrived, at the point of no return. Knowing the ramifications of what he is doing, he is continuing to do it.

Im not sure if the above is coming across correctly -

Essentially - A person who is planning on committing a crime is faced with 2 options -
* - Decides not to commit the crime knowing the consequences.

or

* - Decides to go balls to the walls knowing the outcome of his actions and vowing not to be taken alive. He has mentally committed himself to the criminal act and everything that follows along with it. He knows his act is illegal and decided this is the last chance he will get before incarceration / death if caught. If he comes out alive without capture his plan works.

(I am not applying the scenario to Obama, just the mental status he seems to be exhibiting).

I am wondering how any Supreme Court ruling reference the Republicans suing Obama for abuse of authority can apply to this case, if at all.

The 9 to nothing vote against Obama and his appointments to the NLRB by SCOTUS, ruling it unconstitutional, should have been a wake up call.



a reply to: MarlinGrace
Nope you nailed it. Holder was suppose to leave at some point before the end of this year however I don't think that is likely based on the large object careening at Obama and Holder at cosmic velocities.

If the Republicans keep the House and win the Senate I truly think Impeachment is a real possibility.

It's funny your #1 and #2 thoughts on his crimes, I have always told the wife it's number 2. He is not in for a penny or a pound he is ALL in. The scary part is what lengths will he go to until he gets what he wants. He ignores the constitution, it's just a piece of paper, laws are negotiable and enforceable by selection. These are the actions of criminals, in other words I am already robbing the bank does it matter if I have a gun and a stolen car? I think not, you are exactly right he is all in. Unfortunately we will be the ones that have to pay either way.

President Obama has granted Attorney General Eric Holder permission to assert executive privilege to withhold documents related to the failed gun-running operation Fast and Furious,

Wasn't aware the DOJ had 'executive privilege'.

WHAT are they hiding?

If there was no 'criminal' activity there would be NO need to 'withhold' documents.

Hell might as well just scan them on to a hard drive and fake another 'crash'.

Hoorah for the Department of Injustice.

Hoorah for the 'most' transparent administration in US history.

Hoorah for 'draining the swamp of Washington corruption'.

Fast and Furious was GUNS for VOTES.

That is why they won't release anything.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: CloudsTasteMetallic

We are witnessing the most corrupt Admin in many many years.

Most transparent?? Yeah right. If you believe that, then I have some really safe property to sell you in Chicago.

gee, thanks for letting us know that...just keep saying it over and over and over...that's how you get people that lean right, to buy into it....you know that playbook was written some seventy-odd years ago, and it worked then.

do the republicans every want to work with democrats again? or is it just stall and bitch?

a reply to: neo96

Executive Privilege applies to the President / other Cabinet members via the President. It forces Congress to establish a clear reason for wanting said documents.

Its not in the Constitution but the Supreme Court ruled the action valid under separation of powers clause. Its to protect the Executive from situations where Congress demands any and all files so they can go on a fishing expedition.

Precedent was established in the Nixon ruling. Scotus established guidelines for its application and validity. After reading up on it I don't see how Obama is going to win this fight over him invoking it.

originally posted by: jimmyx
do the republicans every want to work with democrats again? or is it just stall and bitch?

The Democrats do not control the House, the Republicans do. What the House is doing is within their authority. Contrary to what Democrats think (and Republicans) the President does not get his way by virtue of being President.

If Obama does not get with the program then his presidency is over with at the midterms should the Republicans gain control of the Senate (which is being predicted). I would say his presidency was over with the moment he decided to usurp Congresses authority and keep it for himself by using executive orders.

If Obama wants to work on his agenda he must work with both parties in Congress.

Throwing a temper tantrum because he is not getting his way while accusing / blaming anyone and everyone else for his incompetence and corruption is getting old.

2016 cant get here soon enough.

However with his use of executive orders to bypass Congress

That's bs.

The house should withhold funding from the justice dept. Until they comply.