Executive Privilege

[heironymouspasparagus]

He learned that lesson well, didn't he?

[Gaspar]

[Gaspar]

Heating up.

There may indeed be a connection between the WH and F&F.  Otherwise Executive Privilege will be overturned.  Watergate was peas and carrots compared to this.

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/oversight@mail.house_.gov_20120625_230445.pdf

[Townsend]

Watergate was peas and carrots compared to this.

How so?

[Hoss]

How so?

Because he wills it so?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

[Conan71]

How so?

If what is alleged in the letter from the Congressional committee is true, it's no exaggeration.  AG lying to Congress, President denying any knowledge of documents then claims EP to run interference for the AG?  In terms of how many people could end up in prison over this, I doubt as many as Watergate.

In terms of the seriousness of what they are attempting to cover up vs H2Ogate, people didn't die as a result of Watergate and we didn't intentionally break another country's firearms laws.

As crazy Uncle Joe would say:  "This is a big bucking deal!"

[RecycleMichael]

It is always the little things. Nobody remembers Nixon failing to get the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty signed. He negotiated nuclear war with Russia, then couldn't get Congress to sign off. All they remember is his denying knowledge of a petty burglary of a hotel room.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It is always the little things. Nobody remembers Nixon failing to get the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty signed. He negotiated nuclear war with Russia, then couldn't get Congress to sign off. All they remember is his denying knowledge of a petty burglary of a hotel room.

Nobody really got SALT through - it almost made it (Nixon, Ford, Carter), but when USSR invaded Afghanistan (in Carter's), that pretty well ended it.  We did kind of informally run under the terms of the treaty at that time, but no real force of law involved.

Nixon was also the chief architect of opening dialogue with China.  That, to me was his biggest (positive) achievement.  He had a certain 'mad brilliance' about him that gave him certain insights, but led to certain psychoses. 

Maybe the office of President should be a dual role - one for internal affairs, and one for international?

[Hoss]

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

[Ed W]

There's a good piece on executive privilege in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.  And interestingly enough, that paragon of conservative values, Dick Cheney, came out in defense of the president's use of it, though the video was undated, it seemed to be recent.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/a-contemptible-abuse-of-contempt-the-last-thing-the-country-needs-is-another-political-circus-in-congress-642043/

The PPG piece has an interesting discussion of executive privilege, worth reading on its own.  But this is down toward the end:

Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws; it is neither a police force nor a jailer. Those powers, pursuant to Article 2, reside in the executive branch. Nor does the Constitution give Congress explicit contempt powers. In rare cases, Congress has issued contempt orders to punish individuals who have sought to bribe legislators or disrupt its proceedings, but this is reserved for extreme situations, not inter-branch squabbles like the one over Fast and Furious.

Congress has given itself additional power, by statute, to issue criminal contempt citations. But these must be enforced by the Justice Department, and it is inconceivable that an attorney general would pursue a contempt proceeding against himself.

Finally, there is a civil contempt process -- created in the post-Watergate era -- that allows Congress to seek enforcement through the courts. Ironically, this law creates a specific exemption for federal government employees (like Eric Holder) acting in their official capacities. The exemption, designed to safeguard the separation of powers, was championed by then-Assistant Attorney General and now-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who told the Senate that trying to weigh Congress' need for information against the executive branch's need to protect the confidentiality of information "is the very type of 'political question' from which ... the courts [should] abstain."

[Teatownclown]

GOP Votes for Contempt as "Fast and Furious" Blows Up in Its Face

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/fast-and-furious-investigation-going-sideways-gop

read up

[erfalf]

GOP Votes for Contempt as "Fast and Furious" Blows Up in Its Face

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/06/fast-and-furious-investigation-going-sideways-gop

read up

Holder in contempt. Now what?

Regarding the Fortune article. If it was just some loony rouge whistle blower, why the appearance of a cover up? Why not let the cat out of the bag and let the Republicans eat crow?

[RecycleMichael]

It is called misdirection.

I think it is brilliant.

[nathanm]

Interesting. As best I can tell there's no evidence that the Administration's narrative that Holder was misinformed by underlings in field offices until after his Congressional testimony, which happens to comport well with the DoJ sending the committee a letter, unprompted and unsolicited, providing the correct information some time after Holder's testimony.

Cover-up lesson one: Do not voluntarily disclose factual errors in one's testimony before Congress.

N.B., I am 100% not surprised by any of this. The GOP is simply repeating its 1994-2000 performance. The public didn't buy it then, so I'm not quite sure why Issa and others think it'll go over any better this time around.