[connandoilee]

What amazes me about this is how so few people are aware about it. It's barely getting news traction outside of Fox News and a few outlets like the LA Times. I asked regular people about it and no one heard of this.

It's nowhere at MSNBC.com, for example. Even if you search 'Fast and Furious' (which you shouldn't have to; one would think it would be one of the headlines in the US or Politics sections), you see short articles but 0 comments and 0 Facebook recommends.

The media really knows how to keep this under wraps.

[goctorsurger]

Is the executive privilege claim unprecedented?
No, but it is unusual. The Obama White House has never before claimed executive privilege. George W. Bush used it six times, Bill Clinton four, and George H.W. Bush once. It's also somewhat problematic for Obama. As Conor Friedersdorf points out, candidate Obama criticized its invocation by the Bush Administration, when it was used, for example, to try to cover up the political firings of U.S. Attorneys. It's also a little unclear how the documents are too sensitive to hand over if Holder was indeed willing to trade them for dropping the contempt proceeding.
What does it mean if Congress holds Eric Holder in contempt?
For the record, he's not yet in contempt -- the full House has to vote, which would happen next week. (Before you make that joke about how polls show the rest of America already holds Congress in contempt, stop. It's been made a million times already.) It would also be an unusual move. In fact, a sitting attorney general has never been held in contempt; in 1998, the Oversight Committee recommended that Janet Reno be held in contempt, but the recommendation was never brought to a vote of the entire House. But the move is largely symbolic. As Dana Milbank pointed out today, the person who would have to prosecute Holder for refusing to cooperate with Congress would be ... the attorney general, Eric Holder. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...o-know/258783/

[BruceQW]

BTW many of the papers in question would literally be illegal to turn over so it is perfectly obvious that this really is partisan BS.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/...hews/#47926690

From the post you made above this one: It's also a little unclear how the documents are too sensitive to hand over if Holder was indeed willing to trade them for dropping the contempt proceeding.

[onlyfun_biziness]

To now properly assert executive priveldge means presidential involvement did indeed occur and thus implies perjury from Holder.

I'm curious, please explain something to me: Considering the operation ended in January 2011 and the Executive Order applies to documents post February 2011, how exactly do they show White House involvement?

[shiciapsisy]

The document requests center on the events surrounding the letter DOJ sent to Congress denying the existance of Fast and Furious which they had to retract as a lie and the treatment of department whistleblowers. Asserting executive privilege overthose documents is what ties the WH to this scandal.

Except that the letter was sent on February the 4th, and the order only covers documents after that date. If the White House was involved in the decision to try and cover up the incident, then surely any relevant documents would have been pre-February 4th?

[Relsenlilky]

Dude, the post coverup **** is going to be lots of grubby political advice sent to the president talking about how to minimize any negative fallout in an election year, exactly as you'd expect from any Presidential advisors. This whole thing has been a crappy witchhunt by Issa and it's long ago reached the point where he doesn't ever bother to try and make it look genuine any more. If transparency and 'letting the public know' were so important as he keeps claiming, then why exactly did he refuse to have the ATF meeting helld openly rather than in secret even though Elijah Cummings asked for it? Does transparency and truth seeking only count when it has a negative effect on your political opponents?

[textarchive]

Dude, that's totally bogus. Grubby political advice isn't worth throwing down executive privaledge, especially when he vowed to never do it, especially in an election year.

[clorkergo]

Dude, that's totally bogus. Grubby political advice isn't worth throwing down executive privaledge, especially when he vowed to never do it, especially in an election year.

Do you genuinely, hand on heart believe this is a Watergate? Honestly?

This is a case where partisan politics produce a good result.

Pray tell what result exactly it has produced?

[Encannavalf]

Yes, they are hiding something.

[bertanu]

Darrell Issa is a two-bit insurance fraud/car thievery pontificating blowhard.

[loyalgagora]

So?

[usadatronourl]

Well, that election year stunt is now over.

[KellyLynchIV]

Well, that election year stunt is now over.

You mean they released the documents? Because that is the only stunt here. At best.

[7HlBQS8j]

Well, that election year stunt is now over.