Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Obama Asserts Executive Privilege On Fast And Furious Documents [View all]Littlewon
(20 posts)158. With the options available, Why did OBAMA choose Executive Priv? asks Twitter: @McQandO
That, at least to me, is the pregnant question. He had a number of other options but 4 months from a critical election, chose the most controversial and potentially damaging one.
Why?
Lets begin with a quote from a former White House counsel from a Powerline post:
Even with his fawning press, [President Obama] will pay a price for this one. He knows this, meaning that the documents now to be withheld must be dynamite. They have to show either that Holder knew what was going on with Fast and Furious and approved it, or that he directly committed perjury in his Congressional testimony, or both. I just cant see any other explanation for such a risky move.
Wasnt the Washington Post just covering big time the 40th anniversary of Watergate? I wonder how much coverage this one will get.
Thats the result of the move speculation that the documents being withheld point to perjury by Holder or the President, or both.
So lets break this down a bit. If it was all about Holder, why would the president risk this sort of a controversial move this close to an election. Its not like hes never thrown anyone under the bus. In fact James Carville is on record advising Obama to dump Holder.
Obama had the option, then, of letting Holder face contempt charges (not much happens as weve seen in the past, to those who are served with contempt of Congress charges) and drag out the document release until after the election.
With the election season gearing up, it is likely that while the controversy would have been an issue, it wouldnt have been a major issue. Now it certainly is.
He could have asked Holder to resign. He could have then used the opportunity to appear as a statesman, a leader and bi-partisan all in one fell swoop. Depending on how he handled that it could actually have been a positive for him heading into an election. In the meantime, an acting AG could continue to delay on providing documents.
But he did neither of those things. For some unknown reason (at least to this point) he chose to do the least likely and most politically damaging thing invoke executive privilege. As the lawyer quoted has said, those documents must be dynamite to have the president make this move.
And, unsaid by the lawyer is the speculation that the documents show the involvement of the White House to a degree that is damaging apparently more damaging than the speculation and attention this move by the President has brought.
David Kopel at Volokh Conspiracy gives you a great history of the controversy. As for the documents Kopel notes:
According to Attorney General Holder, the DOJ has 140,000 documents related to Fast & Furious. Fewer than 8,000 have been provided to Congress pursuant to subpoenas. The contempt vote has been narrowed to 1,300 documents. In refusing to comply with the House subpoenas, the DOJ has refused to create a privilege logwhich would identify withheld documents, and the legal reason for their being withheld.
Matthew Boyle at the DC caller points out that Holder has retracted two previous statements he made to Congress where he gave them inaccurate information in an attempt to blame previous AGs or administrations. It seems thats a standard operating procedure with all parts of this administration. So Holder is left holding the bag all by himself on this one, or so it seemed, at least, to the point that executive privilege was invoked.
That brings us to these 4 point by Todd Gaziano at the Heritage Foundation about the use of executive privilege:
First, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The courts held that Nixons purported invocation of executive privilege was illegitimate, in part, for that reason. There is reason to suspect that this might be the case in the Fast and Furious cover-up and stonewalling effort. Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of them is covered by executive privilegeand more.
Second, even the deliberative process species of executive privilege, which is reasonably broad, does not shield the ultimate decisions from congressional inquiry. Congress is entitled to at least some documents and other information that indicate who the ultimate decision maker was for this disastrous program and why these decisions were made. That information is among the most important documents that are being withheld.
Third, the Supreme Court in the Nixon case also held that even a proper invocation must yield to other branches need for information in some cases. So even a proper invocation of executive privilege regarding particular documents is not final.
And lastly, the President is required when invoking executive privilege to try to accommodate the other branches legitimate information needs in some other way. For example, it does not harm executive power for the President to selectively waive executive privilege in most instances, even if it hurts him politically by exposing a terrible policy failure or wrongdoing among his staff. The history of executivecongressional relations is filled with accommodations and waivers of privilege. In contrast to voluntary waivers of privilege, Watergate demonstrates that wrongful invocations of privilege can seriously damage the office of the presidency when Congress and the courts impose new constraints on the Presidents discretion or power (some rightful and some not).
The key point, of course, is executive privilege cannot be used to shield wrongdoing. While it is speculative, it appears highly likely given the other options available that executive privilege is being used for precisely that reason in this case.
Additionally, given the choices available to the President, it is not at all out of bounds to speculate that the most transparent administration in history is trying desperately to hide something even more terrible than the political fallout from this choice.
The White House cites internal discussions and ongoing investigations are the reason for its denial and claims the investigations would be jeopardized with the release of the documents. But, as Gaziano points out, accommodations can be made in that regard. The total number of documents requested is 1,300. The White House is simply refusing to cooperate or accommodate.
Why?
Were still left with that question.
And the answer, given the actions to date, lead to some logical speculation what is contained in those documents is much more damaging politically than the damage done by the decision. Additionally, Obama cant afford to let Holder go because if he does theres the potential that Holder will then spill the beans.
Oh, and finally, this move has suddenly brought Fast and Furious to page one and the top of the newscast like nothing else could. The majority of the country, which was mostly ignorant of this scandal are now in the loop.
As the cited former White House counsel said, the documents now to be withheld must be dynamite. In fact, they must be so explosive that the White House is desperate enough to try to weather this self-inflicted political storm in lieu of exposing them.
That says a lot.
~McQ
Twitter: @McQandO
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
162 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
White House to Issa: FUCK OFF! Now, go steal another car or something, asshole.
11 Bravo
Jun 2012
#2
You win the thread!!!! I hope MIRT runs through here and does some light housekeeping, though!! nt
MADem
Jun 2012
#56
trying to get through to the crowd in this thread: this is a RWnut/Faux News conspiracy
wordpix
Jun 2012
#118
also, this wacky conspiracy involves the NRA and "taking our guns away" hysteria crowd
wordpix
Jun 2012
#120
re: Holder Asks White House To Exert Executive Privilege Over Fast And Furious Docs
clang1
Jun 2012
#3
But Prosecitor's report are like Grand Jury, only confidential for a time period
happyslug
Jun 2012
#124
the viewpoint that guns and ammo in the hands of the public is bad for the country!
Kolesar
Jun 2012
#6
the only anti-gun sentiment is in the minds of the RW SS trooper who started this wacky conspiracy +
wordpix
Jun 2012
#117
Bush invoked executive priviledge 6 times and Clinton 14 times. Considering that
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#13
I never said he couldn't. I said the optics don't look good to the uninformed masses. You have to
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#122
And you know this...how? You've read the material? NO? You're talking RW talking points.
MADem
Jun 2012
#62
"WE" are--and "we" don't repeat rightwing talking points that earn us pepperoni. nt
MADem
Jun 2012
#77
Yes, he was, and people who use him as a rightwing talking point should be ashamed of themselves.
MADem
Jun 2012
#91
We want a way to be answerable to the American people, and cork that fuck Issa.
PavePusher
Jun 2012
#98
And I state again: If there is nothing to hide, show this, and yank the rug out from under Issa.
PavePusher
Jun 2012
#102
Holder is LEGALLY PROHIBITED from releasing documents related to an ongoing investigation.
MADem
Jun 2012
#104
Show some proof and suddenly you don't have a dog in this fight any more
justiceischeap
Jun 2012
#127
I doubt that loser works at all, unless you count taking out the trash and mowing mom's lawn on his
MADem
Jun 2012
#78
Actually, it was Armitage that outed Plame. Rove and his minions (Libby) took advantage of the
SlimJimmy
Jun 2012
#123
I totally agree with you on this. People think this a huge cover up - because it is.
IndyJones
Jun 2012
#49
Well, you and "YOU people" need to step quickly so the door doesn't hit you. Enjoy that PPR. nt
MADem
Jun 2012
#61
Infuriating Republicans so much the leadership has reigned in Issa multiple times?
jeff47
Jun 2012
#40
You're gone, and soon to be forgotten. But you can't release a redacted document and comply with a
MADem
Jun 2012
#69
ONLY if jurors vote to hide--Skinner needs to look at any juror who doesn't get it. And he can. nt
MADem
Jun 2012
#53
Issa has been trying to build his own Whitewater investigation out of this for over a year.
JoePhilly
Jun 2012
#71
You're not getting it, this isn't about Terry. It's about Issa trying to grandstand.
MADem
Jun 2012
#92
So provide the answers being requested and yank the rug out from under Issa.
PavePusher
Jun 2012
#97
No. Let them keep browbeating the black Attorney General, after he has been to the Hill to answer
MADem
Jun 2012
#99
Why do you keep whining that Holder won't release documents he is legally prohibited from releasing?
MADem
Jun 2012
#103
Doubling down? A stick in the eye? A way of inserting the WH into this business preparatory to a
MADem
Jun 2012
#125
And if he had handed over the documents, they would have busted him for breaking the law
justiceischeap
Jun 2012
#128
This is not about the death of any federal agent--take that OFF the table right now.
MADem
Jun 2012
#136
You need to direct your questions to Darrell Issa. He's the one trying to deliver a contempt cite
MADem
Jun 2012
#138
That is Elijah Cummings' lengthy statement that I referenced. He is Ranking on that committee. nt
MADem
Jun 2012
#148
This is a minority statement, not his personally - but that's the one you wanted? n/t
Littlewon
Jun 2012
#151
Elijah Cummings is RANKING on that Committee--i.e., when the Democrats take back the House,
MADem
Jun 2012
#152
Yes thanks M - I understand these concepts. It is more accurately a 'Minority statement' ...
Littlewon
Jun 2012
#155
Wow - surprises us both - it MAY IN FACT ultimately come down to the murder. 3rd gun found.
Littlewon
Jun 2012
#161
With the options available, Why did OBAMA choose Executive Priv? asks Twitter: @McQandO
Littlewon
Jun 2012
#158
thread/links: NRA blackmailed Republican lawmakers into voting to hold Eric Holder in contempt
wordpix
Jun 2012
#115
no, go to Rachel's video on this-she explains how a RWnut who styles himself after Timothy McVeigh
wordpix
Jun 2012
#154
With all the options available to OBAMA, WHY CHOOSE EXECUTIVE PRIV? @ Twitter: @McQandO
Littlewon
Jun 2012
#159