Skip to comments.HOLDER WILL LOSE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FIGHT
Posted on 06/21/2012 12:37:48 PM PDT by kingattax
President Obamas assertion of executive privilege to prevent Attorney General Eric Holder from complying with congressional subpoenas on the Operation Fast and Furious fiasco will blow up in the White Houses face. But not for the reasons youve heard on the first day of this legal fight.
Some Republicans are sayingand some media commentators are reportingthat executive privilege only applies when the president himself is involved.
Thats incorrect as a matter of law.
Its important to get this right, because some are suggesting that todays invoking of the privilege means Obama himself is involved, a smoking gun that could make this the next Watergate. Not true.
The White House might be involved, but we dont know one way or another yet.
As Ive written before, there are two types of executive privilege. One is a strong form rooted in the Constitution, called the presidential communication privilege. But there is another type, much weaker and rooted in common law instead of the Constitution, called the deliberative process privilege. That second, weaker variety is what President Obama invoked today regarding Holder.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Not Holders fight anymore. Now Presidents. He is the one that deemed executive authority.
By then, the requested documents will no longer exist in any readable form.
Holder will be able to stonewall till after the election.
I’ll wait to hear what the TOTUS has to say before I rush to judgement. /S
You brought to mind something I hadn’t thought of WRT Putin and the “have more flexibility after the election”.
Bammers will have 2 months to destroy the country and give away everything, even if he loses.
The documents may already be gone.
Holder and his boss will both be voted out of office before it comes to that
Can he be pardoned in advance of conviction? Scenario > Mitt wins the WH, Repubs take the Senate, then move forward with convicting Holder after Bambi is out of Office. Of course Mitt will say let's move forward, turn the page, and let it slid.
I think you underestimate Issa - he has more than enough documents to show that Holder committed perjury numerous times in front of Congress. Like a good card player, he hasn't shown his hand before he has to. Before the vote in the House, I expect there will be a document dump that will have all but the most mentally deformed Deomcrats running from Holder as fast as they can.
Unfortunately not. He doesn't even have to have been charged with a crime for Obama to be able to issue a blanket pardon for "any and all acts committed while acting as Attorney General", AFAIK. That can be done on Obama's last day in office, or any time before.
This raises a good question...can the president pardon someone for something he’s done but hasnt been convicted of (or even charged with) yet, or can a pardon only happen after a convicion?
In other words, does a pardon apply to conduct or conviction?
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974." [Proclomation 4311]
Maybe Sandy Burgler was nosing around? Seriously you could be onto something. Maybe they have been deeped sixed, and that is what they are hiding. I would imagine that is a felony by itself?
Is there a way for Repubs to confirm they still physically exist?
Absolutely. There's no doubt in my mind that Issa has many, many documents already provided by whistleblowers. At this point, only he and his staff know what he's got. The Justice Department (and Obama) can only guess how damaging they are.
I guess the runners would be Blue Dog Dems, all five that are left. If it happens it will be a blast hearing from those nitwits of the CBC (less Col. West of course)