Not even close. First off, no evidence exists that the top level of the administration is covering anything up. What we do know is there's an on-going investigation by the Inspector General, which was started by Holder as some of the facts came to his attention. Congress wants to interfere with an ongoing investigation and documents relating to what options the DOJ and WH might consider. Over 7,000 documents were already given to Issa's committee. He's now demanding that memos regarding discussion and advisement be handed over. Sorry man, but that doesn't cut it.
If you want a closer example of a Watergate like scheme, I suggest looking at how Bush covered up the mass firing of US attorneys. Do you really believe that Bush would not be personally involved with a decision like that?
It's all moot since obama used executive privilege he used it because he knew about fast and the furious.
He used it because there's an ongoing investigation and the documents being demanded include advise he was given by personal staff. Just like the executive privilege Bush invoked after the attorney firing. There isn't a hint of evidence that the use of executive privilege in this case is being used to cover-up a crime, by a sitting president.
It's stupid to try to equate this to Watergate. It doesn't even meet the standard of Blowjob gate.
1. executive privilege can only be used when revealing information that would jeopardize national security. No national security is here unless obama is saying he knew about fast and the furious.
2. Nixon vs US disagrees with you.