Reading the link juxtaposed to reading, understanding AND placing the link in the proper context are two very unrelated concepts...at least a reasonable person would think such.
Conflating an issue of Executive abuse in your citation that started in the previous administration in 2002 with warrantless "wiretaps" with the sham House Judiciary committee "hearings" is a prime example of tribal behavior from one of the echo chambers. Have you even taken the time to READ H.R. 5956? Perhaps you should and realize it has absolutely no connection to the McCarthyesque hearings regarding "Fast and Furious". Edify thyself!
Gosh, my first post on this board, and perhaps my first enemy. Such is life!
Not another one. Holder lied under oath obama used executive privilege when he should not have. Equals cover up.
As a self proclaimed "Constitutional Watchdog", you should Know and Understand there is no validity to your claim that "equals cover up". But then that is beside the point, which is precisely that the op failed to do due diligence before posting a fallacious connection between two disparate subjects being egged on by a piece from a questionable and less than objective source. If Holder lied, he should be put in the public pillory, but that is yet to be adjudicated, is it not?
Being a "Constitutional Watchdog", perhaps you could cite the Article, Section and Clause, from our Constitution, as amended, that would allow a sitting President along with the power of the Executive to order "warrantless wiretaps" on US citizens or otherwise, either Bush AND/OR Obama who continues the practice, OR allow a Congressional committee to hold an AG in contempt for doing his duty OR that gives that same committee leave to violate the separation of powers implicit in that same Contract With the People. Can you make those citations?
I look forward to reading your rationale to support your argument, or to your admission of making an error given the late hour with a lapse of reasoned concentration. However, I suspect nothing less than obfuscation, deflection and perhaps a little ad hominem directed my way. But hey, surprise me and stand on principle rather than resorting to dogma.
BTW, I'm nothing like any of "those".
I site Nixon vs. U.S. executive privilege is not absolute. The Court made it clear that the President could not withhold evidence from an ongoing criminal prosecution of another person simply because he was the President.
Read more: United States v. Nixon (1974) United States v. Nixon (1974)