The F&F Tealeaves......

[geauxtohell]

This article:
Why contempt case against Holder may be doomed - CNN.com

Does a good job of laying out the situation and what most is most likely to happen. I am sure this will devolve into a food fight, but it's hard to argue with the facts laid out in the above opinion piece:

Unfortunately for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, its legal position is uncertain at best, and almost all political considerations would seem to favor the White House.

The form of executive privilege at stake in the current dispute is "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions.

A key problem now for the House Oversight Committee is thus far it has yet to state in a very concrete way why it needs the particular documents it is demanding.

In contrast, the executive branch has articulated a strong and highly specific reason for withholding the documents at issue: Forced disclosure to Congress of internal deliberations concerning how best to interact with Congress would undermine the executive's capacity to function as a co-equal branch. It would undermine the prospects for future candid deliberations about interactions with the other institutions of government.

The House could ask the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to prosecute Holder for contempt, but the Justice Department long ago took the position -- in a very careful opinion written by then Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson -- that the department is not required by law to prosecute executive officials for contempt when the ground for subpoena noncompliance is a claim of executive privilege.

So that would leave the House with the one remaining legal option of launching an impeachment investigation, which brings us to the political side of things.

It also must be said that Issa's past attacks on the administration amply feed a narrative that his subpoena is about politics, not principle.

Having months ago called Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times" -- in the face of such modern historical escapades as Watergate, Iran-Contra or the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- the chairman is not well-situated to play a Sam Ervin-like role, policing the presidency more in sadness than in angry partisanship.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Well when I see CNN correct on an issue, I'll be shocked. Look these guys tried to get the contractors on laying off on Jan2, and they are giving notice on Nov 2, so it has to be political. Ooops, the LAW requires them to give 60 days notice and they were STUNNED to learn this. And guess what 60 days notice is? yep Nov 2. I love it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Or another take:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/opinion/a-pointless-partisan-fight.html?hp

The Republicans shamelessly turned what should be a routine matter into a pointless constitutional confrontation. And the White House responded as most administrations do at some point: it invoked executive privilege to make a political problem go away.

 

[geauxtohell]

Well when I see CNN correct on an issue, I'll be shocked. Look these guys tried to get the contractors on laying off on Jan2, and they are giving notice on Nov 2, so it has to be political. Ooops, the LAW requires them to give 60 days notice and they were STUNNED to learn this. And guess what 60 days notice is? yep Nov 2. I love it.

Both sides are playing politics with the issue, but who prompted this confrontation? That's right. Issa.

 

[The Infidel]

A ROUTINE MATTER...????


Wow ​

 

[The Infidel]

Both sides are playing politics with the issue, but who prompted this confrontation? That's right. Issa.

Issa is doing his job!

 

[Synthaholic]

Leading up to and following the 2010 elections, Issa was giddy at the chance of going toe-to-toe with Obama, whom he called “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times” in an interview with Rush Limbaugh in October of that year. A month later, he walked back the claim. “If I had to do it over again, I’d have parsed my words a little more carefully,” Issa told CNN’s Situation Room. “Do I think the president is personally corrupt? No. I should never have implied that.”


That big bravado followed by small payoff would prove typical of Issa’s chairmanship. Four days after the 2010 election, Issa declared he would hold hundreds of hearings over the next two years: “I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks.” That works out to 280 hearings a year.

Issa finally gets his trophy - Salon.com

 

[Wiseacre]

This boils down to whether or not Holder knew about F&F and whether or not people in the WH knew. In Holder's case, either he did know and is now lying about it and trying to cover it up, or he didn't know but should have. I think both he and the WH did know but tried to hide it. Which is one reason why Obama has cited executive privilege.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Holder perjured himself before Congress.
Congress subpoenaed F&F documents
Holder THEN wants to plead the 5th.
PROBLEM: He ALREADY testified!
President claims Exec Privilege.

Q: How do you change your already sworn testimony to pleading the 5th?

Plus. Why did Holder retract his claim that the Bush Admin had done the same thing?

 

[geauxtohell]

Both sides are playing politics with the issue, but who prompted this confrontation? That's right. Issa.

Issa is doing his job!

His job is to be a fair and impartial arbitrator.

His comments suggest he is anything but.

 

[Synthaholic]

Bush invoked Executive Privilege 6 times. Wingnuts weren't poutraged at all.

 

[Sallow]

Leading up to and following the 2010 elections, Issa was giddy at the chance of going toe-to-toe with Obama, whom he called “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times” in an interview with Rush Limbaugh in October of that year. A month later, he walked back the claim. “If I had to do it over again, I’d have parsed my words a little more carefully,” Issa told CNN’s Situation Room. “Do I think the president is personally corrupt? No. I should never have implied that.”


That big bravado followed by small payoff would prove typical of Issa’s chairmanship. Four days after the 2010 election, Issa declared he would hold hundreds of hearings over the next two years: “I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks.” That works out to 280 hearings a year.

Issa finally gets his trophy - Salon.com

It's funny that none of this seems relevant to conservatives.

It's like when Bush was running in 2000..and mentioned that he wanted to attack Iraq.

Issa, who's a car thief, wanted a scandal..and did not care how he got it.

 

[geauxtohell]

This boils down to whether or not Holder knew about F&F and whether or not people in the WH knew. In Holder's case, either he did know and is now lying about it and trying to cover it up, or he didn't know but should have. I think both he and the WH did know but tried to hide it. Which is one reason why Obama has cited executive privilege.

The CNN article lays out a pretty good case as to why they evoked EP, and it's not this /\.

 

[Darkwind]

Well when I see CNN correct on an issue, I'll be shocked. Look these guys tried to get the contractors on laying off on Jan2, and they are giving notice on Nov 2, so it has to be political. Ooops, the LAW requires them to give 60 days notice and they were STUNNED to learn this. And guess what 60 days notice is? yep Nov 2. I love it.

Both sides are playing politics with the issue, but who prompted this confrontation? That's right. Issa.

The person who signed off on letting guns walk and getting a border agent killed is who is responsible for this confrontation.

How is it that every fucking person on this forum who defends this administration walks right on by the fact that crimes have been committed and it points to our government, specifically, the justice department?

Why isn't any of you fucks outraged that innocent Mexican citizens and a border agent is dead because of someone in this issue?

Only one side is playing politics, and it isn't' Issa.

 

[whitehall]

I guess if you shop around you can find a quote you like from the fawning drooling liberal media but you can't alter the facts. The attorney general might be the highest law enforcement officer in the Country but he is not above the law. Congress issued subpoenas for documents and Holder thumbed his nose. The A.G. cannot ignore a congressional subpoena and Barry Hussein may have implicated himself when he cited executive privilege over a relatively benign subpoena.

 

[Wiseacre]

Bush invoked Executive Privilege 6 times. Wingnuts weren't poutraged at all.

Clinton invoked it 14 times. Dums weren't outraged at all.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Well when I see CNN correct on an issue, I'll be shocked. Look these guys tried to get the contractors on laying off on Jan2, and they are giving notice on Nov 2, so it has to be political. Ooops, the LAW requires them to give 60 days notice and they were STUNNED to learn this. And guess what 60 days notice is? yep Nov 2. I love it.

Both sides are playing politics with the issue, but who prompted this confrontation? That's right. Issa.

Wrong, they have already caught several memebers of the Justice department lying or "forgetting" about this or that.

And here from the horses mouth. He knew he had nothing and made shit up.
Holder retracts claim Bush team knew about Fast and Furious | WashingtonExaminer.com

Justice said that Holder "inadvertently" made the charge against Mukasey in a hearing.
I love it, oops!

 

[Synthaholic]

Well when I see CNN correct on an issue, I'll be shocked. Look these guys tried to get the contractors on laying off on Jan2, and they are giving notice on Nov 2, so it has to be political. Ooops, the LAW requires them to give 60 days notice and they were STUNNED to learn this. And guess what 60 days notice is? yep Nov 2. I love it.

Both sides are playing politics with the issue, but who prompted this confrontation? That's right. Issa.

The person who signed off on letting guns walk and getting a border agent killed is who is responsible for this confrontation.

How is it that every fucking person on this forum who defends this administration walks right on by the fact that crimes have been committed and it points to our government, specifically, the justice department?

Why isn't any of you fucks outraged that innocent Mexican citizens and a border agent is dead because of someone in this issue?

Only one side is playing politics, and it isn't' Issa.

That would be Bush's last AG, Mukasey.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

This article:
Why contempt case against Holder may be doomed - CNN.com

Does a good job of laying out the situation and what most is most likely to happen. I am sure this will devolve into a food fight, but it's hard to argue with the facts laid out in the above opinion piece:

Unfortunately for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, its legal position is uncertain at best, and almost all political considerations would seem to favor the White House.

The form of executive privilege at stake in the current dispute is "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions.

The House could ask the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to prosecute Holder for contempt, but the Justice Department long ago took the position -- in a very careful opinion written by then Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson -- that the department is not required by law to prosecute executive officials for contempt when the ground for subpoena noncompliance is a claim of executive privilege.

So that would leave the House with the one remaining legal option of launching an impeachment investigation, which brings us to the political side of things.

It also must be said that Issa's past attacks on the administration amply feed a narrative that his subpoena is about politics, not principle.

Having months ago called Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times" -- in the face of such modern historical escapades as Watergate, Iran-Contra or the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- the chairman is not well-situated to play a Sam Ervin-like role, policing the presidency more in sadness than in angry partisanship.

Interesting that these points are pretty much the same as Libs here have been saying and that rw's have not been able to prove wrong.

But, the real problem is that Rs are very good at lying. They will yammer about this, as though they are right, and the unthinking rw's who want so badly to hate Obama, will blindly accept all of that garbage as fact.

IOW, even though the R is lying, the damage is done and rw's will add even more lies to it.

And we all pay the price.

 

[Synthaholic]

Bush invoked Executive Privilege 6 times. Wingnuts weren't poutraged at all.

Clinton invoked it 14 times. Dums weren't outraged at all.

And I'm not outraged now. Congratulations, dumbass!