Fast & Furious update

Last Friday Obama circumvented the legislative process and conjured amnesty for illegal aliens with a wave of his sceptre. Yesterday, he asserted executive privilege in an attempt to flout a Congressional investigation into the DOJ's shocking Fast and Furious operation. What's next for King Barack? Little prediction: If the Supreme Court rules against his health care mandate, he'll denounce that branch of government, too, and go full speed ahead as though the ruling never happened. The only real way to stop him is to vote him out.

Byron York on where things stand now:

. . . Issa and his fellow Republicans on the Hill are waiting for word from the White House on the newest critical questions in the investigation.  What documents are covered by the president’s decision to invoke executive privilege in the Fast & Furious case?  And what documents aren’t?

Late Wednesday, Issa’s counterpart in the Senate, Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, sent a letter to the White House asking President Obama to specify which Fast & Furious documents are covered by the president’s executive privilege claim.  Issa had narrowed his subpoena to about 1,300 documents covering the Justice Department’s response to congressional inquiries about Fast & Furious.  It is not clear whether Obama is asserting that all those documents are protected by executive privilege, or just any documents that specifically concern the president himself, or perhaps some other subset of the whole group.

“Can you please provide a more precise description of the scope of your executive privilege claim?” Grassley asked.  “Are you asserting it only with regard to documents called for by the subpoena that may have involved communications with you?  Or are you extending your claim to records of purely internal Justice Department communications, not involving the White House?  Please provide a more detailed description of the documents that you are or are not asserting executive privilege to protect.”

I'm sure they'll get right back to him on that.

Speculation continues over what's in the documents and how Obama might be involved.

Mark Levin explains executive privilege:

As the Supreme Court recognized in US v. Nixon, the Executive Branch has a legitimate interest in confidentiality of communications among high officials so that the President can have the benefit of candid advice. However, as President Washington himself recognized, that privilege does not protect the President or his underlings from embarrassment or public exposure for questionable actions.

As the Supreme Court has also recognized repeatedly, the Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, has the essential power to investigate the actions of the Executive Branch.


In this case, the exercise of Executive Privilege seems, in its timing and over-inclusiveness, to be nothing less than a political delaying tactic to prevent exposure of wrongdoing and incompetence that resulted in the murder of a American law enforcement agent and injury and death of many others. Further, a wholesale claim of privilege is facially improper: the President should be held to the standard that anyone claiming privilege is held to: identify each document in a log so that privilege can be disputed. (U.S. v. Nixon, 1974)

More at the link. And more legal insights on the subject from Andy McCarthy here.

By the way, can anyone out there confirm the truth of this assertion by Issa?

Issa also accused the Justice Department of trying to compel the committee to close its investigation in exchange for documents it hasn't yet seen. "I can't accept that deal. No other committee chairman would," he said.

Someone at the Justice Dept. has disputed that but their credibility is at about zero right now.

Speaking of zero cred, ye olde mainstream media is covering the bombshell stories of executive privilege and the contempt vote on AG Holder pretty much as expected. If the full House approves the contempt resolution, will that be ignored or minimized, too?

***
Oh dear. Just corrected egregious title typo. Apologies!

***
Also changed incorrect flaunt to flout. What a mess. Thanks to pal AS for correction.

***
Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the Buzzworthy link.

***
Most recent posts here. Follow us on Twitter here. Amazon store here.