Fast and Furious: Illegal to Use Executive Privilege to Shield Wrongdoing? Karl Rove’s Contempt of Congress

The Heritage Foundation has an explanation of Executive Privilege and why it cannot be legally used in the matter of Fast and Furious. But did you know there are two kinds of Executive Privilege? To give you a giggle, Nancy Pelosi found a microphone to talk about Karl Rove’s Contempt of Congress. Read it below.

Eric Holder

Pullout Quote:

…the attorney-client privilege does not exist between Congress and the executive branch because they have the same client—the American people ~ Todd Gaziano, Heritage Foundation

Heritage Foundation – read the entire article here:

As Holder surely knew all these past months, there is no privilege that exists between Congress and the executive branch to withhold documents except the constitutional executive privilege, which is based on the separation of powers. For example, the attorney-client privilege does not exist between Congress and the executive branch because they have the same client—the American people. Holder also knew that executive privilege does not attach to documents automatically. It can be asserted only by the President or with his direct approval. It can be waived; indeed it should be waived in many or most instances when Congress needs the information for its legislative functions. So the slated House committee vote to hold Holder in contempt today was unfortunately necessary to get him to at least reconsider his lawless course of stonewalling.

Oh but wait, Breitbart’s Ken Kluklowski, via Hot Air says there is more than one invocation of Executive Privilege:

As I’ve 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.

It’s still the White House asserting the privilege, because only the president can assert executive privilege for his entire administration.

I noticed today on Wikipedia under ‘Contempt of Congress’ that Karl Rove was listed, and the ‘Chamber’ was shown as “Not Considered,” the status as “OnGoing.” Then today Nancy Pelosi spoke about Rove’s supposed Contempt of Congress, saying she could have “arrested Karl Rove on any given day.” Rove was on with Hannity or Greta tonight (not sure which) explaining that Pelosi could have never had him arrested. The charge of Contempt of Congress was never brought up in committee or on the floor of the House. It was “Not Considered.” It was not voted on. Tonight Karl Rove’s name on the Wikipedia page has disappeared.

“I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day,” Pelosi said to laughter, during a sit-down with reporters. “I’m not kidding. There’s a prison here in the Capitol … If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him.”

Nancy Pelosi

Rove was senior advisor and deputy chief of staff to former President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2007.

Asked on what grounds she could have arrested Rove, Pelosi replied, “Oh, any number. But there were some specific ones for his being in contempt of Congress. But we didn’t.” Source – HuffPo.

Graphic Credit: Phoebe’s House of Detention (read her rundown of the Contempt charge here)


  • If this doesn’t go to trial with Atty Gen. Holder and Pres. Obama, we can kiss justice goodbye! A 2009 video WH press conference shows that Obama knew, Holder knew and other Fed depts. knew! Right Scoop has the video…also linked up at my web site Constitutionalists for Liberty. We must demand that justice be done..and let’s all remember Brian Terry!