Holder Seeks to Dismiss Fast Furious Lawsuit: Fed Courts Cannot Intervene when WH Moves Not to Comply with Congress!

I always think the Department of Justice cannot become more separated from the Rule of Law than their past history when something new comes along and gives another stunning OMGosh moment. Holder is seeking to dismiss the U.S. House of Representatives lawsuit requiring the DOJ to turn over papers related to Fast and Furious, the program under which hundreds of people have died. The DOJ claims Executive Privilege trumps Congress. Note that it is illegal to use Executive Privilege for CYA purposes. Look at this:

Barack Obama – Eric Holder

In their legal brief, DOJ lawyers assert that federal courts cannot intervene when the White House moves not to comply with a congressional branch subpoena by asserting executive privilege, as President Obama did in this case.

The Justice Department motion says that the dispute should be settled by the two branches in question and not in the courts. Source: Fox Nation

The problem for the White House is that it is illegal to use Executive Privilege as a shield. Executive Privilege CANNOT be used to cover up illegal activity. WaterGate looks like a kid stealing from the cookie jar in comparison to Fast and Furious and Benghazi-Gate.

There are two types of Executive Privilege, and there is no Executive Privilege UNLESS a President grants it. Executive Privilege can be rooted in the U.S. Constitution or in Common Law:

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. Source:  via Hot Air

PJ Media August 13, 2012:

“The principal legal issue presented here is whether the Attorney General may withhold that limited subset on the basis of ‘Executive privilege’ where there has been no suggestion that the documents at issue implicate or otherwise involve any advice to the President, and where the Department’s actions do not involve core constitutional functions of the President,” the suit continues.

“No Court has ever held that ‘Executive privilege’ extends anywhere near as far as the Attorney General here contends that it does. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the Attorney General’s conception of the reach of ‘Executive privilege,’ were it to be accepted, would cripple congressional oversight of Executive branch agencies, to the very great detriment of the Nation and our constitutional structure. Accordingly, the Committee asks this Court to reject the Attorney General’s assertion of ‘Executive privilege’ and order him forthwith to comply with the Committee’s subpoena.”

On the day Congress voted to hold Holder in contempt, Darrell Issa issued this statement:

In his letter Monday, Issa said Obama’s assertion of executive privilege means that he and his most senior advisers were involved in “managing” Fast and Furious and the “fallout from it” or that the president asserted a power he knows is unjustified “for the purpose of further obstructing a congressional investigation.”

“To date, the White House has steadfastly maintained that it has not had any role in advising the (Justice) Department with respect to the congressional investigation. The surprising assertion of executive privilege raised the question of whether that is still the case,” Issa said in his letter.

When a President claims Executive Privilege he is supposedly protecting the country and our interests by refusing to reveal documents that would endanger us. In this case, the damage came from his administration and endangered the lives of Americans and killed at least one Border Agent, Brian Terry along with hundreds of Mexican nationals.  Issa is saying by claiming Executive Privilege, Obama knew the particulars of Fast and Furious (which Obama and Holder have denied), or he issued Executive privilege solely to save Holder’s rear end.

Linked at BadBluethe baddest news on planet earth!

Linked at Trevor Loudon’s New Zeal Blog – thank you!


  • http://woodstermangotwood.blogspot.com/ woodsterman

    All of these criminals need to be locked up, and let’s start at the top.

  • Nolan

    In its court papers, the Justice Department says the Constitution does not permit the courts to resolve the political dispute between the executive branch and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that is seeking the records. The political branches have a long history of resolving disputes over congressional requests without judicial intervention, the court filing said.

    • http://maggiesnotebook.com Maggie

      Nolan, I think the point is, you cannot use Executive Privilege to cover up criminal or unconstitutional activity. Is there nothing Congress can do when a crime has been committed within the Executive Branch and then that Branch refuses to comply with a subpoena?

  • Geo

    That is a pretty interesting theory of Holders. One that has been settled through the Courts a long time ago, I believe last time during Watergate.

    The Executive Branch is required to develop a list of all documents it is claiming Executive Privilege on, with a synopsis of the content. The Court reviews the Log and or the material and decides if it falls under the privilege.

    I’m certain that’s the way it’s been handled in the past. Holder needs to return to school, I guess he’s forgotten about the “Three Co-Equal Branches” of Government. How convenient.

    • http://maggiesnotebook.com Maggie

      Geo, from what I’ve read to claim Executive Privilege (which only the President can do) you are admitting that you know the circumstances, were involved in them and deem it not safe for release. In this case, it means the Ex Branch knew about Fast and Furious. We know there is nothing there to endanger the people of America, other than what the criminals in the Ex Branch has done. These are not nuclear threats and has nothing to do with red phone or nuclear football.

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Post Debate Edition()

  • Pingback: This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Post Debate Edition | Virginia Right!()

  • Pingback: GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels Nominations — 10.17.12 Edition()

  • Pingback: NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Post Debate Edition()

  • http://www.hillarynme.com sandstone

    Holder is the most loathsome of men. He heads up the Injustice Dept…real justice went out the window 4 years ago!

    LOL, just saw the addition requirement!

    • http://maggiesnotebook.com Maggie

      Sandstone, just think of John Ashcroft and how he was denigrated on partisan bias, and Gonzalez who was drummed out of office for firing AG’s, according to Bush’s wishes, which both men had to do. He should have never left. A Democrat never leaves.

  • Pingback: Watcher Council Nominations! | Independent Sentinel()

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels Nominations Out for Post Debate Edition | Maggie's Notebook()

  • Pingback: Debating the Undebatable |()

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog()

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » Wonderful Watcher’s Council Words()