Or, many people lied. And people died.
How can Holder claim "Executive Privilege" on behalf of Obama for an operation both claim they knew nothing about? #LyingThenOrLyingNow
— Joe Herring (@dailyherring) June 20, 2012
Rep Trey Gowdy, R-SC tells Oversight Cmte slams Admin saying "the notion that you can withhold documents from Congress… is wrong."
— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) June 20, 2012
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) Rips the Obama Admin and DOJ for the F&F cover-up. Asks why Obama asserting Exec Privilege if he wasn't part of F&F
— GET TO THE TRUTH (@AllOutOfHope) June 20, 2012
Indeed. Both Attorney General Holder and President Obama have claimed that the President knew nothing about it. Yet this morning, after months of stonewalling, executive privilege was asserted prior to a scheduled contempt hearing to avoid turning over documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious.
Video Flashback: Obama Claims He Learned of Fast and Furious ‘On the News,’ But Before AG Holder http://t.co/2oL7p7ji #tcot
— PJ Tatler (@PJTatler) June 20, 2012
Is he now admitting that he knew all about it and was involved in the communications about Operation Fast and Furious?
Rep Trey Gowdy. – kicks butt. IF OBAMA knew Nothing then What Executive Privilege does Obama have in this
— greybeard (@greybeard411) June 20, 2012
https://twitter.com/EWErickson/statuses/215456659777134592
Goes to top. RT @gabrielmalor
Key justification for executive privilege: it protects communications between *the President* & his advisors.— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) June 20, 2012
Recommended
There's nothing wrong with executive privilege per se. But it's inconsistent with idea that Fast & Furious was low-level or rogue operation.
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) June 20, 2012
More from Representative Gowdy’s bombshell statement.
"as a former federal prosecutor this is a sad, sad day for our judicial system" – @TGowdySC at http://t.co/bUBrkDKG
— Oversight Committee Republicans (@GOPoversight) June 20, 2012
RT @moelane: Oh, that was good, Rep. Gowdy, bringing up the difference between Senator Obama and President Obama wrt executive privilege.
— Jeff Quinton (@JeffQuinton) June 20, 2012
You can read the transcript and watch the video of Rep. Gowdy (R-SC) at fastandfurious.com
Twitchy will monitor this situation and update accordingly.
Update:
Representative Gowdy’s full statement. It is a must-listen.
Hmm.
Judge Nap: Executive Priv. only applies if Obama personally involved http://t.co/DKEvuvZq Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal #fastandfurious
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) June 20, 2012
@MittRomney ExecutivePrivilege applies ONLY if Obama was involved, which Holder denies. Was Holder lying THEN or is he lying NOW?
— Isabelle H-Gustafson (@izzysroses) June 20, 2012
As Twitchy reported earlier, the executive privilege assertion seems to be backfiring and showing more complicit corruption.
Obama scandal grows today by asserting Executive Privilege over something WH "knew nothing about" http://t.co/kTXBvzI4 #fastandfurious
— Vermont Lawyer ?? (@VermontAttorney) June 20, 2012
"Executive privilege is there to protect inner conversations with the White House," -Rep. Farentold OBAMA KNEW #fastandfurious
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) June 20, 2012
https://twitter.com/JammieWF/status/215475670644572161
https://twitter.com/kesgardner/statuses/215455450517356544
#OBAMA #HOLDER #DEMS OUTSMARTED THEMSELVES –>DIDN'T LEARN FROM #NIXON & ALL HIS MEN. ITS ABT COVERUP & CONSTITUTION.-me #freedomfever #tcot
— Rev. LED Dowell (@clergywomen) June 20, 2012
Sen @ChuckGrassley: "How can the President assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement?" #FastandFurious
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) June 20, 2012
Well, in this case it seems to be the crime and the cover-up.
https://twitter.com/rorycooper/statuses/215484588619874305
Even the lapdog media is now reporting on it.
Rep Gowdy @ Holder hrg: "If [Obama] is not part of it then he has no business asserting executive privilege." PO-81WE, PO-82WE
— CNN Newsource (@CNNNewsource) June 20, 2012
Update:
RT @trscoop: Must Watch: Trey Gowdy slams Democrat opposition at contempt hearing for Eric Holder http://t.co/hBGKGijL
— TheRealMirCat (@TRMirCat) June 20, 2012
Update: Others agreeing with Representative Gowdy.
https://twitter.com/adamsbaldwin/status/215513264153571329
More from The Heritage Foundation:
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.
In a desperate attempt to prevent the contempt vote in the last few hours, Holder asked President Obama to invoke executive privilege to shield these 1,300 pages of documents from Congress, and the President apparently agreed to do so. Yet that is not the end of the story. Even if properly involved, the Supreme Court has made clear that executive privilege is not absolute. DOJ must provide an explanation why all those documents fit one of the recognized categories of executive privilege. It is questionable whether they all are legitimately subject to executive privilege, for several reasons.
Read the whole thing. Again, in the cases of Holder, Obama and Operation Fast and Furious, could it be the crime and the cover-up?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member