Obama team: 'Fast and Furious' documents are privileged

I recommend reading Issa's letter as it explains the situation right form the horse's mouth, so to speak, rather than relying on biased reporters telling us what Issa said or trying to spin the story in a pro-Obama way because they worship the ground he walks on.

I read it. To summarize:

Dear Mr. President,

I asked Mr. Holder for documents, and he gave me 7,600. So I asked him for more, and he refused. So I asked him again, and he said, "Ok, but only if you shut the f--- up and stop asking me for more documents." I said, "F--- no, I'm going to ask you for documents till the cows come home." And so he refused to give me any more documents.

So I asked you for the documents, and you said, "We assert Executive Privilege, so shut the f--- up and stop asking us for more documents".

So now please send me documents explaining why you won't give me documents.

Sincerely,
Darryl Assa

I read it. To summarize:

Dear Mr. President,

I asked Mr. Holder for documents, and he gave me 7,600. So I asked him for more, and he refused. So I asked him again, and he said, "Ok, but only if you shut the f--- up and stop asking me for more documents." I said, "F--- no, I'm going to ask you for documents till the cows come home." And so he refused to give me any more documents.

So I asked you for the documents, and you said, "We assert Executive Privilege, so shut the f--- up and stop asking us for more documents".

So now please send me documents explaining why you won't give me documents.

Sincerely,
Darryl Assa

If someone asks for X, you can give that person a million documents and not provide X. As long as X is never provided, the question which X is based on is never answered.

If someone asks for X, you can give that person a million documents and not provide X. As long as X is never provided, the question which X is based on is never answered.

It's a shell game: There's always another secret file. Look at the stupid Birther deal: No matter how many documents you submit, there's always going to be a secret file that Issa will want.

It's a shell game: There's always another secret file. Look at the stupid Birther deal: No matter how many documents you submit, there's always going to be a secret file that Issa will want.

That is a pretty good summary of most of the background. lol

But the real issue and point of the letter is the basis for the claim of executive privilege. In that respect, he does have a point.

They can only claim executive privilege for documents directly related to the President's decision making authored by and/or solicited from immediate staff, not extending to the deliberative process at the agencies. The administration has maintained to date that there was absolutely no involvement by the White House. In that case, there would either be (a) no basis for the claim of privilege, or (b) they were involved and mislead Congress in their earlier statements. Pick one.

On August 1, 2007, Bush invoked the privilege for the fourth time in little over a month, this time rejecting a subpoena for Karl Rove. The subpoena would have required the President's Senior Advisor to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a probe over fired federal prosecutors. In a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Fielding claimed that "Mr. Rove, as an immediate presidential advisor, is immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his tenure and that relate to his official duties in that capacity...."[14]

Leahy claimed that President Bush was not involved with the employment terminations of U.S. attorneys. Furthermore, he asserted that the president's executive privilege claims protecting Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove are illegal. The Senator demanded that Bolten, Rove, Sara Taylor, and J. Scott Jennings comply "immediately" with their subpoenas, presumably to await a further review of these matters. This development paved the way for a Senate panel vote on whether to advance the citations to the full Senate. "It is obvious that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort", Leahy concluded about these incidents.[15][16][17][18]

As of July 17, 2008, Rove is still claiming executive privilege to avoid a congressional subpoena. Rove's lawyer writes that his client is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony."[19]

To summarize:

Dear Mr. President,

I asked Mr. Holder for documents, and he gave me 7,600. Since the documents didn't tell the complete story, hell, they didn't even show who authorized the cluster f_ck, I asked him for more, and he refused. So I asked him again, and he said, "Ok, but only the documents I want to give you which doesn't really show anything as far as who was responsible, the cover ups etc. and you have to agree this will be all you ask for. When we wouldn't bow down to this insult he refused to give me any more documents.

So I asked you for the documents, and you said, "We assert Executive Privilege, so shut the f--- up and stop asking us for more documents". We will NOT give you any documents that might incriminate any of us or our friends.

So now please send me documents justifying Executive Privilege.

Sincerely,
Darryl Assa

Do you have a source for these claims?

Cause it seems both Obama and Bush admins [wikipedia.org] disagree with your assessment:

Your example is arguing exactly as I said. Rove, et. al., were direct and immediately proximate advisors to the President so the claim of executive privilege was stronger (although not necessarily beyond challenge). Also, the subpoena in that case was for their testimony directly, not for official public records of an agency.

To summarize:

...
Sincerely,
Darryl Assa

To summarize:

Dear Mr. President,

[LETTER FULL OF HORSE MANURE].

Sincerely,
Darryl Assa