The following two pieces of reporting from two different sources are shared here to try and shed some light on the implications of Fast And Furious and what Obama's use of executive privaledge in this case could point to.
First I will share with you an opinion by writer John Hindbreaker on powerlineblog.com where he makes the case for Obama as Nixon. He writes "There is such a thing as executive privilege. It has been recognized and defined in a number of cases in the federal courts. Under circumstances where it applies, there is nothing wrong with asserting the privilege. But where the privilege does not, in fact, apply–which is the case with respect to the Fast and Furious documents now under subpoena, as I wrote here–its assertion can only be part of a cover-up. Thus the Obama administration has entered into the world of Richard Nixon. Obama and his minions will spend the next five months furiously trying to prevent the voters from learning the truth about Fast and Furious because, whatever is in those documents, it is worse than the controversy that now will dog them until November."
Then there is commentary by PJTV's Bill Whittle where he draws some pretty clear similarities between FAST AND FURIOUS and The WATERGATE break-in and ponders the reasoning behind the President's use of executive privileged to block the release of supoenaed documents that U.S. Attorney general Eric Holder refused to give to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee which consequently voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt over his decision to withhold said documents related to the “gun walking” operation – documents that President Obama tried to keep secret by invoking executive privilege.
Here Bill Whittle takes a hard look aat this development and attempts to answer the question "why would the President insert himself into this with Executive Privileged as his shield?
And finally I will close with two final views over the latest developments with regards to FAST and FURIOUS. One by Patrik Jonsson of csmonitor.com where he wrote :
But the “worse than Watergate” internet rumblings aside, last week’s Oversight Committee vote – which fell along partisan lines – to recommend Holder for a House vote on contempt and President Obama’s decision on the same day to invoke executive privilege to keep related documents secret did enliven debate about what’s really at stake with the investigation. To wit, whether the documents Congress wants and that the Administration won’t release may be able to confirm or put to rest suspicions that not just Holder, but Obama, had a policy hand in Fast and Furious.
And from usnews.com Teresa Welsh wrote:
Holder has declined to release the subpoenaed documents for the congressional hearing stating in a letter to the President asking for assistance "I am very concerned that the compelled production to Congress of internal Executive Branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning its response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries would have significant and damaging consequences."
The Department of Justice has turned over between 7,000 and 8,000 documents, but the congressional committee wants access to others they have declined to provide.
This is President Obama's first use of executive privilege, despite having previously criticized his predecessor George W. Bush for using the power, saying Bush had a tendency "to hide behind executive privilege every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place." All of the past 10 presidents have invoked executive privilege, with George W. Bush using it six times and Bill Clinton using it 14.
So the question remains (unanswered by most liberals) Was Obama right to exert executive privilege in the "Fast and Furious" Eric Holder contempt case? And if so, why?