Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Making news Elijah Cummings now at the microphone there this is what Darrell ice is stated regarding executive privilege.
Only moments ago.
Over and over again the department has sought to protect its political appointees.
It is use this investigation by the it its investigation by the department's inspector general which has been pending.
A very long time.
As a reason not to cooperate.
We are now on the second inspector general there's been no interim report and although they say it will be forthcoming within a month.
We and the American people need answers sooner not later.
But apparently those answers.
-- today and possibly not time on no time anytime soon judge and a polyps on -- with me now.
I judge good morning view consecutive privilege now exerted signed off by the president what does this mean -- This means that this is going to -- a new level this morning bill this means that we may be on the precipice of a constitutional confrontation.
Between the executive branch the White House and the congress.
Executive privilege is defined in the leading Supreme Court case interestingly.
United States vs -- and that's Richard Nixon that's the Watergate era.
That's the efforts of the special prosecutor -- subpoenaed tapes from President Nixon.
As protecting conversations with the president himself.
Now the letter that Eric Holder wrote to the president saying please give -- executive privilege does not say because I discussed this with you Mr.
But the implication is there executive privilege protects communications with the president the human being of the president.
Not with people that work for him and the justice so let's be clear now you say this is not an acceptable subject for executive privilege correct unless the -- why would they see this.
There must be something in these documents are the must be someone who observed these documents that the attorney general is trying to keep from public view.
-- He probably doesn't want the congress and the public to know that because we know of the awful events that occurred.
As a result of the fast and furious.
But we also know that executive privilege only pertains to military diplomatic and sensitive national security matters now.
Was fighting the drug gangs at the border a sensitive national security matter.
And if so was the president of the United States of America personally involved -- making decisions as to how to conduct that fight.
If that's the case this has reached a different level and we now know why the attorney general has ferociously.
Defended these documents and refused to reveal his specific questions does the attorney general now have to show or Peru.
Why executive privilege applies here.
Well the attorney general.
Is arguing that the committee has to show why executive privilege does not apply.
The last time this happened forty years and go.
In the Nixon Watergate saga.
A federal district court judge got involved and he ruled against the president and the Supreme Court upheld his ruling.
We may be seeing this going in that direction now if there's a standoff between the president.
And the congress the attorney general and the congress the court.
The courts or resolve that stand now back to the comment you made two answers prior.
If the attorney general had a conversation about this.
ATF operation Phoenix Arizona with the president United States perhaps executive privilege apply -- here.
But what with the present -- United States have to do with its operation.
Run by the ATF allegedly Phoenix well I can only I can only speculate I have no basis for this but the president of the United States.
May have wanted to participate in decisions about defending the border between Mexico and Texas Mexico and New Mexico Mexico.
And Arizona and then -- ever on this a -- the president but bill.
If the president of the United States know about this -- attorney general holder discuss this with President Obama that would be at odds with his testimony under oath.
Given to congressman -- -- committee.
And that he'd be in a lot of hot -- he'd be in the situation that he claimed Roger Clemens was in.
When he misled the congress David striker congressman from Arizona was with market just a few moments ago right he said makes you wonder what they don't want -- Ecstasy.
Congressman's record is correct it does make you wonder what they don't want to -- they can't have it both ways if the president was not personally involved.
Executive privilege doesn't apply.
If the president was personally involved and they want to argue that that fighting drug gangs of the border is a matter of sensitive national security.
Then they at least have an argument for executive privilege but that we'll be at odds with what attorney general holder has already testified to wander out our list and don't go far we need your knowledge thank --
Filter by section