Can somebody please explain something to me?

[Brigid]

As I understand it, AG Eric Holder is refusing to turn over the docs that the House Repugs want because it would be against the law for him to do so. So how can they hold him in contempt? What am I missing here?

[BumRushDaShow]

1. You aren't

and that is the problem with this whole circus fiasco and why it has never been done before.

IMHO, this whole thing should be stricken from the Congressional record but preserved on youtube.

[DURHAM D]

2. The "they" who held him in contempt are a-hole Republicans.

They are stupid.

that is all

[abelenkpe]

3. You aren't missing anything

They just did it because they could and because they are spiteful bullies.

[PoliticAverse]

4. You are missing that ultimately it will be up to the courts to decide the issue of legality.

'Contempt' is just a step in the legal process.

[Honeycombe8]

5. It's a difference of opinion as to whether those docs are privileged. nt

[HopeHoops]

6. That it has nothing to do with the documents.

[Art_from_Ark]

7. Why would it be against the law to let one branch of government see what another one is doing?

As much as I HATE Republican control of the House, I fail to see how the Executive Branch can withhold documents of this nature when the House is conducting a formal investigation.

[coalition_unwilling]

8. The Executive Branch can at any time assert 'executive privilege'

as a reason to withhold documents and testimony from the Legislative Branch.

Whether that assertion of executive privilege is legally justified is a whole other matter. And whether it is is politically advisable to assert the privilege is yet another separate, and perhaps even more important, question.

But I think almost all citizens would want to maintain some right of 'executive privilege' for our Executive Branch, in order to promote full and frank deliberations inside said branch.

[Art_from_Ark]

9. But then again, Nixon tried to claim "executive privilege"

And remember the hubbub with Cheney claiming "executive privilege" with his secret energy meetings? Where he was planning his energy wars, and God knows what else.

If the shoes were on the other feet, and bu$h were the one claiming executive privilege for this sort of debacle, most of us would be all over him, and for good reason.

And wasn't it bu$h who started this Fast and Furious crap in the first place?

[coalition_unwilling]

10. No argument from me re Nixon, Cheney and the dubious

justification for their respective claims of 'executive privilege.' And I think you are correct that, were positions reversed, we would be highly critical of such an assertion by a Republican executive.

That said, however, I think most citizens would still accept that there is a need for executive privilege. If a consultant cannot be confident that his or her advice will remain shielded behind the privilege, his or her advice may tend to be less frank and free and more couched in wishy-washy pablum which does not serve well policy makers and the public they ostensibly serve.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. No doubt there is a need for some degree of executive privilege

But in the cases of Nixon, Cheney and bu$h, it was certainly abused to cover up various misdeeds. And given what was involved in this case, from my perspective it doesn't look good for Holder to be taking that position. But at the same time, we've got a very partisan Daryl Issa leading the charge, the same guy who wants to destroy the Post Office and who has his own closetful of skeletons.

[dsc]

11. because grand jury documents are supposed to be kept secret

to protect people from having the reputations ruined without even being indicted.

[Tsiyu]

12. Republicans can't do anything constructive

but make enemies.

Holder is the repository for all their contempt of democracy right now. Last week it was women.

Next week? Left handers. Or kittens. Or whatever or whomever (FU)X and Rush determine is the object of next week's two-minute lemming hate.