Eric Holder’s DOJ is suing Texas over it’s common sense Voter I.D. law. Claims Texas Governor has no right to assert Executive Privilege.
By Gary P Jackson
With President Barack Obama claiming “executive privilege” over thousands of documents that would prove him and his Attorney General Eric Holder complicit in mass murder, it’s interesting to look at what the same Attorney General, who was just held in both civil and criminal contempt of Congress, had to say about Texas Governor Rick Perry back in April and May.
Hans von Spakovsky at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government notes:
As if the DOJ stonewalling of Congress is not bad enough, however, Eric Holder apparently does not believe that executive privilege is either “fundamental,” as he put it, or even legitimate to the operation of state governments. His Justice Department is in litigation with the Lone Star State over its new voter ID law. After the Justice Department objected to this common-sense election reform on the erroneous claim that it is discriminatory and violates Section 5 of the Voting Rights Acts, Texas filed suit in federal district court in the District of Columbia.
Trial is set to begin on July 9. The parties have been waging a discovery battle as the Justice Department has sought to take the depositions of state officials and to obtain voluminous amounts of privileged documents.
In fact, the Justice Department filed motions in April and May to compel Texas to produce those documents. In one motion filed on April 25, DOJ argued that there was no “deliberative process privilege over documents in the possession, custody, or control of the Office of the Governor.” The Texas governor has a potentially stronger claim of privilege than even the one asserted by President Obama, because Obama is shielding DOJ documents and agency deliberations that do not involve his own White House communications and his own personal decisions. In other words, the very type of stronger executive privilege that would protect presidential communications is, according to Eric Holder, non-existent when it comes to the chief executive of Texas.
In that same motion, Holder asserts that there is no privilege protecting “communications between a legislator and a state agency, as well as to purely internal documents produced by a state agency after communications with a legislator.” Yet in the Fast and Furious investigation, Holder has asserted that executive privilege covers his department’s communications and “purely internal documents.” Compare DOJ’s claim in the Texas case to the statement of White House spokesman Eric Schultz who said that the “Courts have routinely considered deliberative process privilege claims and affirmed the right of the executive branch to invoke the privilege even when White House documents are not involved.”
DOJ also argued that there is no legislative privilege shielding communications between and by state legislators similar to the “Speech or Debate Clause” that protects congressional representatives under the Constitution. DOJ tried to convince the court that even if there was such a privilege, it should “yield to the important federal interest in enforcing the Voting Rights Act” and should be “abrogated” because of the supposedly “extraordinary procedural irregularities associated” with the passage of the voter ID law.
The other interesting fact in this litigation that again shows up the Holder Justice Department, as well as the White House, is that Texas produced a detailed privilege log that describes the documents the state is withholding, as is required in any dispute over privileged documents. Justice argued in its motion to compel that “the privilege log [produced by Texas] is insufficient to determine the propriety of the assertion of privilege over some documents.”
Yet the Obama administration has produced no such privilege log or list whatsoever of the documents it claims are shielded from disclosure. The whole purpose of such a log is to make sure each document has been thoroughly reviewed by the party claiming the privilege so that no broad, sweeping claim is made without an individual review. And as Justice argues in the Texas case, it gives that other party the ability to contest the attachment of the privilege to specific documents that the party does not believe should be shielded. But the Holder Justice Department and the White House have not complied with this requirement.
Read more here.
We have a lawless President and a lawless Attorney General, who runs a lawless Department of Justice.
In Obama’s America the Rule of Law does not apply to him, or any of his henchmen and cronies. It’s completely out of control and never ending.
Obama and Holder use the Justice Department to attack those who oppose their radical agenda, shield their friends [and themselves], and generally oppress the will of the American people.
We must not only defeat Obama, and every single democrat running for every single office in the land, we must demand criminal indictments, and convictions, for Obama, Holder, and everyone else involved in the criminal enterprise known as the Obama regime.
Obama and Holder facilitated the mass murder of hundreds of Mexicans and the capital murder of border agent Brian Terry. [and possibly other federal agents]
Justice will be denied until these people are held accountable.