Top

Skip to Content

Skip to Main Navigation

Skip to Archives

Skip to Sub Content

Main Content

Join the Debate
Jun. 20, 2012
Driving the Conversation:

Obama executive privilege assertion legit?

And Tim Pawlenty for VP?

Close

Send to a friendObama executive privilege assertion legit?

  • Please enter your e-mail
    Invalid e-mail
  • Please enter a valid e-mail
    Invalid e-mail
Cancel
  • close
    David Mark

    David Mark Moderator :

    The Obama administration is asserting executive privilege in refusing to turn over documents to Congress related to the Fast and Furious scandal, a major escalation in a clash between the White House and Hill Republicans. A House committee voted 23-17 Wednesday to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

    Is this a legitimate use of executive privilege? Or is Holder likely hiding important information about the scandal? Has House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa been fair in pushing the contempt vote?

  • close
    Former Rep. Artur Davis

    Former Rep. Artur Davis Former congressman (Ala.) :

    Its hard to escape the suspicion that the Obama administration (campaign) is baiting a trap here: deliberately escalating a conflict with congressional Republicans to drive the narrative of Republican extremism that is so central to the reelection strategy. And Eric Holder's race, frankly, is a convenience that abets the the other favored Democratic argument of covert Republican racism.
     
    The tactic may backfire, though, because it elevates a genuine scandal that had not gotten serious traction outside conservative circles. Whether the motive is political gamesmanship or reflexive loyalty to the one cabinet officer who seems personally close to Obama, the White House has unwisely inserted itself into the indefensible muck of Fast and Furious.

  • close
    David N. Bossie

    David N. Bossie President of Citizens United :

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) began an ill-fated gunwalking program known as Operation “Fast and Furious,” which led to the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in the winter of 2010. As with any government program that has gone disastrously awry, the U.S. Congress has a duty to investigate what happened, and follow the evidence where it leads so it never happens again. The American people deserve to know the persons responsible are held accountable. That is why it is truly alarming that President Obama invoked executive privilege Wednesday on potentially damaging documents related to the case to seemingly protect Attorney General Eric Holder.   

    As the chief investigator for the House Oversight Committee during the Clinton years, I have seen this bad movie play out before. President Clinton used the executive privilege as a stall tactic to try and thwart investigations that would eventually lead to his impeachment. If the Obama administration really believed that these “Fast and Furious” documents fell under the executive privilege, then why did they wait until the last minute to invoke it? This seems like a stall tactic and political move to turn the American people against this investigation.   

    As we have seen, candidate Obama has been quite different then President Obama. Four years ago to the day, then-candidate Obama said at a press conference in relation to President Bush invoking executive privilege during the U.S attorney fiasco, “I think that nobody is above the law.” Followed by, “You know, as I recall, Richard Nixon mounted similar arguments. That's not how we operate. We're a nation of laws and not men and women. So, you know -- and my - that's a precedent I don't mind living with as president of the United States.”

    With Wednesday's actions, Obama is clearly trying to shelter his administration and the fatally flawed policies of his failed Attorney General Eric Holder. For an administration that has been leaking like a sieve on life and death national security issues, invoking “executive privilege” on ”Fast and Furious” shows they are clearly trying to hide something that will have negative impacts on Obama’s reelection campaign. President Obama should heed his words from four years ago and come clean - if not, the American people will wonder what he is hiding from them.  

  • close
    Christine Pelosi

    Christine Pelosi Attorney, author and Democratic activist :

    Having staffed both sides of the subpoena - as a lawyer in the Clinton-Gore administratiom and a chief of staff to a Government Reform Committee member, I think the tension is an unremarkable clash between two coequal branches of government.

    What is remarkable is House Republicans' refusal to accept President Obama's claim of executive privilege and their willingness to go after Eric Holder in a way they never pursued John Ashcroft - rather than voting on jobs, the highway bill, and immigration. Contrary to the racist rantings polluting this debate, America doesn't have different standards for different presidents or attorneys general depending on whether they are black or white.

  • close
    State Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.)

    State Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) :

    I believe there is one thing Janet Reno, Harriet Myers, and now Eric Holder share in common: a contempt citation from Congress. Rather than a rare rebuke, this now seems to come with the job. Accordingly, I think the general public views this sort of struggle for what it is: a partisan fight between a Republican-controlled House and a Democratic-controlled White House.

    We just marked the 40th anniversary of the Watergate break-in. One negative consequence that grew out of Watergate is the criminalization of policy disputes. Both parties have used congressional subpoena party to investigate and embarrass the White House when it is controlled by the opposite party. Both political parties have contributed to the general public's distrust of government and those who serve in it. This is highly unfortunate, as well as inaccurate as the reality is government is cleaner today than probably any point in our nation's history.
     

  • close
    Garry South

    Garry South Democratic consultant, The Garry South Group :

    Leave it the Republicans to put a former car thief - Darrell Issa - in charge of keeping the government honest. That's the Alice in Wonderland that is Republican control of the House.

  • close
    Ron Nehring

    Ron Nehring Former chairman, California Republican Party :

    I’ve known Congressman Issa for more than 15 years, since well before he was elected to Congress. He is a bright, tough and fair legislator and he’s acting well within his jurisdiction and charge to pursue the Fast and Furious scandal to its logical conclusion. Clearly something went seriously wrong with this operation, and Congress is well within its prerogatives to exercise its oversight responsibilities in this area.

    Drawing from their Saul Alinsky textbooks, the Obama administration’s handmaidens in the pundit class have been busily demonizing Congressman Issa in an attempt to delegitimize him and the constitutionally-mandated work of his committee.  Yet, those of us who know Mr. Issa have long recognized that while he can be tough, he also deliberate and thoughtful.

    The Obama Justice Department should rip the Band-Aid off this scandal and bring it to an end, rather than continue with its Nixonian instincts to drag it out as long as possible.

  • close
    Sally Kohn

    Sally Kohn Political commentator and Fox News contributor, sallykohn.com :

    Give me a break!  Yes, it's deeply unfortunate that gunwalking efforts failed and led to such tragedy. But Republicans have turned this into a full-blown witch hunt in their persistent attempt not to help America but to bring down President Obama.
     
    Of course, Republicans have had enormous success scoring political points off of manufactured scandals, so kudos to them for creativity!

  • close
    Soren Dayton

    Soren Dayton New Media Strategies :

    The fact that they have claimed executive privilege only now suggests that, regardless of whether it is legitimate or not, the White House and Holder have not been telling the truth about White House knowledge.

    The American public does not realize how damaging this is to our relationship with Mexico. Every time I talk to anyone in Mexican politics, this is the number one bilateral issue, and it has been for two years now.  
     
    Not only are Obama and Holder lying to the American people, but they are destroying one of our most critical international relationships.

  • close
    Scott Paterno

    Scott Paterno Republican strategist :

    No. This is a craven political act to keep Fast and Furious from effecting his re-election campaign. If these documents truly are subject to valid executive privilege why did it take so long for the White House to assert it?  And wasn't this going to be the "most transparent administration in history?"
     
    This is a mess for President Obama and one that now begs other questions - such as, did the president (through White House counsel) review the documents before he granted privilege? Did anyone other than DoJ? Was Obama briefed in February of 2011? Did Rahm know? And those are just the tip of the iceberg of a mess over which the president just took ownership.

  • close
    Steve Murphy

    Steve Murphy Democratic consultant; Managing Partner at Murphy Vogel Askew Reilly :

    You have to trust the administration on executive privilege, especially related to law enforcement or national security. How could anyone know without seeing the documents in question? At 15 percent approval Congress has no argument to make. It's just partisan noise.

  • close
    Carlos Sierra

    Carlos Sierra President of Sierra Public Affairs; Former Campaign Manager Buddy Roemer for President :

    I, for one, was not supportive of holding Attorney General Holder in contempt. To hold the country's top prosecutor in contempt could have severe ramifications and would only divide our country even more.

    After President Obama's decision to initiate executive privilege, I still stand by my opinion, however, I now feel the president should be held in contempt. What he is doing is wrong and he is clearly doing it to hide documents that make his administration look incompetent at best and criminal at worst. It is another political decision that puts his campaign ahead of his country. People died and laws were probably broken in what is called "Fast and Furious." Sunlight and open government are what this country is all about.

    President Obama and his administration should have admitted fault, shined light on their mistakes by releasing the requested documents to Congress, and we probably could have moved on. However, his latest decision makes it clearer that come November, it is time to hold our President in contempt by voting him out of office.

  • close
    Sandy Maisel

    Sandy Maisel Professor of government, Colby College :

    On my view this situation is one that can be added to the list that Haberman and Burns wrote about on POLITICO this morning. Small ball. I believe that the White House is wrong, both technically and politically, in asserting executive privilege. I have seen no evidence that privileged communications between the president and his attorney general or other staffers is involved. If such communication took place, the White House has the obligation to cite when and where it took place, not just issue a blanket claim.

    However, I also doubt that Holder is hiding anything other than the normal way one goes about the business of governing, which often includes political considerations and not revealing when a plan does not go as one hoped. Neither of those is malfeasance; they are the cost of doing the business of government in a democracy.

    And certainly Issa is being unfair in this matter. He is also doing so for political purposes. I believe that any contempt citation that is issued will be viewed as a cheap political stunt, just as will the White House claim of privilege. I agree with those who say that it is about time these folks all realized that this election business is serious and should not be trivialized.

  • close
    Rabbi Michael Lerner

    Rabbi Michael Lerner Editor of Tikkun magazine :

    There should be no executive privilege. The deliberations of our Congress, Supreme Court and president should always be fully open to the public so that we can understand what these people are doing and why. But until we reach that point, the Issa committee like all other such investigations of one branch by the other are highly political and should be acknowledged as such.

  • close
    David Mark

    David Mark Moderator :

    POLITICO's Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei report that Tim Pawlenty has jumped to the top of the vice presidential shortlist of several Mitt Romney advisers after emerging as the most effective — and well-liked — surrogate for the GOP nominee-to-be. "Pawlenty is strong where Romney is weak — with the regular-guy, working-man connection with voters in casual settings."
     
    Would the former Minnesota governor and 2012 presidential candidate be a good choice as Romney's understudy?

  • close
    Former Rep. Philip English

    Former Rep. Philip English Former member of Congress (R-Pa.), Co-Chair of Government Relations at Arent Fox LLP :

    Gov. Pawlenty is one of several attractive options for a Romney ticket: a Republican who has mastered the metric of appealing to moderate and blue collar voters in a traditionally Democratic Midwestern state; an experienced executive who has grappled with real world public sector budget challenges; a fire-in-the-belly campaigner who can work a plant gate or evangelical gathering;a certified Washington outsider; a guy with a great story about realizing the American Dream. A Romney-Pawlenty ticket sends a reassuring message to the voters: experience, competence, proven leadership for a time of crisis.

    At a time when every policy emerging from the White House looks like a short term political calculation, a Pawlenty selection would be credible and distance the GOP ticket from the Washington fever swamp.

  • close
    Dan Schnur

    Dan Schnur Jesse M. Unruh Institute, USC :

    Nominees will always tell you that the ability to govern is the most important quality they look for in a running mate. But there are a lot of qualified people out there: the tie-breaker is almost always what the polls are showing.

    The difference between Dick Cheney and Joe Biden on one hand, and John Edwards and Sarah Palin on the other is the difference between a presidential candidate who thinks he's going to win and a candidate who's worried that he's going to lose. Confident nominees make safe choices. When they get nervous, they take risks.

    The running mate selection process is born out of the same strategic considerations that a football coach employs in the fourth quarter. If Romney is 7-10 points behind when it's time to choose, then Chris Christie's stock begins to rise. If he's down by a couple of touchdowns, then Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal start to get more consideration. But in a close race, where a field goal either way will determine the outcome, you play it safe and run the ball. Tim Pawlenty is the type of running mate you pick when you don't want to make any mistakes with the wind at your back and the clock ticking down.

  • close
    Jamie Chandler

    Jamie Chandler Political scientist at Hunter College :

    Mitt Romney must cast Tim Pawlenty, aka T-PAW, as his under study. Social Conservatives love this “Sam’s Club Republican” and he bridges Romney’s charisma gap.

    Why not Florida Sen. Marco Rubio? Rubio is a rising star but has fuzzy investment potential. Presidential nominees pick their no. 2 based on how fast he or she can mobilize critical voting blocks. Hispanics are a hot commodity this season, but Rubio will only attract a gaggle of Latinos. They’re loyal to President Obama. Until the GOP moderates its position on immigration, they’ll stay with Team Donkey. Pawlenty wins Romney hordes of Social Conservatives. Romney-Pawlenty is their dream ticket.

    T-PAW has been the odds favorite for some time: regardless of all the brouhaha over Romney’s short list. He gets along well with the nominee, and is the national co-chair of his campaign. He’s the perfect wingman: popular, but not to the point of hogging the spotlight. Romney’s decision boils down to this: he buys the flashy, low mileage sports car or the reliable, economical sedan. My money is on the latter.

  • close
    Garry South

    Garry South Democratic consultant, The Garry South Group :

    Two boring white males - the perfect ticket for appealing to white males, who Romney will carry anyway.

  • close
    Thomas E. Mann

    Thomas E. Mann Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings :

    Who knows? Who cares? This is yet a new stage in the endless speculation on Romney's running mate. It will garner a huge amount of press attention that will do absolutely nothing to inform voters of the important stakes in the election and focus attention on a selection that will have very little if any impact on the election outcome.

  • close
    Lara Brown

    Lara Brown Political scientist, Villanova University :

    Former Gov. Pawlenty's biggest draw is that he, unlike Sen. Rob Portman, did not serve under President George W. Bush. For while Republicans are loathe to admit this fact because they like Bush personally and they appreciate all the many ways that he and members of his family have served the GOP over the decades, Bush did more damage to his party's reputation than good.

    Republicans have spent the last three-and-a-half years since Bush left office working to re-brand the GOP as the "small government, balanced budget" party. Bush's combination of massive tax cuts, increased spending on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and marked growth in both federal authority (DHS and the security state) and government programs (NCLB and prescription drug benefit) was a toxic mixture for the Republicans' libertarian wing. Disgusted and dejected, they stopped identifying with the GOP in 2005 and they largely stayed away from the polls in 2006 and 2008.

    If Republicans try to sweep these inconvenient facts under the rug, then Democrats do all they can to brightly shine the light on this history. There is no one President Obama would rather run against than George W. Bush. Not only was Obama successful doing that in 2008, but recent polling data indicates that Americans blame Bush for many of the problems we are digging out from today. Obama would be thrilled to exploit Sen. Portman's past in Bush's administration and in the Office of Management and Budget.

    One can easily imagine Obama's line of attack:

    "Portman helped Bush build this economy; you want to put him back in the Executive Branch? No! We're still trying to get out that ditch that Bush put us in. We just managed to get the tires changed. We're making progress going up the hill. But we've got a few more miles to go before we hit cruising speed. We can't afford to hand the wheel over to the reckless driver who drove us into the ditch in the first place."

    So while Pawlenty's got his own drawbacks - Minnesota is not likely to be much of a battleground state and he wasn't much of a vote-getter in the primaries for either himself before he dropped out, or for Romney when he was working as his surrogate--he doesn't carry any of the baggage associated with Bush. Further, as a former governor, Pawlenty is a Washington outsider, which helps Romney double-down on the notion that he's going to the White House to be a turn-around artist because what "works" in Washington doesn't work. Portman's weaknesses are Pawlenty's strengths. Two solid Republicans, neither a perfect match.

    While there is no way to know whom Romney will choose, odds are good that he'll pick whichever person he believes is less risky, not whichever person may be able the most help.

  • close
    Ron Faucheux

    Ron Faucheux President of Clarus Research Group, professor and author :

    When picking a vice president, the first requirement should be presidential qualifications. The second, do no harm. Pawlenty is among several potential candidates who meets both. Now, if he were only from Ohio or Florida...

  • close
    Christopher Hahn

    Christopher Hahn Democratic consultant; FOX News contributor :

    Pawlenty brings nothing to the table but is a safe choice. I believe in the end he picks Sen. Rob Portman because Ohio is so important and will be a tight race. Even a 1-point bump there could be decisive. 

  • close
    Christine Pelosi

    Christine Pelosi Attorney, author and Democratic activist :

    Why should Mitt Romney pick a "regular-guy working-man" when he can pick an outstanding woman? Tim Pawlenty is a fine pick - but Condi Rice, Susana Martinez, Kelly Ayotte or Cathy McMorris Rodgers would be better.

  • close
    Dewey Clayton

    Dewey Clayton Professor of Political Science, University of Louisville :

    I think that Tim Pawlenty provides a safe pick for Mitt Romney. After all, he is not a risky roll of the dice that Sarah Palin was as John McCain’s veep choice in 2008. On the other hand, Pawlenty was very lackluster in his failed presidential bid to win the Republican nomination.

    Another key problem, in my opinion, is a Republican ticket with two white middle-aged males. And, yes, that might help with the regular-guy, working-man connection, but Romney will get much of that vote anyway. The demographics of this country are changing, however. In 1976, only one in ten voters was not white, in 2008, the number had increased to one in four. Blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, women, and young voters are emerging as a new coalition of voters. I am not sure Pawlenty will help attract any of these emerging voters. And that may be problematic for Romney.

  • close
    John Anzalone

    John Anzalone Democratic consultant, Anzalone Liszt Research :

    Pawlenty accomplishes the "do no harm" trait that you want in a VP pick. He is well-prepared for the media onslaught and will not hesitate to take the role of hatchet man for Romney against Obama, the essential role for a VP candidate. He does have a good story, both his middle class upbringing, and his experience as governor, but again the most important part of a Pawlenty candidacy is that he will probably do no harm to a Romney candidacy and help on the margins. I still think that Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval would be a better pick because Nevada is a key swing state, he himself has a good story (former federal judge) and is Hispanic. That is a trifecta

  • close
    Janelle Ward

    Janelle Ward Assistant professor of Media and Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands :

    Pawlenty probably would have done better as a Republican candidate if it wasn't for the sparkle emanating from Michele Bachmann. When he dropped out, he endorsed Romney almost immediately, so there won't be Romney jabs or attack ads to flaunt if he's chosen.

    He may not be the most exciting candidate for vice president, but he did serve two terms as a Republican governor in Minnesota - a decidedly blue state - and this factor may be enough to convince the Republicans that he's a good omen.

  • close
    Joanne Bamberger

    Joanne Bamberger Political strategist; blogger PunditMom; Author, Mothers of Intention :

    If Romney wanted to be bold and energize the GOP, he'd choose a woman like Kelly Ayotte or Cathy McMorris Rodgers. So far, no women's names have been seriously floated as being on Romney's "short list." Could his reluctance to be outwardly considering a woman have something to do with his Mormon beliefs about the role of women and mothers in society?

    Tim Pawlenty is at the top of Mitt Romney's list for the same reason that Dan Quayle was George H.W. Bush's VP pick - he is like Romney, a white guy that Romney can be comfortable with, but who will not challenge or outshine Romney. Whether Pawlenty is qualified is irrelevant to the Romney campaign - they just need someone who won't upstage the nominee.
     

  • close
    Ford O'Connell

    Ford O'Connell Republican consultant and chairman of CivicForumPAC :

    What former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty lacks in pizzazz, he certainly makes up for in resume and intangibles. Think Biden, without the mouth.

    If your electoral strategy hinges on winning the Big 10 battleground states (Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania), maximizing the rural, blue-collar turnout while simultaneously pacifying social conservatives, then Pawlenty could be Romney’s guy.

  • close
    Aaron Mannes

    Aaron Mannes "Veep Critique" blogger :

    Tim Pawlenty is, by all accounts, a capable politician and nice guy. He might help Romney electorally, although the impact of the vice presidential selection is usually over-estimated.

    But Romney needs to seriously consider who will be his partner in governance and for all his virtues, Pawlenty does not have any Washington or national security experience. Since Romney himself also doesn't have experience in these areas this is a factor to be considered. The White House is a unique environment and under a far more intense public microscope then any governor's mansion. A President Romney will want an experienced governing partner who can provide high-level advice.

    Since 1977, vice presidents have been senators or experienced D.C.-hands. The last governors who served as vice presidents were Nelson Rockefeller (for Ford) and Spiro Agnew (for Nixon). The last (and only) time a vice president with no D.C. experience played a significant policy role as a presidential advisor was Garret Hobart as William McKinley's vice president from 1897 to 1900.

     

  • close
    Adam Bonin

    Adam Bonin Attorney and Chairman, Netroots Nation :

    It would be either deeply ironic, or wholly intentional, that the man whose principal failure in the Republican presidential primary campaign was his refusal to attack Mitt Romney during a debate for his health care plan would find himself as a frontrunner to serving as Romney’s vice president. I believe you’d have to go back a full hundred years – to Woodrow Wilson and Thomas Marshall – to find a time when Americans felt comfortable electing a presidential ticket with zero experience in the federal government, and such lack of experience is troubling in times like these.

  • close
    Theda Skocpol

    Theda Skocpol Professor of Government and Sociology, Harvard :

    Boring, boring, boring...... A man who cannot even carry his own state.

  • close
    Sandy Maisel

    Sandy Maisel Professor of government, Colby College :

    Gov. Pawlenty is clearly the safest choice for Romney, someone with whom he is comfortable and who not so charismatic as to upstage him. Okay, not charismatic at all. Since vice presidential candidates rarely help a presidential campaign and have the potential to hurt, a presidential nominee is wisest if he makes this decision with the most important criterion in mind, to choose someone who would be ready, should the unthinkable happen, to assume command and to serve as president in much the way the nominee would. Pawlenty fits that bill.

  • close
    Leif Babin

    Leif Babin U.S. Navy SEAL officer; Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Navy Reserve :

    Mitt Romney should choose a VP that can bring passion and energy to the campaign and inspiration to voters.

  • close
    Vivyan Tran

    Vivyan Tran Moderator :

    Brookings expert Henry Aaron will take your questions in a live chat about the health care law and the Supreme Court.

Comments

Sub Content

Recent Arenas

Arena Referees

Arena Players

Current and Former Elected Officials
Strategists, Scholars and Authors

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.

Frequently Asked Questions