A subpoena is a legal document. That will be the starting point of the legal case, as far as the courts are concerned.

In the subpoenas, Issa seeks release of deliberative documents, which are normally privileged. His reasoning for doing so was that he wanted to know whether the department's initial denial in a Feb. 4, 2011, letter to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, was part of a broader effort to obstruct a congressional investigation.

To overcome the p[rivilege of deliberative comments, Issa has to show that they were essential to the case, and that the information contained in them could not be gained by due diligence elsewhere.

Enter the compromise, and Holder's offer of additional documents. Had those documents shown, as Holder claimed, that the administration's initial denial was NOT part of some grander conspiracy, then the deliberative documents would not have been necessary, and privilege could have been upheld.

So the question becomes whether Issa could have gained the information by due diligence. If the administration releases those documents, and that is in fact what they show, then privilege will be upheld.

But by forcing the administrations hand to invoke executive privilege, that privilege covers ALL documents. That's why I stated that the administration will strengthen their hand by doing so. And yes, it will even strengthen their hand in court, provided the documents answer Issa's questions regarding the department's initial denial.

"But who has been willing to compromise in this, and who has not?"

Answer: "Only one side has been uncooperative....."

I think you're confusing the terms "cooperate" and "compromise". Your definition of cooperate seems to be doing everything Issa's way. "Compromise" indicates reaching an agreement agreeable to both sides.

"Do it my way or else" is not a compromise, for either side.

Oh, but I have Mike. Consider the present course. Obama has claimed executive privilege for all documents pertaining to the case. Sometime before this goes to trial- if indeed it EVER goes to trial- I'm betting the administration releases all the documents it originally offered to Issa in a "voluntary" gesture. That strengthens Obama's hand. If Issa then pushes for a court hearing, then precedent takes over.

Of every case involving executive privilege that has come before SCOTUS in the last 38 years, only twice has SCOTUS ruled against a president: Nixon and Watergate, and Clinton and the Lewinsky affair. Every other case appearing before SCOTUS has been upheld.

Part of the reason for that is that the two sides often reach a compromise before the case gets to the Court. But for Issa, a compromise means he doesn't get all the documents he subpoenaed. The administration, otoh, comes off looking decent because they've been offering a compromise all along. Yes, I realize that a compromise works to the administration's advantage, but this is the position each side has placed themselves in.

If Issa decides to take it to the High Court, then he's working against precedent, risking losing all of the documents (if the High Court upholds executive privilege), and weakening of congress' power of subpoena- all in an election year. If he wins, he gets all the documents the administration releases (some Nixon tapes didn't appear until after his death, even thought SCOTUS ruled against him), and gains a weakening of executive privilege for whoever the next president turns out to be (and do you really think that's going to be Obama?).

So Issa now has to decide if the benefits of pursuing a case to SCOTUS outweigh the risks. With no guarantee as to the outcome, that's a tough call.

That's the reality of Issa's choices the way things are now. Now go back to my suggestion. Issa accepts all the documents the administration wants to release. He'll know almost immediately if documents such as the OCDETF application are there. If not, he prepares a damning statement of the administration hiding evidence, and takes it to the public. Done correctly, public pressure forces the administration's hand in an election year. The case stays out of every court except the one that matters- the court of public opinion. How highly does Obama (or any politico really) value public opinion?

So which path offers Issa the greatest chance of scoring the most documents? And how far in advance did I REALLY think this through?

"...and they are not the deliberative processes of the President or his advisers....."

From Oversight.House.Gov:

"Documents subpoenaed and due to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform by April 13, 2011, include:

Documents and communications relating to the genesis of Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious, and any memoranda or reports involving any changes to either program at or near the time of the release of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General report about Project Gunrunner in November 2010."

http://oversight.house.gov/release/chairman-issa-...

If the documents relate to the genesis of the project, then by definition they existed before the project, and were involved in the process of creating the programs- the very definition of deliberative process.

At any rate, Issa has escalated this to a point where it is now a matter for the courts to decide. Should it go all the way to the Supreme Court before a compromise is reached, it is important to note that only twice in the last 38 years (and possibly before that, but I'm not positive) has the Supreme Court ruled against a president's use of executive privilege: Nixon and the Watergate scandal, and Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky affair.

And yes, art of the reason that those are the only two precedents is that a compromise is usually reached. But who has been willing to compromise in this, and who has not?

I expect that at some point, the administration will release some of the material that it was going to release anyway, as a so-called "good-faith, voluntary" gesture. The reality is it will strengthen the administration's hand. And Issa will choose to accept it and back down, or he will continue to push for a Supreme Court ruling. But if he does so, he will risk weakening congressional subpoena powers in an election year.

So the odds suggest that Issa will not receive all the documents he's looking for, no matter which route he chooses. It has less to do with labels each person wears, and more to do with the legal position each has placed themselves in. I would advocate the exact same outcome if it were a Republican in the White House, and a Democratic oversight committee.

If you have a poker hand with four nines, and I'm drawing to an inside straight flush, which on of us is going to win more often? It's not impossible for me to win, to be sure, but the odds are against it.

I'm just playing the odds. If you want to label me as partisan or Democrat for that, so be it.

i simply used it because you accused me of it. "Trying to follow the administration's non-performance with silly strawmen questions about if the administration told you they gave you everything just shows your partisan colors."

But since you asked- I believe it means being committed to one's political party. Conversely, there is bi-partisan: without regard to political parties.

Since I'm registered unaffiliated, it would be pretty difficult for me to be 'partisan'. I neither have, nor want a political party. I vote for those politicians who most closely match my ideals. It might surprise you to know that I'm still on the fence regarding the choices in this election, but I'm NOT leaning towards Obama.

Nope, see I agree with you here. But there's two points I'd like to bring up:

1) The losing side always has the right to appeal, to the Supreme court if they so desire, and
2) It almost never gets that far. Usually one side or the other backs down, and the other declares victory by default.

By letting the appeals run their course, you ensure the balance of powers. But that said, my experience with the law leads me to believe that the administration has the edge in this case, legally speaking.

As to the part about deference- I got accused of the same thing back in August of '07 when Bush invoked privilege for the fourth time in about a month. but back the I was a called a Republican. Same position, different outcome. That's what I mean when I talk about the labels being subjective. My position hasn't changed. The definition has changed. I tend NOT to change my position according to other people's definitions, or according to anything else except my own personal beliefs. In so doing, I find that I dont fit into any single group- and I'm pretty darned OK with that.

Now if you want to try to compartmentalize me into some predefined group, that's your perogtive. But I think that soon, you'll find i don't really fit neatly into that category. So the definition will change- again. Subjective. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose- except that it lacks consistency.

really Chris? straw-man? partisan?

I'm much more objective than that. Simply put, I'm a fan of the legal system. It has a way of stripping all subjective labels and motives and focusing on what's legal, and what's not- What constitutional and what's not.

Issa put this issue in the realm of the legal when he threatened contempt hearings. The Obama administration took up the legal challenge and invoked executive privilege.

The next move would be for congress to rebuke executive privilege and proceed with the court hearings. That's been done. At some point, a determination will be made, and the losing side can choose to take it to the court- all the way to the Supreme Court if they so decide.

That is as it should be, and I applaud any effort to do so. But it's far more likely that at some point, one side or the other will realize that they're pressing a bad argument with taxpayer money, and they'll back down. At that point, the person who should prevail- will.

you see, I'm just as happy that congress chose to proceed with the contempt motion as I am the the administration chose to invoke executive privilege. It 's just one step closer to a final determination-an OBJECTIVE determination, of which position was correct to begin with.

Those Chris, are my partisan colors

Not at all Mike. The only 'side' that I've taken in this issue is the side of the law.

I happen to see the fallacy of stating that Obama can't choose which laws to obey- but it's OK for us to decide to ignore executive privilege.

Issa could have avoided making this a legal issue, but instead chose to threaten legal action. The Obama administration accepted the challenge, and invoked executive privilege.

the next step would be for Congress to rebuff executive privilege. Eventually, if neither side backs down, the case will go before the Court of Appeals, and then the U.S. Supreme Court.

But in every step of the way, the case will go forward (or not) because of what is or is not legal- not because of some subjective notion of what is "right" or "wrong". That argument can only go in circles, because the definitions of the terms vary among those involved.

But the legal system is objective. There is legal, and there is illegal. There is Constitutional, and there is Unconstitutional. At some point, one of the sides will realize that they are using taxpayer money to push an untenable position, and they'll likely back down.

I happen to believe that the sheer legality of the situation is on the side of the administration, and that at some point, Issa and the GOP will back away from the fight.

But only time, the court process, and case precedents will tell. That's the 'political side' that I'm on.

which is why executive privilege is always susceptible to review by Congress, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. Therein lies your balance.

Of course, caseloads being what they are, this could take awhile. There's also the consideration of pursuing a losing case with taxpayer money in an election year. But that's a viable consideration for BOTH parties.

Never said they were Chris. And we don't know for fact that they weren't in the documents that Holder offered to release.

Since Issa turned that offer down, we may never know, at least not without a long, drawn-out round of the courts. The fact is that SOME of those documents WILL qualify for privilege, and it's gonna take a long time, even after the courts are done, to determine which do, and which do not.

Until such time as the courts deem otherwise though, executive privilege applies as a blanket clause. Issa would rather play party line politics than resolve the issues. He could have come to the bargaining table, and he chose not to. I see no reason for Obama not to make him wait.