Quote:
But Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, said the documents likely "won't be protected."
He pointed to the case involving his group -- the one from 2004 -- and said the court decision conflicts with the Obama administration's current claims.
As in the current case, the 2004 case involved an attempt by the White House to lock down Justice Department documents. That case, however, involved a different type of executive privilege claim -- the Bush White House was trying to invoke the "presidential communications privilege" over documents pertaining to pardons issued under the Clinton administration. The court ruled that the claim didn't work, because the documents in question never made their way to the president's office.
The court opened the door for the Bush administration to consider invoking the "deliberative process privilege" instead -- which it did.
That is the precise category of "privilege" that Obama and Holder are now invoking to withhold Fast and Furious documents.
Notice the difference between the first two sentences and the rest? The first is simply an unsubstantiated declaration of the type you keep throwing around, the second is called reasoned logical argument, and that's what I'm looking for.
