[cotton1706]

“willing to negotiate an end to a potential constitutional confrontation”

There is no constitutional confrontation. The attorney general is not a constitutional officer. The only constitutional issue possible is a balance of powers argument, and if Holder felt that the congress didn’t have the right to the documents, he should have asked for executive privelge from the beginning.

But he wanted to be an arrogant ass and stonewall and the people through their representatives don’t have to put up with that. He clearly demonstrated contempt FOR congress, so he should be held in contempt BY congress.

Then the courts can decide the issue of executive privelege and the balance of powers. But there is no “constitutional confrontation.” This is the Constitution functioning as intended, with opposing powers flexing their muscles and then being held in check.

[jcsjcm]

"if Holder felt that the congress didn’t have the right to the documents, he should have asked for executive privelge from the beginning."

Unfortunately for him, executive privilege does not apply. The only one that can invoke executive privilege is the President and the Vice President only if the privilege pertains to correspondence between the President/VP and classified documents that they were involved with.

This is where the kicker is in all this. What did he know and when did he know it? He's protecting is own arse - and if not, he can't invoke EO period.