mr. mukasey wrote. the doctrine of executive privilege communications that do not implicate presidential decision making. as the supreme court has explained the privilege recognizes and he quotes, the valid need for protection of communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist in the performance of their duties. he stops his quote there. going back to mr. mukasey's comments. based on this principle the justice department under administrations of both political parties has concluded repeatly the privilege may be invoked to protect against congressional subpoenas. the claims seem similar. this administration is appare apparently not saying that it had a privilege necessarily that it's protecting but that those who are -- the high government officials being advised and assist in the performance it is that protection they're seeking. we've heard a number of claims otherwise. back when this was brought to then chairman waxman's attentioning he disagreed with it as you apparen

mr. mukasey was -- firearms interdictions. my request is to let that information be part of what's being presented to the full house so that members are aware of that. >> while i recognize and appreciate what my good friend the colleague on the other side at this point in time, i'm afraid that we may be going down a little bit of a red herring here, one more time. and i think it nids to go to the issue here, in which we have had substantial system regarding the concept of gun walking. and the thidistinction that occurred during the time that things were alleged to have happened during a previous administration and those that have happened during this administration. let me first begin by the fact thatth letter, which is now another time in which the current attorney general has made statements before the congress and then had to send a letter in which he has retracted those statements. but i think it's important in which he said that in previous -- the previous attorney general meaning michael mukasey had been misguided on ope

mr. mukasey wrote. "the document of executive privilege also encompasses delivered of communications that not implicate president decision making. as the supreme court has explained, the privilege recognizes the valid need for protection of communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." going back to mr. mukasey comments, based upon this principle, the justice department under administrations of both political parties has concluded that it may be invoked to protect against congressional subpoenas. became is pretty similar. this administration is not saying that it has a privilege to necessarily that it is protecting but that those who are protecting, those high government officials that are being advised, it is that protection they are seeking. we have heard a number of claims otherwise. back when this was brought to then chairman waxman's attention, he disagreed as you disagree today. but he did decide to delay the con

mr. mukasey or mr. holder knew what was going on.ou know, i'd like to actually step back, take a breath, work with the attorney general and get more documents, because i do support the effort to get as many documents as we need, as long as it's not asking the attorney general to violate the law. jenna: interesting. all right. we're going to talk more about that, about what additional documents potentially the justice department can hand over. congressman welch, it's nice to have you on the program. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. rick: we're going to have much more on this story when we come back after a break. we'll talk about the political ramifications, could this hurt the president? or could it hurt the republican congress? don't go away. ♪ why not make lunch more than just lunch? with two times the points on dining in restaurants, you may find yourself asking why not, a lot. chase sapphire preferred. rick: new fallout now from the fast and furious investigation, and the political ramifications. they could be huge. joinin

mr. mukasey been brought in to testify? that's why democrats i think are continuing to push this. up here. this is clearly a partisan witch hunt with a very intentional goal of going after eric holder. >> michael, is chairman issa overplaying his hand given this did start during the bush administration? >> i don't think so. i think he's playing the hand with the cards he's been dealt in terms of what he's gotten from the justice department. yes, and republicans and democrats alike acknowledge this program began under the bush administration but we're now looking at the events that occurred surrounding the last two or three years since the death of this atf agent. the reality is, let's get the facts out there -- >> no, michael, that's not what they are looking at now. what chairman issa has done and why the white house has exerted executive privilege, the initial request was for documents pertaining to what happened. he got those documents. over 7,000 pages. then there was the letter that was sent that has been discussed and the department of justice pulled that back. then issa ask

mukasey. >> thank you, mr. lungren. mr. watt is recognized. >> thank you, chairman. let me start by expressing my disappointment that some of my colleagues are spending so much time advancing the notion that we should be disqualifying people from exercising the most basic right that they have in our democracy. the right to vote. and that -- and this is the judiciary committee in which these arguments are being advanced is just disappointing to me. second, i want to applaud the justice department for some work that they're doing in my congressional district in particular. some very high-level cases, fighting drug trafficking. protecting against child predators. a bunch of money we spent on the c.o.p.s program and the most vigorous supporters of the c.o.p.s program are the most conservative sheriffs in my congressional district because they've been able to access funding to beef up their law enforcement capacities. so i won't go back to the voting rights part of this because i think i'll get too emotional about that. let me deal with the thing that's under my subcommit

mukasey. >> thanks, mr. lundgren. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start by just expressing my disappointment that some of my colleagues are spending so much time advancing the notion that we should be disqualifying people by exercising the most basic right they have in our democracy, the right to vote. and that this is the judiciary committee in which these arguments are being advanced. disappointing to me. second, i want to applaud the justice department for some work that they're doing in my congressional district in particular, some very high level cases, fighting drug trafficki trafficking, protecting against child predators, a bunch of money we spent on the talks program, and the most vigorous supporters of the c.o.p.s. program are the most conservative sheriffs in my congressional district, because they have been able to access funding to beef up their law enforcement capacity. so i won't go back to the voting rights part of this because i think i will get too emotional about that. let me deal with the thing that undermines subcommittee

november 4, february 2 requesting witnesses including the attorney general, former attorney general mukasey. mr. chaffetz: if the gentleman will yield? mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. today we need to understand that there are two types of documents that -- two classes of documents. the ones that relate to pending criminal investigations. those are not discoverable or cannot be distributed outside of the justice department under penalty of u.s. law. you can get five years for doing that. you can't expect the attorney general to turn those over. the other class of documents in terms of communications. there may be some whiff of discoverable information in those, but they're covered by executive privilege, and you really don't know why the attorney general has invoked sgreck tif privilege on those issues -- executive privilege on those issues but we have to trust the fact there is good reason for that to be the case. now, when you co

mr. chairman, welcome. >> thank you. pitcher mukasey vice chairman brady and members of the committee, i appreciate this opportunity to discuss the economic outlook in the comic policy. economic growth has continued at a moderate rate so far this year. real gdp rose at an annual rate of about 2% in the first quarter after increasing at a 3% pace in the fourth quarter of 2011. growth last quarter was supported by further gains in private domestic demand which more than offset the drug for the decline in the government spending. labor market conditions improved the latter part of 2011 and earlier this year. the unemployment rate of about one percentage point since last august and palin limit increased to under 25,000 per month on average during the first three months of this year up from about 150,000 jobs added in 2011. in april and may however the reported pace of jobs slowed to an average of 75,000 per month and the unemployment rate ticked up 8.2%. this apparent slowing in the labor market may of been exaggerated by issues related to

mukasey having actually been briefed. that's no longer accurately asserted. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'll yield. >> you know, mr. chairman brought that up earlier, so the staff went and found the actual later dated june 18, 2012 to senator grassley from applebaum, the acting assistant attorney general and what was apparently retracted was the assertion that the attorney general mukasey had been briefed on fast and furious and the correction that he had been briefed on one of the earlier programs. i ask -- >> without objection. >> that the letter and the materials related to it. >> just to clarify, the earlier program was also involving gun walking. so i stand by my statement. he was informed about the earlier program. it happened during the bush administration. it happened under michael mukasey, but we don't want to ask him about what went on at that point and we don't want to bring back ken nelson from the atf who actually led to the false information being supplied to senator grassley. that's my point. i yield back. >> i appreciate it. >> we now recognize the gentleman from ohio seeks recognition. the gentlema

mr. davis has said, is that this attorney general is the one who said that these tactics must come to an end. they weren't going to an end under mukasey. this attorney general said they must come to an end and this attorney general asked for the ig investigation. and there's something going on here that really should bother all of us and that is that we do have an attorney general who just like we did, swear to uphold the constitution of the united states. and it seems to be a presumption that when certain privileges are asserted, certain concerns are raised by the attorney general, with regard to deliberative documents, things that go on between staff, things that have traditionally been privileged, that someone has to be hiding something, that it has to be dishonest and i think we do have to respect the separation of powerings here, people are saying, what is he hiding? i don't think he's hiding a damned thing, he said this during this meeting with him yesterday. he made it clear that this was hiss watch. and that there's certain things that attorney generals protect as a part of this office. not of eric holder but this office and h

happens it began in the bush administration under mukasey and a lot of us have said, if we want to get to the truth, let's start at the beginning and mrsa refused to let us do that. >> you mentioned brian terry and i want to play a clip of his parents talking about their suggestion that this was -- there was a cover-up by eric holder in the white house. here we are. >> i think that if he did this, then i think that there's something -- there's something that they don't want us to know and something to hide. >> they are talking about the president issuing an executive order here. they wished he hadn't used executive privilege because it might raise the question about what did he know and when did he know it. does this complicate things? >> it does complicate it a bit because in fact those of us in the legislature, republicans and democrats, do want to have access to all of the information we need to come to a conclusion. i'd encourage the administration and i'd encourage darrel issa to sit down and try to work this out. the problem is when you send out a subpoena that literally -- this was a week ago friday, he changed it, it was deman