VAN SUSTEREN: Have you spoken to Speaker Boehner to find out when that vote will be? I mean, is he willing to put it on the floor for a vote?
ISSA: Well, before I even left the hearing room, Speaker Boehner had announced the vote would be next week. I haven't met with staff because, quite frankly, I got pretty busy, including meeting with my staff so that we could prepare for that because we've got a lot of work to do.
As you know, the president asserted in the executive order. We prepared and amended our resolution, so that will be -- that has been changed. But we want to make sure that it's accurate when we go to the floor, and if there's any further amendments, we will do that.
VAN SUSTEREN: It seems to me that there -- in asserting the executive privilege, it's done for one of two reasons. One is, you know, a good faith believe that it's important to assert, that the facts warrant it, and it's important to preserve the sanctity of the executive branch.
The other -- the other option is something more sinister, that someone's trying to hide something, prevent something from going forward. Which is it in this instance, do you think?
ISSA: Well, I mean, there's two prior examples. In the Harriet Miers case, the president, President Bush, asserted executive privilege as to communications back and forth between his key counsels and himself. I thin that was appropriate.
In the case -- a Republican. In the case of Richard Nixon, he asserted executive privilege and that anything the president said was legal, was legal, and so on. And of course, ultimately, everything, including correspondence that went back and forth to President Nixon -- in other words, the cover-up -- was held not to be within executive privilege.
So I think we have one case in which a president did wrong and it was wrong. We have another case in which the president...
VAN SUSTEREN: So what's the motive here? Is it -- is it because it's legitimate exercise of presidential power and it warrants -- and we a difference of opinion, but it's executive privilege, or it's a cover-up and something to obstruct?
ISSA: Well, I can tell you that Eric Holder told me just last night that -- and he's said it before -- that many of these documents he was willing to have us obtain if we agreed to settle the case would be very embarrassing, but he would do it anyway. And it's one of the areas that concerns us is -- look, we're not looking to embarrass him, but just because something's embarrassing doesn't mean it's not responsive.
VAN SUSTEREN: So which is it?
ISSA: Well, look, we think the documents are embarrassing. We think that there were months of people saying, You got to quit lying, you got to come forward with the truth. You had attorneys who knew that false testimony had been made to Congress. They were officers of the court. And they did not come forward to us.
They lobbied within Justice to come out with the truth. Ten months later, when they came out with the truth, all that deliberative activity in this case is very appropriate for us to see...
VAN SUSTEREN: So is it obstruction or legitimate?
ISSA: You know, that's -- that's a tough one, Greta. And I think the court of public opinion will decide on both of our fates on that. We think we did today what we were obligated to do. We will continue with our investigation and dozens of other investigations we're obligated to do. We'd like to see this ended because the resources we're using should be going after waste, fraud and abuse, if we could bring this to a close.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, we'll see what happens next week. Next week is a long time away, a lot of time. Anyway, congressman, thank you.
ISSA: Thanks, Greta.
VAN SUSTEREN: Nice to see you.