A Contempt Vote For Holder
The media have shown surprising resistance to the Fast & Furious scandal. So their readers and viewers may be surprised if the House Oversight and Government holds Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. The House panel may do just that on Wednesday morning, after wrangling since last year over documents related to the scandal.
And if they do get a contempt vote, what will the media and other defenders of the Obama administration do? Will they attempt to justify his refusal to turn over 1300 pages of documents that might explain just what in tarnation was going on with the Fast & Furious scandal? For months, their answers have ranged from obfuscatory to non-sensical. Congress has attempted to determine who authorized and managed the gunwalking operation.
Congress wants to know who prepared a February 4, 2011 letter where the Obama administration claimed that the U.S. did not knowingly help smuggle guns to Mexico (so-called “gun walking”), including the gun used to kill US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
The Obama administration admits the letter was in error, but they have always maintained that the knowledge of these tactics did not reach the top political appointees in the Obama Department of Justice.
After a year-and-a-half, the dam broke when a mole in the Justice Department gave the House Oversight committee a set of wiretap applications proving that high department officials knew about the administration's efforts to aid the gun smuggling. The leaked documents destroyed much of Attorney General Eric Holder's credibility since he had claimed that they were not relevant to the case and refused to release them.
Holder's former spokesman retorts that Republican members of Congress don't really care about a gunwalking scandal that killed a U.S. Border Patrol agent but are actually just upset about Holder's Justice Department meddling with cases involving voting rights, changing marriage law and immigration issues. Hey, thanks for the reminder, spokesman!It's a shame that Holder wouldn't turn over documents to Congress and is otherwise so resistant to transparency in government. While Holder's entire m.o. has been to do things to help his boss, I don't think a contempt vote will help President Obama.And yet I like to game out how people will respond. So how will Obama defenders defend Holder? And how should defenders of transparent government stay focused on the message?
- Comment (40)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
DocJay, this is not a cover up but "indecent exposure". :-)
Sep '10
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
I am of mixed feelings here, but is in the long run this is bad for the government. The executive branch needs to run itself without undue, partisan interference from the Congress. This should have been true during the Bush administration (and others). Like other government investigations, it is rarely about what embarrassing and bad thing happened, but rather about whether the administration was covering up. Scooter Libby was not the Plame leaker, but got caught in a mistatement of facts only marginally germaine to the case that brought horrendous consequences on him. Similarly, Holder and the DOJ is not "on trial" for being imcompetent or getting an agent killed, but rather for not being forthcoming. If and when the DOJ comes forth with who within the DOJ was responsible then we will have the scalp to get. Unfortunately this tactic of Congress embarassing the opposition administration for stupid mistakes (which thankfully are not illegal or we would all be in jail) will be used again and again on both sides and I predict the power of congress to investigate the executive will end up being hurt rather than helped.
Mar '11
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
Executive Privilege is supposed to be reserved for the communications and deliberations of the President/Vice President and their immediate advisers. By invoking executive privilege there is a de facto admission that the White House was involved.
Further Executive Privilege is not available in criminal matters. This issue involves the death of a Federal Agent and multiple Mexican civilians. This is not something that should be covered under Executive Privilege.
Jul '11
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
Ross Conaster, someone cooked up an operation to end run the second amendment. I don't care if we use a blow torch to get answers. Who ordered this? Who knew and when?
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
I'm not opposed to invoking executive privilege but disagree with this statement completely.
Oversight is at least as important a function of Congress as legislation. And it's impossible to do proper oversight when the executive branch is hiding information.
Do Republicans realize that the death of a border patrol agent because of an idiotic government program is bad news for Obama? Of course. Are they grandstanding? No doubt.
But I'm fine with people using partisan rancor as motivation for proper oversight -- whether it's against Obama, Bush or others.
Mar '11
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
This case is not simply a stupid mistake or a political issue. You move beyond that when you help get a Federal Agent killed.
Once something like this happens you come clean. Explain what happened and why. Then you may get some benefit of the doubt. With people being murdered as a result of a government policy this is a bad situation. The cover up does not help
Mar '11
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
As long as the Congress has the power of the purse they will have the power to investigate executive actions. Tell us where are money is going and why or you get no money.
May '12
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
My sense is that Issa is fishing for evidence of the cover up, not trying to get details about the operation. He is looking for documents of communications from February 2011 and later. This is a period after Fast and Furious was shut down. Issa wants evidence that there was a CYA and cover up effort going on, he's not trying to find out who knew what and when.
Jul '11
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
Holder knows who ordered and when. Holder has covered this up. Why?
May '12
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
I have no problem believing that Holder covered up and perjured himself about who in his department knew and approved of the operation. I'm merely pointing out that the documents which constitute the contempt charge aren't about establishing that the AG knew about and approved the operation. The documents covered by the contempt charge are meant to investigate whether the AG was deliberately acting to impede Issa's investigation. That is to say, the contempt charge has nothing to do with finding out the truth about who is responsible for the murdered agent's death, it has to do with finding out whether the AG is part of a cover up. Perhaps it's splitting hairs, but it matters to me because I'm willing to forgive the DoJ, or at least Holder, for approving a poorly designed sting operation. I would not forgive the cover up, however.
Edited on June 20, 2012 at 6:47pmJun '10
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
How do you know what they contain? They may contain a recap and timeline of the whole operation. They may contain the Fast and Furious Rosetta Stone. The committee doesn't know until they see them. If nothing else, they're very likely to show intent to commit perjury.
Jul '11
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
Cylon, the issues are intertwined. While the coverup is unforgivable and can be prosecuted there are also millions of gun nuts who want to know who ordered the end run and whether Obama approved of it(there is some circumstantial evidence that he did) . Holder's opinions on weapons are well known which makes him a prime suspect as the shot caller.
May '12
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
Mel Foil
How do you know what they contain? They may contain a recap and timeline of the whole operation. They may contain the Fast and Furious Rosetta Stone. The committee doesn't know until they see them.
That's what makes it a fishing expedition. Now, I think there is justification to go fishing based on the fact that the DoJ has already shown itself to be untrustworthy or unreliable in this matter, but it is still fishing.
That is the point I'm making. This part of the investigation is likely geared toward proving an intent to mislead or impede the investigation.
May '12
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
Shannon Coffin at The Corner has a thoughtful take on the reasonableness of Obama invoking executive privilege in this instance. She points out that he may have some grounds for doing so.
Jan '11
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
Well, if the news reports are true
... let us pause a moment before proceeding after that disclaimer ...
then we already know what the subpoena is about.
It isn't a fishing expedition. Congress definitively knows that someone at the Justice Department or in the Obama Administration was deliberately lying to the Committee. The questions are who, and why.
Jul '11
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
When my kids mess up I ask them to tell me what happened and they know there will be some non-physical punishment coming. They also know if they lie I will hurt them physically.
I only wish this were as simple. The question is why has Obama done this. Either he is protecting his crooked firewall or he has something to hide himself regarding his own lies. The article you reference tells us what is next.
"What’s next? A House Government Reform Committee vote, followed by a full House vote, then a referral to the U.S. attorney, who will decline to prosecute contempt because of the privilege invocation (or the House may simply bypass that step, given its frivolousness). Failing a criminal prosecution for contempt, if Issa and company remain resolute, a House civil suit to enforce the subpoena will follow, as happened in the Rove/Miers contempt situation."
Sep '10
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Oversight is at least as important a function of Congress as legislation. And it's impossible to do proper oversight when the executive branch is hiding information.
RC: Like I said this is a tough one, but unless it is illegal to gun-walk what is the alleged wrong-doing? They obviously made a bad decision. The history of our country is full of much worse decisions (certainly not exclusively worse) that did not get any attention. As I see it this is just fishing.
Do Republicans realize that the death of a border patrol agent because of an idiotic government program is bad news for Obama? Of course. Are they grandstanding? No doubt.
RC: I want to hold the congress and the executive to a higher standard than using their offices for partisan politics. I realize that is not the standard. I don't have a solution, it is done on both sides. I think it is not productive and will be less and less so as it goes on.
Sep '10
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
Jager
This case is not simply a stupid mistake or a political issue. You move beyond that when you help get a Federal Agent killed.
Once something like this happens you come clean. Explain what happened and why. Then you may get some benefit of the doubt. With people being murdered as a result of a government policy this is a bad situation. The cover up does not help · 4 hours ago
Inherent in the first argument is the idea that it is the gun the killed the agent. I don't think you can say with any probability that if not for that particular gun, no murder would have taken place. That is the argument for gun control.
I suspect but, do not know, that the DOJ has numerous operations that endanger lives. I don't understand this gunwalking operation, I wish they would come clean.
I agree with your second argument, the DOJ should come clean and be transparent in this issue. My earlier point was that the more partisan the motivation the more stonewalling we are likely to get.
Dec '10
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
When we tally up the damage, we should remember the hundreds of victims in Mexico, including the murder of the brother of Mexico's Attorney General.
Meanwhile, those that have followed this have heard many insinuations that it is not that the committee doesn't have all of the pertinent documents, but that they have not received them from the DOJ. They have apparently received documents from someone, that they know are amongst those the DOJ is withholding. Seemingly, the copies they have don't count as evidence until they are provided by the DOJ.
Edited on June 20, 2012 at 11:50pmMar '11
Re: A Contempt Vote For Holder
KC Mulville: We're in Nixon-territory ... at least on the government side. There is no Woodstein on the media side, so it won't seem to be such a big deal.
Makes you wonder how Watergate became Watergate; the government's stalling and incompetence is about the same, but without the media, there's no Watergate here. So how much of Watergate was Nixon, and how much of it was the media? · 7 hours ago
Woodward and Bernstein were media assassins and Mark Felt (Deep Throat) was solely motivated by a personal resentment against Nixon for promoting L. Patrick Gray when he thought he should have got the job.
The Watergate burglary was an amateurish bit of electoral shenanigans that was unremarkable except for the media beat-up it received. The cover-up was a gross error due to paranoia but, as they say, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
As a "sting" operation Fast and Furious made no sense. More evidence against the Mexican drug cartels was hardly needed. The only reason that makes sense was to manufacture a crisis that would not have been wasted.