AG Holder might be held in contempt for Fast & Furious

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
.


Why doesn't Holder just lie like he has been doing? What's he doing now makes him look guilty.




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ainst-holder-if-justice-fails-to-comply-with/

.
Issa threatens contempt proceeding against Holder if Justice fails to comply with Fast and Furious subpoenas

By William Lajeunesse

Published January 31, 2012

| FoxNews.com



The head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is threatening to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress if he fails to comply with congressional subpoenas for documents.

Holder has until Feb. 9 to comply.

In a four-page letter to Holder, Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., claims the Department of Justice has "misrepresented facts and misled Congress," which began its investigation of Operation Fast and Furious one year ago.
.

.
 
The cat is out of the bag that he lied and now he is trying to figure out what to do next without digging the hole deeper. He is guilty and is stonewalling as long as he can. He knew what was happening and did nothing to stop it. I believe this was all part of an attempt to further more restrictive firearm laws as they steadily chip away at the second amendment.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Issa and Mr. Grassley, Thank you on behalf of a thankful republic. Carry on, men.
 
When the #2 guy in Arizona took the Fifth, I wondered if he was taking the Fifth because he suspected he was going to be "thrown under the bus" as a loose cannon running an undisclosed illegal program. By keeping his mouth shut, he kept his options open by not being the easy target to hang this on.

And then early today, the Dems announce OF&F was the fault of the Arizona officials running a basically undisclosed program claiming that Grindler, Holder's chief of staff, was deceived and not fully informed (with the implication that Holder couldn't have known because it was Grindler's responsibility to tell him).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...cials-call-fast-and-furious-criticism-absurd/

Of course, the Dems appear to overlook Breur's 2/2/11 attempt to get the Mexicans involved with OF&F.

And then there is the interesting timing of the Dems making this announcement two days before Holder is supposed to testify.

And this afternoon we find out that 90% of the documents still haven't been turned over to Congress?!?!

To me it now looks like Holder is the one in a spot. If he doesn't take the Fifth before Congress and then Issa and Grassley find one substantive thing in those docs or anywhere else that contradicts Holder's testimony...

Now if the Arizona #2 pleading the Fifth has proof of something contradicting what Holder testifies to, well, I would think he might have a bargaining chip to stay out of jail.

Oh man, if this wasn't so serious, it could be the blockbuster movie of the year. This is as tense as a Grisham novel, except the stakes are real.
 
Repeat after me, "U.S. Attorney General Holder may be held in contempt by Congress, but nothing bad will happen to him so long as the current President is in office."

Now I think Holder, many of his minions in the DOJ and possibly President Obama are involved in a criminal conspiracy. But will any of them suffer any consequences? See the above mantra....
 
As much as I like the idea of Holder cited for contempt, I’m not convinced that he can be cited if he claims Executive Privilege.

Condoleezza Rice successfully rejected Rep. Harry Waxman’s [D-CA] subpoena compelling her to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on the intelligence used to build the case for the Iraq war claiming Executive Privilege. So far, there is no reason to believe that Holder cannot do likewise.

Chris
 
Simultaneously claiming executive privilege about information and claiming that no one anywhere near the executive knew the information could wind up looking a bit silly.
 
Simultaneously claiming executive privilege about information and claiming that no one anywhere near the executive knew the information could wind up looking a bit silly.

Now that's an understatment! Please Eric, please.
 
As much as I like the idea of Holder cited for contempt, I’m not convinced that he can be cited if he claims Executive Privilege.

Condoleezza Rice successfully rejected Rep. Harry Waxman’s [D-CA] subpoena compelling her to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on the intelligence used to build the case for the Iraq war claiming Executive Privilege. So far, there is no reason to believe that Holder cannot do likewise.
publius said:
Simultaneously claiming executive privilege about information and claiming that no one anywhere near the executive knew the information could wind up looking a bit silly.
We'll see if we actually got Hope and Change or More Of The Same.
 
I'm not sure executive privilege is the key issue. DoJ policy may give Holder what he needs.

But, regarding executive privilege, it might be a challenge to claim executive privilege at this stage of the game. A general claim of executive privilege is not likely to stand up to the court. A specific claim of executive privilege raises serious problems. Could Holder get the President to specifically invoke executive privilege (i.e., could Holder claim that his invocation of executive privilege was backed up by the President? Would Holder want to tie the President more directly to the OF&F scandal?)

Could Holder be cited for contempt, even with a claim of executive privilege? Absolutely! In 2007, both Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton were cited for contempt of Congress, despite the White House counsel involking a claim of executive privilege?

Could Holder try to use executive privilege to duck a Congressional subpeona? Not likely. An a high ranking official confirmed by the Congress, he does not enjoys blanket constitutional immunity from compelled congressional testimony.

HOWEVER (and here's the kicker), Holder could - and probably will - rely on a long standing DoJ policy that it never shares information with Congressional committees about open or closed criminal or civil litigation or investigations because either it would undermine the independence and effectiveness of its law enforcement mission, damaged by pretrial publicity, reveal identities of informants, disclosing government strategies, methods, and operational weaknesses, chilling the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by DoJ attorneys and, most important, interfering with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.
 
AG Holder might be held in contempt for Fast & Furious

He certainly has my contempt

Why doesn't Holder just lie like he has been doing?

My guess is the thought of actual jail time is beginning to sink in. Doubt he'd ever get thrown in the can, though. Those guys never do.

I tend to believe the notion that F&F was, at least in part, an attempt to make guns and the gun industry look bad, thereby openning the door for gun bans.
 
Here's my take:

I've been writing about this as you know for a year.
I watched the whole hearing via live stream to my office.

Here's my column...

Holder didn’t know…but somebody did; the F&F ‘main justice’ problem

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...but-somebody-did-the-f-f-main-justice-problem


If you guys missed it, I've added several links to segments that are worth watching on YouTube. You don't have to travel to Denmark to find something rotten...;)
 
My bet is that they'll get some poor redshirts to take the blame. People in power always do that. It is unlikely that Holder will face the full consequences. A much more probable outcome is that he will peg it on his immediate staff, who wil peg it on their subordinates, who will peg it on some managers, who will blame some agents, who will point fingers at their managers, and ultimately just take out a few.
 
In the Criminal Division, Department of Justice, 16 Mar 2010 there was an email exchange between Kevin Carwile and Deputy Assistent Attorney General Jasin Weinstein about Wide Receiver.

Carwile emailed Weinstein stating about Wide Receiver: “with the help of a cooperating FFL, the operation has monitored the sale of over 450 weapons since 2006.”

Weinstein: “I’m looking forward to reading the pros memo on Wide Receiver but am curious—did ATF allow the guns to walk, or did ATF learn about the volume of guns after the FFL began cooperating?”

Carwile: “My recollection is they learned afterward.”

The Wide Receiver gun dealer sold 6 AR15 lowers to a purchaser who requested 20 more. Suspicious, he contacted ATF March 2006 who told him to go ahead and make the sales, they would surveill. That was the start of Wide Receiver. So, yeah, they learned afterward, after the first 6 of the 450, so 444 sales after that were at the urging of ATF. But the DAAG was told the gun dealer had sold most of the guns before cooperating with ATF.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alsaqr
Who will enforce the contempt citation? All the cops work for Holder.
Sergeant at Arms of the House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

Not really - the procedure would be refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (currently a gent named Ron Machen) for referral to a grand jury. And, of course, these U.S. Attorneys (like Machen) report to the Attorney General (Holder).

Oh, and FWIW, Holder was himself the US Attorney for the District from 1993-1997. Sooo ... when a younger Ron Machen was looking for a position in the US Attorneys office back in the 1990s, his job interview was with then US Attorney ... Eric Holder, his future boss in the 1990s, and again today.

Small world, huh?
 
You are correct. However, given the majority's lack of faith in the DOJ, I think they might go the Sergeant at Arms route.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top