Contempt Vote Tomorrow

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Last week the Congressional Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted 23 to 17 (down party lines) to hold to hold US Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress for attempting to Obstruct thier ivestigation into the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry who was killed by a rifle registered to the US Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).

It has since been revealed that BATFE Agents along the Arizona/Mexico Border had been providing weapons to the Signolla Drug Cartel. I posted about the story when initially broke here.

Holder initially denied any knowledge of of the policy, and later defended it as simply the continuation of a Bush-era program called "Operation Wide Reciever". He has since withdrawn those statements. Holder has not yet been formally held in contempt of Congress. The full House still needs to approve the resolution in order for that to happen. But President Obama has elected to support Holder by asserting executive privilege over the documents subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee.

This raises some interesting questions...

Actual lawyers feel free to corrct me, but as I understand it executive privilege allows the president to withhold documents and other materials that would reveal advisory opinions and recommendations by which governmental policies are formulated. By invoking executive privilege Obama and Holder are essentially admitting that "allowing" guns into Mexico was a policy descision.

Cynics have theorized that this was an effort to justify increased Gun-Control and Federal intervention in southern states. Others see it as simply stupidity and negligence. But what the question I find truly fascinating is "Why has the Obama adminisration chosen to make a stand here?"

I've been expecting Holder to get the boot for a couple of years now but it still hasn't happened. Historically Obama has been willing to sever ties with people who's association has become a liability. Holder is becoming a massive target for the Right and seems to rate an indifferent shrug from the left, so why protect him?

I have a few theories which (in order of increasing cynicism) are...

1: Holder and Obama are friends and Obama is genuinely prepared to risk his own reputation to protect him.

2: Obama doesn't think the charges will stick and sees this as an opprotunity to fuck over a Republican-lead investigation.

3: In relation to #3 Obama and Holder have bought into thier own hype and actually believe that nobody cares about violence in Mexico, they just hate black people.

4: The subpoenaed documents include information that could implicate Obama in wrong doing.

5: Holder has dirt on Obama and is blackmailing him.

Anyone else have any ideas?

Comments

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So which is more important, Result or Intent?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Sigh, wow. This icon really is appropriate. What I'm saying is perfectly elementary, and has nothing to do with Dems or GOP. And (here's where it starts): only those inclined to see people out to get them who don't exist, arguing things never said, making points never made, in a discussion that never happened think otherwise. I have repeatedly stated I think F & F is a bad thing, but that it's another transparent example of selective morality. It's a very simple concept, but to some people it's like doing the oral version of the Illiad scenes where Achilles drags Hector around in the original Classical Greek wearing cheap Hoplite armor replicas.

That you see "it's not the evil that led to people dying, but that this is merely a tool" as meaning "Democrats shouldn't be prosecuted" is at the very *least* a strawman, at the worst it's a pattern of either illiteracy or deliberate lies based on something never said invented for the purpose of pure self-congratulation.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

True enough, and I'm not even saying that Holder SHOULDN'T be found in contempt. There are rules, and once it was on his plate (whatever his responsibilities before that point) he's supposed to follow them. And certainly, the whole mess gives the lie to this being "the most transparent administration", but we've already figured that out.

I still can't get behind this idea that somehow this makes Obama (or even Holder, really) responsibile for Mexican mass murder, and I can't buy into the conspiracy angles. Doesn't mean I like Holder. I think the guy's dropped the ball all over the place, and frankly he should have fallen on his metaphorical sword months ago.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

I love Rome. For all the problems here in Europe, and in particular here in Italy, I wish I had moved here 15 years ago. However, the Vatican gave me the everloving creeps -- like being in the presence of some supernatural evil or something, and I don't even believe in any of that shit.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

What spinning or deflecting? I'm not disagreeing that F & F is evil or even that Holder should be prosecuted. I think if it is a prosecution we should string up the people who originally came up with the idea, not just those who implemented it. But evidently this amounts to excusing murder on the part of some who if this was President McCain and this happened would see the Democrats inventing a non-issue and hey, it was only Mexicans anyhow. It would be the people who are here saying it's a non-issue claiming it's an egregious act of war against Mexico, and the people who see this as the worst act of Attorney General Malfeasance since Watergate claiming that it's really nothing at all, only a bunch of thugs who sold drugs died, and who gives a fuck about them? Sure, an ATF agent died, but it's the risk they take.

I guarantee you that this is what will happen if something like this happens under Romney.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

the person who said this was in fact a Democrat

Indeed. I was intentionally finding a perverse humor in Rahm's statement of a universal political truism that was taken as the most heinous admission of guilt by the Republicans... who then continued to go about living right up to that same truism on a daily basis.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Either you can't read what I'm saying, or you're simply lying about what I've said. I've never disputed that this is a bad thing. I've never disputed that the people responsible should be prosecuted. I've never said this wasn't an idiot damn fool idea. What I am saying is that this is not the real issue, it's a purely motivated act of spin. Just like how Valerie Plame was a major issue under GWB, but Bradley Manning is not under Obama. Even when the same acts, politically motivated leaks, lead to the same pattern: disproportionate retribution. But by no means allow a little reality to intrude into the fantasies of the elaborate persecution cabal.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

What I see is excuse-making. Let's cut to the chase:

Do you support the prosecution of Holder, and if implicated, Obama, for the F&F program and subsequent coverup or not? Yes or no?

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Old news is underlankers forte. Have you not been paying attention?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It depends on the situation, as unintended consequences are here. In this case, results do matter somewhat more, and Holder is at the very least one of the most incompetent people and tone-deaf people to hold the office of Attorney General in some time. But at least this isn't seeing the kind of idiocy that showed up in the Elian Gonzalez case.

[404.livejournal.com]

The coverup of F&F lays at the feet of Holder and the president. They should be held accountable for it. Everything is obfuscation and bullshit to try to deflect. If the DOJ wants to drag Bush and Co. to testify and be held accountable for starting it, go for it.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Quoting myself above; The problem with this is that when the concept begins under Bush but blows up under Obama, the problem is that the concept was flawed from the get-go. If Holder is held accountable, so should Bush's last attorney general and the Bush Administration morons that came up with this idea to start with also be strung up by their Buster Browns, unless a government operation going bad in a lethal way is somehow worse under a Democrat than a Republican.

So the answer is yes, with the caveat that the prosecution be motivated by justice, not by politics. Precisely what I don't expect from the BJ in the Oval Office is the pits of evil crowd.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Just like how 9/11 was held to be Bill Clinton's fault by George Bush by virtue of giving Bush an unclear warning? Spare me the crocodile tears.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Why yes, it's totally irrelevant as far as the GOP's concerned if it's going to pull another Clinton and engage in a purely political distortion of justice hiding behind a legal veil. I mean it's not like Republicans have either the maturity or the memory to remember what they did five minutes ago, what with their whining, crying, and appealing to every bad act done by Democrats to make their own justifiable.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

So, history isn't your forte?

[404.livejournal.com]

Sigh... whatever. Just keep deflecting and trying to change the subject to think you have won. I'm done.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I want to visit, but I hate flying, Scares the hell out of me. And I'm claustrophobic in planes, although I heard in trans-Atlantic flights, they use bigger jets, so less...boxed in.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because when I repeatedly state something and you ignore every single instance of it you're in any position whatsoever to lie about bad faith in an argument. Again, spare me hypocritical crocodile tears when I have answered every single one of your questions to get answers a mile wide and an inch deep.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

History is, but old news is not. Old news would be contemporary information, history is not old by definition.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

who, exactly, is defending what Holder did? Please be specific.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I've been trying to figure this stuff out, and frankly I don't know whats going on in Eric Holder's head. Right now, the contempt vote is based on the fact Holder refuses to hand over subpoenaed documents. In fact, I remember something very similar to this during the Bush administration. House Dems voted Miers and Bolton in contempt last year after Bush declared executive privilege. They don't seem to mind contempt of congress nowadays though. I wonder why? Maybe we all should focus less on something that happened 25 years ago, and more on something that happened 4 years ago when we scream hypocrites! Personally, I think its just common politics, which hypocrisy is pretty much part of the job description.

Anyways, on a more important note, I don't think Obama's executive privilege claim will not hold up in court if it is challenged, as there have been previous court rulings that state that executive privilege cannot be claimed in order to cover up wrong doing.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, and guess which party generally has been the one to make the claims? The ones challenging this now and almost guaranteed to use it at least once an administration to cover up a scandal inexcusably stupid in itself.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

No, that's apparently our guys.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Don't let facts get in the way of a bad analogy.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Wait, how did you recognize yourself in that description?