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 He has since withdrawn those statements.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

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

There's principle and there's treating one guy as a hero and the other guy as a villain for the exact same behavior. What's the difference between selling guns to the cartels and selling to the Ayatollah?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

party membership.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, I forgot about that one.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Little to none.

Are you arguing that Holder is a hero?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Ok I'm confused then.

If that is the case why is Iran-contra a reason not to nail Holder?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I never said anything of the sort. The problem you have is that you assumed my noting that Iran-Contra kills any degree to which the real issue is Americans selling guns to bad people who proceed to use them for bad things means that this is somehow not an issue in its own right. At the very least it displays an inability to process nuance, at the very most it really *does* validate my point that the real issue is a purely partisan one and the life of the people killed by this is a pure abstraction.

One bad act does not justify another, but one bad act being heralded as heroism and the other as the deepest pits of evil does tend to call into question the degree to which the actual act is the problem as opposed to how the act can be spun.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

No, not really, since one has nothing to do with the other, the fact that you accused him of having the problem, shows that it may be you that is lacking nuance. The Holder thing was presented as stand alone, you couldn't resist bringing up Ollie North (which for the record, I remember all that crap, and I'm still on the fence) as a "well the republicans do it too". Sorry my friend, but that is what it came across as.

The ironic part of the whole North thing is that the ACLU got him off of his felony charges (I confess I had to look it up, since I never really remember thinking of him as a hero, at least as far as Iran/Contra went)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That it came across as that doesn't mean it actually was that, nor does it wind up justifying the other. That it comes across as that says more about the people it comes across as that to than it does about the point in question.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I'm just saying that sometimes you aren't quite as clear as you may think you are. (ok, so you aren't as bad as I am...see what I did there :D)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I've never denied I can make mistakes and say things wrongly. If I did, the last week or so's been rubbing my face in it.