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 He has since withdrawn those statements.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]

I'm so glad that Republicans have finally agreed that giving guns to bad people is a bad thing. I await with bated breath their dropping Oliver North like a hot potato.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Americans mostly don't care about violence in Mexico. Unless it spills over.

A-G's mostly seem to be rotten bastards, regardless of gender or party affiliation. Why, I don't know.

I can see however, why the Obama administration would want to thwart a Republican investigation by using Executive Privilege just like pretty much every President before him did in similar situations.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

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.

No, they're admitting that the documents requested would've revealed advisory opinions and recommendations. Not about whether F&F was policy, but about the policy decisions relating to F&F once it was revealed. AG Holder's exact words (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/123092707/AG-letter#): "They [the subpoenaed documents] were not generated in the conduct of Fast and Furious. Instead, they were created after the investigative tactics at issue in that operation had terminated and in the course of the Department's deliberative process concerning how to respond to congressional and related media inquiries into their operation."

My bet, btw, is on #2. No court in the world wants to stick its nose in here, and Obama is banking on that. Most transparent president my ass.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

how about that it's a continuation of a Bush Administration Policy?

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

If Obama's CDC decides to not treat blacks with syphilis, who is in the wrong? Continuation of past policy!!!

bTW, that Bush era program was canned as a failure by Bush officials.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Holder has withdrawn that argument from his defense.

...and even if he hadn't at least Operation Wide Reciever was done in cooperation with Mexican authorities, included GPS tracking devices on the guns, and actually resulted in arrests.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Ok. You stay over there. I'll be over here, in Reasonable Town.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

ok. that doesn't change my response.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Politicians lack principals and water is wet.

Are you saying thet congress should simply allow him to walk? would you be making the same argument if Holder was a Republican?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So because the policy began under Bush you're ok with it?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Eh, it's Whitewater, Vince Foster and Paula Jones all over again. Republicans WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT!

[dwer.livejournal.com]

No, that would not be the reason why I might be ok with it.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Ok so explain it to me.

If Holder did in fact sign off on shipping guns to Mexico without the mexican government's knowledge why defend him.

[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?

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

If the U.S is handing guns to drug cartels then it gives me just one more reason to be against this whole War on Drugs.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

That's not the question I was answering.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

party membership.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Little to none.

Are you arguing that Holder is a hero?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Agreed

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Except here we have a Justice Department that hands guns directly to criminals. Might as well say "Eh, it's Iran-Contra all over again."

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

No.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, I forgot about that one.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, technically speaking, given what a big hero Oliver North is to a not insignificant number of Republicans, what is the difference between selling guns to Islamists in the middle of a war we're already arming the other side on and selling guns to cartels to push drugs we've already outlawed? Reagan did that to pay his precious nun-rapers who were the moral equivalent of our founding fathers when that was already explicitly illegal by act of Congress. Illegal acts are illegal, the reaction to the two, OTOH, is not at all equal, implying the issue really isn't the people who were killed by the guns, but rather that it's a Democratic instead of GOP Administration sending said guns.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

You just love you some tu quoque, don't you?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

With quite a few key differences. And as far as I remember, Reagan wasn't impeached and tried in the Senate.