[identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
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 He has since withdrawn those statements.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?

(no subject)

Date: 26/6/12 18:40 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 26/6/12 18:42 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com
You just love you some tu quoque, don't you?

(no subject)

Date: 26/6/12 18:45 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
Not at all. Rather, what is the precise difference between selling guns to people who use them for acts that are deemed illegal by US law? It can't be that the guns were sold, as St. Ray Gunn did that. It can't be knowing they'll be used by bad people for bad things, as Ray Gunn did that too. It can't even be selling them to Latin Americans as the ultimate goal of Reagan's sordid little scandal was to arm sides in a civil war we weren't legally supposed to be involved with. You can claim it's a legal objection, but the claim is not true for being stated, the moreso when we consider how the GOP reacted to Iran-Contra.

(no subject)

Date: 26/6/12 18:47 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com
OK. So the GOP are hypocrites. None of this excuses what Holder did in approving F&F, though. You'd agree there, right? F&F is still reprehensible?

(no subject)

Date: 26/6/12 18:50 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
Absolutely I'd agree that it's reprehensible. This does not, however, erase that the GOP is a bunch of flaming hypocrites for treating this as the worst scandal ever. Especially since *their* evil arming was of none other than the state they perennially advocate war with now. At the same time, the best that could be said for this particular concept is......naive. The worst.......

(no subject)

Date: 26/6/12 18:51 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com
OK, so they're hypocrites. Good on them for now taking the right side. Right? Or are we going to publicly flog them for stuff that happened thirty years ago some more?

(no subject)

Date: 26/6/12 18:54 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
When they treat one of the biggest perpetrators of that which was as a hero now? Damn right we'll flog them for it.

(no subject)

Date: 26/6/12 19:35 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] underlankers.livejournal.com
Or maybe the issue has nothing to do with the act, given the degree to which the exact same behavior is treated in completely incompatible fashions?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and looking for the partisan rationale behind a statement just shows that human life matters only on an ideological basis.

(no subject)

Date: 26/6/12 19:48 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

(no subject)

Date: 26/6/12 19:31 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yes-justice.livejournal.com
One can be on the right side for the wrong reason, to be sure.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M T W T F S S
   12 3 4
56 78 91011
12 13 1415 161718
19202122 232425
26 2728293031