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 He has since withdrawn those statements.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]

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.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Ya, like I said, politicians are hypocrites! Old news, your forte. And besides, Dems were mad over it 4 years ago, they aren't now. Why isn't that hypocritical again? Don't answer that, it isn't important to the discussion. Much like Oliver North isn't. Unless of course Oliver North was behind F&F!!!!!!!!!!????????????? Maybe....

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Again, history is not old news (remember that I always phrase things exactly and make statements meant exactly). Oliver North is relevant because the GOP treats him as a relevant, heroic figure for doing what when Holder does it is seen as utter evil. If he was living in a broken-down trailer drunk out of his mind, you'd be correct. As his situation is the opposite.....

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure you already typed that somewhere in this comment section....

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Again, as I type things exactly, I didn't type it in *this* comment section. This one is a relatively short one where you copy-pasted the exact comment I referred to the first time. That comment was above and is one you've not yet responded to. See, this is exactly why I phrase things as I do (or at least make the effort to do so, as I'm human I never do it equally well or even necessarily well at all) so that when someone makes a comment like this it is extremely simple to say "No."

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I was referring to your comment about Oliver North. I could care less about your definitions of old news or history. It isn't important.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ah, but you didn't specify which comment you were concerned about, so I was perfectly free to mistake the one comment repeated in response to the other comment as the one you meant.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Really, we are no longer talking about anything substantial in this thread, just jabbing at each other. It really doesn't matter anyways ;).

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

We were never talking anything substantial when you said that I'd said something about a conversation point that was initiated not by me, but by you. You brought up Oliver North in this comment section, I simply noted that the GOP use of executive privilege as a catch-all goes all the way back to Nixon and Watergate.