world

Republicans vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt

13 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

13 Comments
Login to comment

Do these guys do anything anymore other than go after each other?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What I find strange is that the anti-gun/gun control lobby isn't all over this and demanding full cooperation with the investigation. Why has a branch of government been supplying assault weapons to such groups? The stonewalling of the investigation at THE highest level even, is criminal.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There is really no real reason not to be completely open with the oversight committee. This isn't a matter of national security (although the Obama Administration has been giving out defense secrets all over the place lately).

A border agent was killed and who knows how many Mexican citizens were killed because of this ill conceived idea. Just fess up to what went wrong and learn from the mistakes that were made. It is a big deal because people were killed. However, President Obama and AG Holder didn't have direct responsibility for what went wrong. Invoking executive priviledge doesn't make much sense. What could possibly be so sensitive that it cannot be made public?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Milbank at the WaPo has a good take on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-congress-blowing-gunsmoke/2012/06/20/gJQA4eULrV_story.html?hpid=z2

He points out as evidence to support that this is simply a fishing argument rather than an attempt at the truth the fact that:

Issa never sought public testimony from people in the Phoenix ATF office who ran the operation, or from the former head of the ATF, who told committee investigators that he never informed Justice Department higher-ups of the operation because he didn’t know about it.

More importantly, the GOP's sudden hand-wringing at the easy availability of guns is too rich.

It is a big deal because people were killed. That is true, Wolfpack, but the ATF did not PROVIDE the weapons; they just let them pass through in an attempt to monitor their flow so as to identify the heads of the smuggling. In other words, if the unfortunate border agent had not been killed by one of these weapons, he would have been killed by another.

If the GOP is really concerned about the flow of arms from the US to Mexico, they would support more stringent control on the sales of arms and greater information on their sales and ownership. They do not, of course, and so they will not, ever.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Malarkey. Documents have already demonstrated that Holder had knowledge at a time he had claimed to not know. At best, his statements are disingenuous, but more likely as truthful as Tricky Dicky, and employing the same "executive privilege " cover-up.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The vote followed a decision by Obama ... to assert ... executive privilege ... in order to protect the confidentiality of the documents.

So much for Obama's campaign promise to have the most transparent administration evah.

Just words. Just speeches.

RR

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's likely his assertation of executive privilege has more to do with the type of documents requested rather than their content:

The documents in dispute are “deliberative process” memos that have traditionally been protected by Democratic and Republican administrations so that the White House staff can freely discuss sensitive matters without being influenced by the fear that their internal debates will be made public, administration officials said.

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/executive-privilege-poses-tricky-situation-for-obama/2012/06/20/gJQAgAbRrV_story.html

The article notes that "the administration already has handed over 7,600 documents to Congress and Holder has testified nine times." We're talking about an AFT program that had been in place in practice since the previous administration, was misguided and badly executed, but was not illegal and certainly not some nefarious White House plot such as was Watergate - or Plamegate, let us not forget: cases in which the White House deliberately used its power to subvert the democratic process.

Let them throw mud. It will not stick. Again, if the GOP truly cared about stemming the flow of arms to Mexico, they would allow the creation of a better tracking system in the US. As Wikipedia notes,

The case soon grew to over two dozen straw purchasers, the most prolific of which would ultimately buy more than 600 weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious

That a single individual was able to buy 600 weapons is the scandal, and that scandal may be placed directly at the feet of the GOP.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Laguna, nice attempt at spin. Better luck next time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Holder's claim, and Obama 's assertion hold as much water as a collander.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/20/obama-raises-legal-eyebrows-with-executive-privile/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is an admission by Obama that there is something to hide; otherwise there would be no reason not to cooperate with the investigation.

Hopefully, the committee will investigate why Obama would need to invoke executive privilege if he claims the first he heard about F&F was on the news.

RR

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

RomeoR Jun. 22, 2012 - 04:36AM JST. This is an admission by Obama that there is something to hide; otherwise there would be no reason not to cooperate with the investigation. Hopefully, the committee will investigate why Obama would need to invoke executive privilege if he claims the first he heard about F&F was on the news.

This story will die down quickly. This is politically motivated because of Republicans are trailing drastically on the polls. Obama has every right and should use executive privilege to deflect the attack. It’s a principle based on the constitutionally mandated separation of powers — the idea that the executive branch, Congress and the courts operate independently of each other. This is why committee cannot investigate unless Obama agrees to the investigation, which he will refuse.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

sfjp, please refer to the link in my previous post. Following your line of reasoning, Nixon (and others) would have been justified in his attempt to squelch the Watergate investigation. Checks and balances.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Herve Nmn L'EisaJun. 22, 2012 - 09:42AM JST sfjp, please refer to the link in my previous post. Following your line of reasoning, Nixon (and others) would have been justified in his attempt to squelch the Watergate investigation. Checks and balances.

Here is the difference. the Nixon's Watergate standoff made its way to the Supreme Court, which, in an 8-0 decision, established the president's legal right to executive privilege, but ruled that the importance of the Watergate investigation outweighed Nixon's claim. I doubt Obama's situation will go all the way to Supreme Court. Let me see, Reagan used it 6 times, Clinton used it 14 times, George W. Bush 6 times, and none of their actions went to Supreme Court.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites