• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House holds holder in contempt [W:140

Sure, no reason not to hand over to this clown 80,000 pages of documents containing sensitive information about ongoing investigations and the identities of undercover agents. :roll:

Did you miss the fact that names were redacted? Again?

:roll:
 
Sure, no reason not to hand over to this clown 80,000 pages of documents containing sensitive information about ongoing investigations and the identities of undercover agents. :roll:

I'm sure it will be safer with Issa than the 2,000 ATF classified pages that wound up with Fortune magazine.
 
Did you miss the fact that names were redacted? Again?

:roll:
Did you miss the fact that it was illegal for Issa to include the letter in the record AT ALL?
 
Did you miss the fact that it was illegal for Issa to include the letter in the record AT ALL?

Hmm...

The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.

It appears, that yet again, you are incorrect.
 
Hmm...

It appears, that yet again, you are incorrect.

The fact that he has immunity does not mean that he didn't commit the crime, genius. It just means that he can't be prosecuted for the crime.
 
Hmm...

It appears, that yet again, you are incorrect.

According to the letter, the wiretap applications contained a startling amount of detail about the operation, which would have tipped off anyone who read them closely about what tactics were being used.

What's the point? If the operation is shut down for good, tipping them off to the tactics is moot. They just don't get it, there will be prosecutions over this.
 
The fact that he has immunity does not mean that he didn't commit the crime, genius. It just means that he can't be prosecuted for the crime.

Spin spin spin... took you a long time to come up with that huge jump. What he did IS . NOT . A . CRIME .

That pesky old constitution getting in your way again eh?
 
Spin spin spin... took you a long time to come up with that huge jump. What he did IS . NOT . A . CRIME .

That pesky old constitution getting in your way again eh?

It is a crime. Denying reality is not a good argument
 
What's the point? If the operation is shut down for good, tipping them off to the tactics is moot. They just don't get it, there will be prosecutions over this.

Issa has requested a warehouse full of documents. Obviously those documents will have information about much more than FF.
 
Holding the head of the DOJ in contempt was a foolish notion from the start. I mean, really...how do the people who write the laws (Congress) hold the chief judicial department head charge with defending the law in contempt? What's he going to do? Prosecute himself? Oh, and there's this...

"Justice Department won't pursue case against Holder"
By NBC's Pete Williams
As expected, the Justice [Department] has informed Congress that the U.S. attorney will not prosecute Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt, despite Thursday's House vote.

"The longstanding position of the Department of Justice has been and remains that we will not prosecute an executive branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege," says Deputy Attorney General James Cole in a letter to the House speaker, John Boehner.

The letter notes that during the Reagan administration, DOJ took the position that the contempt statute could not constitutionally be applied to an official who asserts the president's claim of executive privilege. That policy was first articulated in a memo written by Ted Olson when he was at DOJ in 1984.

Cole writes that the position has been asserted several times since then, most recently during the Bush administration in 2008.
 
Bottom Line: Congress has never really had the authority to hold the Attorney General in contempt. Per the Constitution, Congress can impeach Federal Judges, i.e., members of the Supreme Court, U.S. District Courts or U.S. Federal Courts of Appeal and even the Atty Gen but only for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors". What crime has Atty Gen. Holder been charge with exactly?

Lying under oath? No, that's not what he's been charge with by Sen. Issa.

Withholding federal documents? He's given up over 7,000 pages of documents since this House investigation began and still Issa couldn't find any conclusive evidence that Holder has committed treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.

Failure to cooperate with Congress? No more than any other member of the Executive Branch has done in the past.

Of course, the counter argument will be (or has been) that DOJ wouldn't disclose the information Issa and others believes Holder purposely withheld that possibly held the smoking gun they believed would have convicted him of wrong-doing, but my contension has long been that if Congress couldn't put together even the most circumstantial of evidence based on the documents they did have, how were they going to bring about a tougher charge other than holding him in contempt which really amounts to absolutely nothing except to say, "Well, at least we got him on something". Really? Is that all you really got?

Congress (Rep. Issa): "Atty Gen. Eric Holder, because we, Congress (or more specific, GOP House members) believe you haven't played by our rules and giving us the information - no, evidence - we need to convict you of violating the law, we're just gonna hold you in contempt of Congress to atleast claim we won a procedural political victory. NAH, HAH, NAH, NAH, NAH! We gotcha now!...found another way to embarrass the Obama Administration."

Only you forgot that your own Republican executives of the past hide behind executive privilege, too, making it impossible for a Judge or the Atty Gen to be charged with violating the Constitution unless he has committed treason, a high crime (i.e., a felony) or misdemeanors.
 
Last edited:
Bottom Line: Congress has never really had the authority to hold the Attorney General in contempt. Per the Constitution, Congress can impeach Federal Judges, i.e., members of the Supreme Court, U.S. District Courts or U.S. Federal Courts of Appeal and even the Atty Gen but only for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors".

Well, as has been noted, Congress holds the authority to investigate, and hold oversight of Federal departments appointed by the President, and under his authority, including the Office of the President.

In that capacity, if a dept head like the little FALN terrorist sympathizer Holder refuses to cooperate with that investigation there are a myriad of charges, and measures that can happen. Contempt is but one thing that can, and did happen. Now, there are two different types of contempt. Criminal, which was passed, but now ignored by the arrogant Holder, and his DoJ, which was predicted. And, Civil, which will be pressed by Congress in court. That means a Judge will have to look at the documents that Holder won't produce, and decide whether or not EP applies, or is just another smoke screen.

What crime has Atty Gen. Holder been charge with exactly?

Lying under oath? No, that's not what he's been charge with by Sen. Issa.

He hasn't been charged with any crime.......Yet.

Withholding federal documents? He's given up over 7,000 pages of documents since this House investigation began and still Issa couldn't find any conclusive evidence that Holder has committed treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.

There are estimates that there are between 80,000 to 130,000 documents involved with F&F, you really think that 7,000 documents is full cooperation, when many were totally redacted to the point where Issa said 'You might as well have just sent over a blank ream of paper...'?

Plus, since when does the one being investigated get to tell the investigator what he is allowed to look at?

Failure to cooperate with Congress? No more than any other member of the Executive Branch has done in the past.

I see, so it's ok as long as its been done in the past eh? What happened to the "Most transparent administration in history"?

Of course, the counter argument will be (or has been) that DOJ wouldn't disclose the information Issa and others believes Holder purposely withheld that possibly held the smoking gun they believed would have convicted him of wrong-doing, but my contension has long been that if Congress couldn't put together even the most circumstantial of evidence based on the documents they did have, how were they going to bring about a tougher charge other than holding him in contempt which really amounts to absolutely nothing except to say, "Well, at least we got him on something". Really? Is that all you really got?

You know, I remember arguing the Plame thing back in the Bush Administration, and demo's dreaming of seeing Cheney, or Rove " "frog marched" in handcuff's across the WH lawn. Fitztgerald, even though he knew who the "leaker" of Plame was early on, David Armitage, he pressed on and jailed 'Scooter' Liby on process charges of perjury, after conflicting statements.

Now, fast forward to today, and you argue that nothing should be done here? really?

Congress (Rep. Issa): "Atty Gen. Eric Holder, because we, Congress (or more specific, GOP House members) believe you haven't played by our rules and giving us the information - no, evidence - we need to convict you of violating the law, we're just gonna hold you in contempt of Congress to atleast claim we won a procedural political victory. NAH, HAH, NAH, NAH, NAH! We gotcha now!...found another way to embarrass the Obama Administration."

Like it or not, process charges are how Washington DC works, in that town dominated by lawyers. What you seem to be arguing here is that the committee in charge of oversight of DoJ, is not allowed to ask to see anything that DoJ doesn't want them to see...What kind of oversight is that?

Only you forgot that your own Republican executives of the past hide behind executive privilege, too, making it impossible for a Judge or the Atty Gen to be charged with violating the Constitution unless he has committed treason, a high crime (i.e., a felony) or misdemeanors.

The President, is not a King, and Holder is bound by oversight, like it or not, the committee charged with overseeing the DoJ has every right to get to the bottom of this regardless of whom it makes look bad, including Holder, or now Obama himself.
 
It is a crime. Denying reality is not a good argument

So is this..........

Criminally negligent manslaughter

Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable homicide might apply.

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim.

Manslaughter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As Law Enforcement officials, they had a "duty to act" as soon as they started losing track of the Assault Rifles in question. Common sense and duty to law enforcement dictates once they lost track of guns, shut the program down. They didn't do that. They failed to foresee that allowing untracked assault rifles in the hands of murderous drug cartels would constitute a "wanton disregard for human life". After all they were not allowing tire pressure gauges to cross the border, they were dealing with assault rifles and hand grenades.
 
Issa has requested a warehouse full of documents. Obviously those documents will have information about much more than FF.

So? What's your point? He's asking for ALL the documents related to Fast and Furious.
 


I guess the openness and transparency only applies to Congress and not the White House or DOJ, President Nixon Obama.
 


I guess the openness and transparency only applies to Congress and not the White House or DOJ, President Nixon Obama.



I am convinced that anything Obama says is either a complete, and utter lie, or exactly the opposite of what he plans on actually doing.
 
Holding the head of the DOJ in contempt was a foolish notion from the start. I mean, really...how do the people who write the laws (Congress) hold the chief judicial department head charge with defending the law in contempt? What's he going to do? Prosecute himself? Oh, and there's this...

"Justice Department won't pursue case against Holder"
By NBC's Pete Williams

Holder was also held in civil contempt which gives Congress the power to sue him in federal court to force him to comply with the subpoena. Issa said he expected the Justice Department not to prosecute and once they made their decision he would initiate the lawsuit.
House to authorize civil court action in coming Holder contempt vote - The Hill's Floor Action
 
Of course no problem with the people who loved to complain and deride EP when Bush was in office that love it and use it now...

I am one of those who derided the Bush admin for their over-zealous use of EP and then following up bills with sigining statements saying he wouldn't adhere to the bills he just signed into law. I think when that EP card is played, it should come with a solid explanation not just toss that card on the table and say "deal with it." Obama does have some exlaining to do IMO.
 
I think people have been pretty up front about the self serving senators and congresspeople. If they "luck" into a good deed regardless of party then I am all for it.

Doing it ala Ken Starr style via moving goal-posts constantly until you trip across someone having an affair when you were looking for an actual political crime... not so much "luck" in that.
 
Did you miss the fact that it was illegal for Issa to include the letter in the record AT ALL?

Did you miss the fact that it isn't, and plainly state so in the article.
 
Yeah, and while I'm a it I'll ask the other 43 presidents.

When you get to Lincoln, ask him how the play was going up untill..........well.................you know.
 
Back
Top Bottom