Eric Holder found in contempt of Congress by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, 23-17.

  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Jun 20, 2012 8:27 PM GMT
    Eric Holder found in contempt of Congress by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, 23-17.

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/06/20/503302/breaking-house-oversight-committee-approves-contempt-of-congress-resolution-against-attorney-general-holder/

    What happens if panel cites Holder for contempt?

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/politics/holder-contempt-qa/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


    Nancy Pelosi Slams Contempt Vote: 'I Could Have Arrested Karl Rove ... But We Didn't'

    "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is playing politics with its vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, an action she said that even she didn't seek as House Speaker when she thought someone was legitimately deserving of it.

    "I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day," Pelosi said to laughter, during a sit-down with reporters. "I'm not kidding. There's a prison here in the Capitol ... If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him.""

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/nancy-pelosi-contempt-darrell-issa_n_1613086.html
  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Jun 20, 2012 9:22 PM GMT
    Oversight Committee Holds Attorney General Eric Holder In Contempt Over Fast And Furious Docs

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/oversight_committee_holds_attorney_general_eric_holder_in_contempt_over_fast_and_furious_docs.php
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2012 9:40 PM GMT
    Pathetic. They're desperate for some reason to create a "scandal" for Obama.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2012 9:43 PM GMT
    purely partisan politics.............

    Its happened before and it was partisan every time.icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2012 11:45 PM GMT
    The religious far right republicans will do anything for their cause. that's why Dems better wake up and stop being quiet and nice when the Republs pull their bullshit, they need to start calling them on things in no uncertain terms. Nancy has regrets now for not doing it. Ha !!


    Now' the time for her and the Dems to start growing their collective spines and call them on this and a whole lot of other things. Being reasonable and treating Repubs as the Dems would want themselves to be treated is not a winning strategy for Dems. Republican Hypocrisy is winning the media struggle at getting out their propaganda message on every front.

    One of the best examples is Repubs Idea of the 'public mandate', then when Obama installed that idea in his Health Care law, the Repubs hypocritically turned on it as illegal and unconstitutional. But instead of the dems, pointing this out with a vengence, they just stand back and say little. Dems need to grow some brass balls or a hole lot more spine.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Jun 21, 2012 3:59 AM GMT
    Honestly its a bit weird, after all of the requests that the White house is citing privilege after months of requests.

    The question is, if as Holder stated the White house was not involved, How can there be a assertion of Exec privilege ?

    Considering Holder was JUST testifying , why did the deputy Attorney Gen have to send just a short letter?

    Seems like Holder is dodging , considering less than 10% of the documents requested have been produced.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2012 4:04 AM GMT
    A lot of legal mumbo jumbo, but essentially has been done before:
    http://mediamatters.org/research/201206200013
    Past Administrations Have Asserted Executive Privilege Over Material Produced Outside Of The White House

    Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey On Environmental Protection Agency Documents: "The Privilege May Be Invoked To Protect Executive Branch Deliberations Against Congressional Subpoenas." From a letter authored by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to President George W. Bush:

    The doctrine of executive privilege also encompasses Executive Branch deliberative communications that do not implicate presidential decisionmaking. As the Supreme Court has explained, the privilege recognizes "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 705. Based on this principle, the Justice Department -- under Administrations of both political parties -- has concluded repeatedly that the privilege may be invoked to protect Executive Branch deliberations against congressional subpoenas. See, e.g., Letter for the President from John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Re: Assertion of Executive Privilege with Respect to Prosecutorial Documents at 2 (Dec. 10, 2001) (available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/executiveprivilege.htm) ("The Constitution clearly gives the President the power to protect the confidentiality of executive branch deliberations."); Executive Privilege With Respect to Clemency Decision, 23 Op. O.L.C. at 2 (explaining that executive privilege extends to deliberative communications within the Executive Branch); Assertion of Executive Privilege in Response to a Congressional Subpoena, 5 Op. O.L.C. 27, 30 (1981) (opinion of Attorney General William French Smith) (assertion of executive privilege to protect deliberative materials held by the Department of Interior). [Department of Justice, 6/19/08]


    Bush Administration Asserted Executive Privilege Over Justice Department Documents. From a December 14, 2001 article published by the New York Times:

    President Bush invoked executive privilege today for the first time in his administration to block a Congressional committee trying to review documents about a decades-long scandal involving F.B.I. misuse of mob informants in Boston. His order also denied the committee access to internal Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fund-raising tactics. [The New York Times, 12/14/01]

  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Jun 21, 2012 4:08 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidA lot of legal mumbo jumbo, but essentially has been done before:
    http://mediamatters.org/research/201206200013
    Past Administrations Have Asserted Executive Privilege Over Material Produced Outside Of The White House

    Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey On Environmental Protection Agency Documents: "The Privilege May Be Invoked To Protect Executive Branch Deliberations Against Congressional Subpoenas." From a letter authored by then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey to President George W. Bush:

    The doctrine of executive privilege also encompasses Executive Branch deliberative communications that do not implicate presidential decisionmaking. As the Supreme Court has explained, the privilege recognizes "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." Nixon, 418 U.S. at 705. Based on this principle, the Justice Department -- under Administrations of both political parties -- has concluded repeatedly that the privilege may be invoked to protect Executive Branch deliberations against congressional subpoenas. See, e.g., Letter for the President from John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Re: Assertion of Executive Privilege with Respect to Prosecutorial Documents at 2 (Dec. 10, 2001) (available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/executiveprivilege.htm) ("The Constitution clearly gives the President the power to protect the confidentiality of executive branch deliberations."); Executive Privilege With Respect to Clemency Decision, 23 Op. O.L.C. at 2 (explaining that executive privilege extends to deliberative communications within the Executive Branch); Assertion of Executive Privilege in Response to a Congressional Subpoena, 5 Op. O.L.C. 27, 30 (1981) (opinion of Attorney General William French Smith) (assertion of executive privilege to protect deliberative materials held by the Department of Interior). [Department of Justice, 6/19/08]


    Bush Administration Asserted Executive Privilege Over Justice Department Documents. From a December 14, 2001 article published by the New York Times:

    President Bush invoked executive privilege today for the first time in his administration to block a Congressional committee trying to review documents about a decades-long scandal involving F.B.I. misuse of mob informants in Boston. His order also denied the committee access to internal Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fund-raising tactics. [The New York Times, 12/14/01]




    Its going to go to court. But after MONTHS of requests now ascert the privilege.?

    There is a precedent that if there is a "Cover Up" no privilege is possible. In the DC circuit.

    Obama is on record saying he had nothing to do with this program.
    Holder has a problem in that he specifically asked the white house to assert privilege

    As media matters tries to assert " Bush did it" is simply not a good enough answer for whether its truly legal. And the solemn look on all of the members of the committee including Kusinich is very telling.
    Holder is in big doodoo.

    The difference in the cases media matters mentions is that Bush and other presidents ASSERT THE PRIVILEGE FIRST. In a specific narrow fashion. And a Privilege log is needed to document each segment that is covered.

    NOT 6 or so months later. After threats of contempt of congress.

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 21, 2012 5:04 PM GMT
    Absolutely indicative of the search and barn storm tactics that the republicans have been progressively trying ... but to no avail .... to get anything SOMETHING that the press will stick with for the election

    Why now? You Ask?

    Because dunderhead .... November is fast approaching and Romney is a poor performer ...THAT'S WHY

    This is why we are having the smorgasborg of republican concocted scandals going on right now
    But republicans .... you ask why now?
    You had three freakin years to find SOMETHING ANYTHING that would point to the need for a PROPER investigation

    You have NOTHING ....... and you're asking for MORE documents ...when you have thousands upon thousands of documents already
    and when you finally get to the point where the remainder of the documents that you don't even know hold any significance ..... these documents might endanger under cover operations or cause problems with the Mexican Government you SQUAWK ????

    Tell Darrel Issa and company to take a hike
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2012 5:36 PM GMT
    If this was a real issue, if Holder had done ANYTHING wrong, don't you think at least ONE democrat would have voted with the republicans?

    Partisan hackery at its worst.