House panel recommends Holder contempt citation

Not a good time on the Hill...

Washington [[CNN) -- Voting on strictly partisan lines, a House committee recommended Wednesday that Attorney General Eric Holder be cited for contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents relating to the botched Fast and Furious weapons sting operation.

The vote ended an extraordinary daylong hearing that took place after President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege over some documents sought by the panel investigating Fast and Furious. The White House move means the Department of Justice can withhold some of the documents.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/politi...mpt/index.html

He said he was going to run the most "transparent" administration in history.
Another broken promise.

Here's what I see: If someone did something wrong, it should be investigated. By both parties. If someone is not doing something legal, they should be weeded out. In this case, Democrats should be pro-active to either vindicate or remove a bad apple.
If they come out of this showing no one did anything wrong, it puts the egg on the face of Republicans.
By voting along party lines to protect someone who did [[or may have done) something illegal, they are caring more about damage control then the health and values of thier party going into the future.

Find out the truth. Weed out bad apples. Move forward.

It is crazy stuff like this that gives the far-flung fringes of the political spectrum teflon-coated ammo to use against the gubberment.

the far-right will say Obama is arming drug dealers and the far-left will say the jack-booted thugs are on the loose.

This is a Fail on every level.

There's a nasty cover-up going on here.

Where's Woodward and Bernstein when you really need them?

Let's put it this way:
for as long as this goes on, media will be focusing on an issue too complex to actually grab the interest of most voters. The far right will seize on it, democrats will ignore it and swing voters will simply say "eh?"

I looked up "presidential privilege". This is the first time that Obama claimed presidential privilege. It is a term not found in the Constitution but courts have recognized the need for presidents to be able to communicate privately in discussions with those around them. Short of a court order, when presidents declare presidential privilege there exists a standoff between a president and Congress. Bush invoked presidential privilege six times and Clinton fourteen times. I don't think that Obama is trying to hide things he said but rather documentation further down the chain. Still, a court order would be required. What was the administration doing allowing weapons into the hands of drug gangs anyway? "The buck stops here" sign was removed from the presidential desk many administrations ago.

“How can the president assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the president exert executive privilege over documents he’s supposedly never seen? " -Sen. Grassley

A trip down memory lane-

1. Obama ctiticized the Bush Administration for trying to "hide" behind executive privilege.

2. A minute after he took office, the White House website declared his administration would become “the most open and transparent in history.” By the end of his first full day on the job, Obama had issued high-profile orders pledging “a new era” and “an unprecedented level of openness” across the massive federal government.

A 'trip' indeed. Too bad president Obama did not fully address this early on. Now it's erupting during the worse possible time!

Yet and still during an election season [[even if you're NOT pro Romney) something this crucial can and often will be dismissed as simply mud-slinging by the apposing side.

But as this blows up and more details come forth it may be harder to dismiss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oladub

A trip down memory lane-

1. Obama ctiticized the Bush Administration for trying to "hide" behind executive privilege.

2. A minute after he took office, the White House website declared his administration would become “the most open and transparent in history.” By the end of his first full day on the job, Obama had issued high-profile orders pledging “a new era” and “an unprecedented level of openness” across the massive federal government.

---

Parents of slain border agent Brian Terry blast Obama’s executive privilege move

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/parents-slain-border-agent-brian-terry-blast-obama-202238217.html

While I do see a lot of Democrats that upset by this, I'm surprised that their outrage over this isn't greater.

this is essentially the same as Bush's Operation Wide Receiver. Repubs like to claim that the bushies coordinated with the Mez. govt, but emails released to this same committee recently show that that is false. stupid idea on both parts. ATF should really experience a purge on this. both operations were spurred on by law enforcement in SW states

I am not surprised as we are in an election season. It can still be argued by some that this IS mud-slinging by the apposing side.

But the momentum or concern and need for a response is picking up that cannot all be summed up as partisan hypocrisy...

This thing is beginning to stand on its own legs withstanding your party preference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerrytimes

While I do see a lot of Democrats that upset by this, I'm surprised that their outrage over this isn't greater.

---

really? I don't see that. for one thing, this story is OLD NEWS merely resurrected by repubs during the election cycle, and the corporate media is all too eager to play along

Yes, "corporate media" vs mainstream. This admin has left some stuff hanging out there for the repubs to grasp if you want to put it in simply partisan terms. The dems would do likewise to grab hold where a repub president in the house...

And we know politicians lie historically. We shall see how this thing bows fully. Some where we may find out who the real stake holders are, along with the agendas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

really? I don't see that. for one thing, this story is OLD NEWS merely resurrected by repubs during the election cycle, and the corporate media is all too eager to play along

---

mainstream media IS corporate media

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rb336

mainstream media IS corporate media

---

Zacha's trying to help them wriggle out of that embarrassing truth. It's a heavy lift.

Hah! Is that what I am doing? --:)--

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Zacha's trying to help them wriggle out of that embarrassing truth. It's a heavy lift.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Hah! Is that what I am doing? --:)--

---

Yes. It is. Your motives are transparent.

You will now have to pretend that they are not.

Let the record show that Zacha341 has logged off for the night without responding.

UPDATE:

White House, DOJ make last-ditch effort to avoid Holder contempt vote

"[[CNN) - Officials from the Justice Department and the White House met with senior aides to House Speaker John Boehner and Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa at the White House Tuesday to try to head off a House vote on Thursday holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, but their offer to show congressional investigators some documents related to the failed "Fast and Furious" gun trafficking program was rejected."

Rest of the article:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...iref=allsearch

even more about this being much ado about nuthin:

Quote:

---

Indeed, a six-month

Fortune

investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies.

Fortune

reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.

---

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...furious-truth/

hardly a bastion of liberalism

That was an interesting Fortune article although a bit one dimensional. It makes even more sense to have Issa's committee read those documents if, as the article claims, the ATF was conducting itself properly. I think that those we elect should be trusted to have the documentation perhaps with some security provisos if they relate to other ongoing DOJ business. Rhetorically, what is the point of even having a Congress if a sitting president can legislate and censor Congress? The documentation could help prove, after all, that Holder is not an accessory to murder and clear the matter up.

I say one dimensional because the article only considered the rules constricting the ATF in performing its duties. The article seems to make clear that Mexico and the US have failed to protect the border. The border is not well defended. Illegal aliens, drugs, and hopefully not WMD's head north while guns head south. Arizona tried to uphold federal law in the absence of the federal government upholding its responsibility but the Supreme Court pretty well shot down the rights of states to protect themselves when the federal government shrugs. If the Border Patrol is not up to the job, troops could be brought in to stop the flows. Yet, Holder attacks state efforts to stem these flows. Holder and Napolitano have both sided more with illegal aliens since the Supreme Court ruling. The article said that US citizens are designated to make the legal gun purchases. Somehow, the guns then get into Mexican hands and flow across the border but the administration pretty much allows a porous border. If US citizens aren't physically taking guns across the border than the federal government, since the Supreme Court ruling, has to assume all the responsibility of having allowed non-citizens into the US to purchase those guns and walk across the border with them. This is still a matter of the failure of Holder and the Obama administration to secure the border.

Even if the ATF was restricted by laws, there shouldn't be foreign nationals in the US running around with guns and the border should have been secure enough to prevent them from removing those guns. The Mexican government also failed to secure its own border.