Arrest Eric Holder!
JoeBtfsplk
2012/07/02 15:38:03
The House has voted overwhelmingly to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for withholding documents on the Fast and Furious scandal, but where do we go from here? Not surprisingly, the Justice Department won't prosecute Holder on the charge, and Barack Obama would only take action if the attorney general became a personal liability (and right now cutting him loose might be a liability).
Yet there is a way for Congress to put bite in its bark.
It turns out that the House could encourage immediate cooperation by arresting Holder. Such a move would be based upon something called "inherent contempt," a process that, writes The Washington Times, "is well-established by precedent, has been confirmed by multiple Supreme Court rulings, and is available to any Congress willing to force such a confrontation." It was also recently alluded to by none other than Nancy Pelosi when she addressed what she considered Karl Rove's contempt of Congress and said, "I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day. 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."
But the will is the issue, as our Congress is just not that confrontational. As Constitution Project fellow Mort Rosenberg said, while inherent contempt is constitutional, "[t]he House is scared to death to use the inherent contempt power. ...They're scared to death because the courts have said...the way the contempt power is used is unseemly," reports the Times.
"Unseemly." That's an interesting word. If you or I were held in contempt, would anyone bay the gendarmes and claim that shackling us would be "unseemly"? Actually, it would be downright humiliating. This is why people generally hide their faces from cameras when doing that ignominious walk to a squad car: it is, as it's supposed to be, a bad experience. But it appears it is one that is only part of the common man's experience.
No one in America is supposed to be above the law, yet so-called "elites" are held to a lower standard. If anything, however, they should be held to a higher one. Remember that the damage caused by malfeasance is generally proportional to the loftiness of the office. When Bill Clinton informed us that sex isn't necessarily sex just as "is" may not mean "is," he did infinitely more to define deviancy downwards than any 1000 anonymous John Q. Publics who consider marriage vows situational. It usually takes great power to commit great crimes.
As for being unseemly, what is so is Holder's behavior. What's unseemly is a system in which there is one standard for lowly me and another for lofty thee. Eric Holder should be arrested for one simple reason: he is currently one of the worst criminals I know of. To use a variation on a slogan the left once so loved, Holder lied and people died.
Then there is the death of the rule of law. One reason we have as much bad behavior as we do among pseudo-elites is the same reason why child misbehavior is now rampant: there is little fear of consequences. And this is because the consequences are inconsequential. But high profiles should come with high risk. If powerful public officials knew they could be marched away in handcuffs to a fetid jail cell, perhaps they'd take their oaths of office more seriously.
Of course, I don't believe there has ever been a civilization that treated those with clout exactly the same as those without; there is no Purgatory on Earth. But the size of the gap between the two types of treatment will always be inversely proportional to the health of the civilization in question. I once had a Mexican tell me that Mexico was a good place to be rich because the wealthy can largely do as they please there. And, in fact, in that nation it is said you can buy your way out of a fatal hit-and-run for $450 or, for the right sum, get the cops to take care of somebody for you. Do you want an America where you have to pay a bribe to get a driver's or business license? Do you want to see a day when the police stop you for imaginary infractions that can be "adjudicated" on the spot for some not-so-imaginary cash? Then keep tolerating corruption in high places. For not only does it reflect corruption in low ones-most notably, the hearts and minds of the voters -- but it's also contagious. Lower level officials see it in higher ones, and they want a piece of the pie, too. And the citizenry will figure likewise. "Everyone is doing it; why shouldn't I?" It's a trickle-down theory at work.
Lest anyone think me naïve, I realize there are many reasons why Holder won't be arrested. For one thing, such a move would be demonized by the media and might redound negatively upon Republicans in the fall. Another is that few members of the ruling class want to animate a hangman that could be used (perhaps wrongly) against them in the future; once the mutual get-out-of-jail-free card is gone, it's gone. Also remember that "conservatives" are defenders of the status quo, not bold revolutionaries who overturn and improve it. Yet all this is saying is that people, being just people, will often subordinate transcendent but seemingly remote principles to more ordinary but immediate concerns. But what does this beget? It begets a Justice John Roberts, who -- likely motivated by concern for the U.S. Extreme Court's reputation, his own, or both -- visited a blatantly unconstitutional and disastrous piece of legislation upon all of us.
And that is the face of expediency. It's like the Machiavellian leper character in the film Braveheart, who claimed that the ability to compromise -- even with great principles at stake -- makes a man noble. But it does not, and creating de facto nobility existing above the law makes a nation quite ignoble. Respect for station is no substitute for respect for rule of law.
Selwyn Duke
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/arrest_eric_holder.htm...
Yet there is a way for Congress to put bite in its bark.
It turns out that the House could encourage immediate cooperation by arresting Holder. Such a move would be based upon something called "inherent contempt," a process that, writes The Washington Times, "is well-established by precedent, has been confirmed by multiple Supreme Court rulings, and is available to any Congress willing to force such a confrontation." It was also recently alluded to by none other than Nancy Pelosi when she addressed what she considered Karl Rove's contempt of Congress and said, "I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day. 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."
But the will is the issue, as our Congress is just not that confrontational. As Constitution Project fellow Mort Rosenberg said, while inherent contempt is constitutional, "[t]he House is scared to death to use the inherent contempt power. ...They're scared to death because the courts have said...the way the contempt power is used is unseemly," reports the Times.
"Unseemly." That's an interesting word. If you or I were held in contempt, would anyone bay the gendarmes and claim that shackling us would be "unseemly"? Actually, it would be downright humiliating. This is why people generally hide their faces from cameras when doing that ignominious walk to a squad car: it is, as it's supposed to be, a bad experience. But it appears it is one that is only part of the common man's experience.
No one in America is supposed to be above the law, yet so-called "elites" are held to a lower standard. If anything, however, they should be held to a higher one. Remember that the damage caused by malfeasance is generally proportional to the loftiness of the office. When Bill Clinton informed us that sex isn't necessarily sex just as "is" may not mean "is," he did infinitely more to define deviancy downwards than any 1000 anonymous John Q. Publics who consider marriage vows situational. It usually takes great power to commit great crimes.
As for being unseemly, what is so is Holder's behavior. What's unseemly is a system in which there is one standard for lowly me and another for lofty thee. Eric Holder should be arrested for one simple reason: he is currently one of the worst criminals I know of. To use a variation on a slogan the left once so loved, Holder lied and people died.
Then there is the death of the rule of law. One reason we have as much bad behavior as we do among pseudo-elites is the same reason why child misbehavior is now rampant: there is little fear of consequences. And this is because the consequences are inconsequential. But high profiles should come with high risk. If powerful public officials knew they could be marched away in handcuffs to a fetid jail cell, perhaps they'd take their oaths of office more seriously.
Of course, I don't believe there has ever been a civilization that treated those with clout exactly the same as those without; there is no Purgatory on Earth. But the size of the gap between the two types of treatment will always be inversely proportional to the health of the civilization in question. I once had a Mexican tell me that Mexico was a good place to be rich because the wealthy can largely do as they please there. And, in fact, in that nation it is said you can buy your way out of a fatal hit-and-run for $450 or, for the right sum, get the cops to take care of somebody for you. Do you want an America where you have to pay a bribe to get a driver's or business license? Do you want to see a day when the police stop you for imaginary infractions that can be "adjudicated" on the spot for some not-so-imaginary cash? Then keep tolerating corruption in high places. For not only does it reflect corruption in low ones-most notably, the hearts and minds of the voters -- but it's also contagious. Lower level officials see it in higher ones, and they want a piece of the pie, too. And the citizenry will figure likewise. "Everyone is doing it; why shouldn't I?" It's a trickle-down theory at work.
Lest anyone think me naïve, I realize there are many reasons why Holder won't be arrested. For one thing, such a move would be demonized by the media and might redound negatively upon Republicans in the fall. Another is that few members of the ruling class want to animate a hangman that could be used (perhaps wrongly) against them in the future; once the mutual get-out-of-jail-free card is gone, it's gone. Also remember that "conservatives" are defenders of the status quo, not bold revolutionaries who overturn and improve it. Yet all this is saying is that people, being just people, will often subordinate transcendent but seemingly remote principles to more ordinary but immediate concerns. But what does this beget? It begets a Justice John Roberts, who -- likely motivated by concern for the U.S. Extreme Court's reputation, his own, or both -- visited a blatantly unconstitutional and disastrous piece of legislation upon all of us.
And that is the face of expediency. It's like the Machiavellian leper character in the film Braveheart, who claimed that the ability to compromise -- even with great principles at stake -- makes a man noble. But it does not, and creating de facto nobility existing above the law makes a nation quite ignoble. Respect for station is no substitute for respect for rule of law.
Selwyn Duke
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/arrest_eric_holder.htm...
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed...
&
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."
More Fast and Furious coverage:
Memos contradict Holder on Fast and Furious
Agent: I was ordered to let guns "walk" into Mexico
Gunwalking scandal uncovered at ATF
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."
This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles."
The Gun Dealers' Quandary
Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.
Sometimes it was against the gun dealer's own best judgment.
Read the email
In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."
Read the email
ATF's group supervisor on Fast and Furious David Voth assures the gun dealer there's nothing to worry about. "We (ATF) are continually monitoring these suspects using a variety of investigative techniques which I cannot go into detail."
Two months later, the same gun dealer grew more agitated.
"I wanted to make sure that none of the firearms that were sold per our conversation with you and various ATF agents could or would ever end up south of the border or in the hands of the bad guys. I guess I am looking for a bit of reassurance that the guns are not getting south or in the wrong hands...I want to help ATF with its investigation but not at the risk of agents (sic) safety because I have some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ as well as my concern for all the agents (sic) safety that protect our country."
"It's like ATF created or added to the problem so they could be the solution to it and pat themselves on the back," says one law enforcement source familiar with the facts. "It's a circular way of thinking."
The Justice Department and ATF declined to comment. ATF officials mentioned in this report did not respond to requests from CBS News to speak with them.
The "Demand Letter 3" Debate
The two sides in the gun debate have long clashed over whether gun dealers should have to report multiple rifle sales. On one side, ATF officials argue that a large number of semi-automatic, high-caliber rifles from the U.S. are being used by violent cartels in Mexico. They believe more reporting requirements would help ATF crack down. On the other side, gun rights advocates say that's unconstitutional, and would not make a difference in Mexican cartel crimes.
Two earlier Demand Letters were initiated in 2000 and affected a relatively small number of gun shops. Demand Letter 3 was to be much more sweeping, affecting 8,500 firearms dealers in four southwest border states: Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. ATF chose those states because they "have a significant number of crime guns traced back to them from Mexico." The reporting requirements were to apply if a gun dealer sells two or more long guns to a single person within five business days, and only if the guns are semi-automatic, greater than .22 caliber and can be fitted with a detachable magazine.
On April 25, 2011, ATF announced plans to implement Demand Letter 3. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is suing the ATF to stop the new rules. It calls the regulation an illegal attempt to enforce a law Congress never passed. ATF counters that it has reasonably targeted guns used most often to "commit violent crimes in Mexico, especially by drug gangs."
Reaction
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we've learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It's pretty clear that the problem isn't lack of burdensome reporting requirements."
On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.
"In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News.
Besides, the Justice Department based their conclusion that Holder should not be prosecuted on Ronald Reagan's precedent:
That you're a Marxist sympathizer doesn't affect me in the least.
Thanks for helping Obama/Holder destroy America.
Marxism in America.
Be proud(and honest) pp - admit it.
Now why don't you answer my question:
What does a failed attempt to stop Mexican drug cartels have to do with Marxism?