As you may have heard (or not, if you watch NBC News), the House Congressional panel that's investigating the illegal transfer of guns to drug cartels in Mexico was just about to hold a vote to place Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for his less-than-full disclosure about his role in the program.
Then President Obama stepped in to invoke Executive Privilege which essentially prevents Congress from receiving the documents it was seeking from the Department of Justice.
This is a complex issue and I'm still digesting all the information on it. It appears that Operation Fast and Furious was an attempt by this administration to turn public sentiment against one of our most revered Constitutional rights to gun ownership by turning loose a large amount of guns to some very dangerous people. This program resulted in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and some 200 Mexican citizens.
This investigation has been going on since 2011, and virtually ignored by the mainstream media, save for Sharyl Atkisson of CBS.
President Obama had pretty much stayed above it all except to signal his support for Holder. But his citing of executive privilege yesterday now implicates him.
Is this unprecedented? No, it's been done before, most notably by Richard Nixon during the Watergate investigation. That ultimately led him to resign and sent the Republican Party into the wilderness for a generation or so back in the mid-1970's. Other presidents have done it on various occasions.
Here are a few links from when George Bush did it.
Harry Reid: "It's like saying, I'm King."
Katie Couric's Perky Colon: "People in power being above the law."
And finally, then-Senator Obama calling for Bush's AG to resign and "trying to hide behind" executive privilege. (h/t to Breitbart.com)
Many federal laws were broken which could amount to something called "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Stay tuned...
Showing posts with label Eric Holder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eric Holder. Show all posts
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Monday, May 17, 2010
The Obama Administration = The New Know-Nothings
How times have changed.
Once upon a time, we Americans assumed that the people we sent to Washington to improve our lives and defend our way of life knew what they were doing. That's why we sent lawyers up there, so they could write bills that adhered to the foundation of all our laws: the Constitution. We assumed, since they had attended law school, they had a good idea of what was Constitutional and what wasn't. We also assumed that the constitution was taught in law school.
Well, we're finding out that this isn't quite the case after all. As we saw during the ObamaCare Cramdown, corrupt progressives don't really give much thought to the legality of the laws they write (or have someone else write). In fact, Representative Alcee Hastings gave us a very short lesson in how the peoples' business is now conducted in Washington.
Follow that with Eric Holders' admission that he hasn't read the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law he so gleefully opposes.
Imagine for a minute that, in your job, you were expected to know specific details about some item of action. Your boss has a question and calls you. You tell him that you don't know because you haven't read it. How much longer could you expect to be employed?
Out in the real world, you're really expected to have knowledge of things and be able to provide answers on demand. Fail that, and you'll be funemployed in no time. Why doesn't this rule apply to members of Congress or the Obama administration? How, in the name of all that's sane, are legislators permitted to get away with not knowing the substance of bills that they are endorsing?
Our country had Know-Nothings before, but not like this.
Once upon a time, we Americans assumed that the people we sent to Washington to improve our lives and defend our way of life knew what they were doing. That's why we sent lawyers up there, so they could write bills that adhered to the foundation of all our laws: the Constitution. We assumed, since they had attended law school, they had a good idea of what was Constitutional and what wasn't. We also assumed that the constitution was taught in law school.
Well, we're finding out that this isn't quite the case after all. As we saw during the ObamaCare Cramdown, corrupt progressives don't really give much thought to the legality of the laws they write (or have someone else write). In fact, Representative Alcee Hastings gave us a very short lesson in how the peoples' business is now conducted in Washington.
"When the deal goes down, uhhh, all this talk about, ahhh, rules, we make 'em up as we go along."Hmmm. Very enlighteneing, Mr. Hastings. I guess we're supposed to forget all the times that candidate Obama promised to post all new bills online for five days of public viewing and comment prior to signing them. Follow that with the revelation that no one in Congress bothered to read many of the bills they voted for this session.
Follow that with Eric Holders' admission that he hasn't read the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law he so gleefully opposes.
Imagine for a minute that, in your job, you were expected to know specific details about some item of action. Your boss has a question and calls you. You tell him that you don't know because you haven't read it. How much longer could you expect to be employed?
Out in the real world, you're really expected to have knowledge of things and be able to provide answers on demand. Fail that, and you'll be funemployed in no time. Why doesn't this rule apply to members of Congress or the Obama administration? How, in the name of all that's sane, are legislators permitted to get away with not knowing the substance of bills that they are endorsing?
Our country had Know-Nothings before, but not like this.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Mr. Holder, What Are You Hiding?
Eric Holder, you've only been in your job for a year, but in that year, you've done a few things that many of us find questionable.
The first thing you did was a surprise. It was a surprise because of the outrage that would have resulted had the racial roles been reversed. You see, many of us turned on our TV's and saw two large black men in front of a polling station wielding billy clubs in a threatening manner and making intimidating remarks. On election day. Now, while we may not be experts on the law, we know that scene has all the makings of a case of racial voter intimidation, complete with eyewitnesses, video evidence from a news organization, and police reports. Now comes the surprising part: you dropped the charges against these men.
Why?
Next came your unbelievable decision to try the architect of 9-11 in a civilian court, with all the rights of an American citizen, in clear conflict with the Geneva Conventions.
Why?
Next up was another unbelievable decision to read the failed Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights and place him in our criminal justice system as though he had merely robbed a convenence store, ignoring the obvious fact that he tried to kill over three hundred innocent people.
Why?
Now, we find out that members of your department have previously defended illegal enemy combatants, in what appears to be a very clear case of a conflict of interest. Senator Charles Grassley has asked you to identify these people. So far, you've been less than forthcoming with your answers, to the point of stonewalling. Byron York puts it this way:
It's also entirely reasonable to ask how those lawyers are able to get a good nights' sleep, knowing that they are helping our sworn enemy to defeat us in our own courts.
Mr. Holder, why aren't you complying with the numerous requests to be honest with the American people?
Whose side are you on?
The first thing you did was a surprise. It was a surprise because of the outrage that would have resulted had the racial roles been reversed. You see, many of us turned on our TV's and saw two large black men in front of a polling station wielding billy clubs in a threatening manner and making intimidating remarks. On election day. Now, while we may not be experts on the law, we know that scene has all the makings of a case of racial voter intimidation, complete with eyewitnesses, video evidence from a news organization, and police reports. Now comes the surprising part: you dropped the charges against these men.
Why?
Next came your unbelievable decision to try the architect of 9-11 in a civilian court, with all the rights of an American citizen, in clear conflict with the Geneva Conventions.
Why?
Next up was another unbelievable decision to read the failed Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights and place him in our criminal justice system as though he had merely robbed a convenence store, ignoring the obvious fact that he tried to kill over three hundred innocent people.
Why?
Now, we find out that members of your department have previously defended illegal enemy combatants, in what appears to be a very clear case of a conflict of interest. Senator Charles Grassley has asked you to identify these people. So far, you've been less than forthcoming with your answers, to the point of stonewalling. Byron York puts it this way:
Private lawyers can choose to take or not take cases. Sometimes they make their decisions based on money, sometimes on principle, sometimes because they are sympathetic to the accused. The lawyers who worked with the terrorist detainees chose to represent people who are making war on the United States. That's certainly their right, but it's entirely reasonable to ask whether they should now be working on detainee issues at the Justice Department.
It's also entirely reasonable to ask how those lawyers are able to get a good nights' sleep, knowing that they are helping our sworn enemy to defeat us in our own courts.
Mr. Holder, why aren't you complying with the numerous requests to be honest with the American people?
Whose side are you on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)