« | »

Bi-Partisan House Votes Holder In Contempt

From The Hill:

In 255-67 vote, House places Holder in contempt of Congress

By Jordy Yager and Pete Kasperowicz – 06/28/12

The House voted Thursday to place Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for not complying with a congressional subpoena.

Seventeen Democrats bucked party lines and voted with Republicans to pass a criminal contempt resolution in a 255-67 vote…

Only two Republicans voted "no" on the measure, while 65 Democrats recorded "no" votes and 108 Democrats didn’t cast votes. Most of them were protesting the fact that the House GOP was holding the vote.

It is very telling that 108 Democrats were afraid to go officially on the record as opposing finding out more about ‘Fast & Furious.’

The two Republican "no" votes were Reps. Steve LaTourette (Ohio) and Scott Rigell (Va.). Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) was the only "present" vote from either party…

The Department of Justice is not expected to enforce the criminal contempt measure against Holder. But less than an hour later, the House also passed a separate resolution allowing Issa’s committee to pursue civil court action against Holder…

The House approved the civil resolution in a 258-95 vote that saw 21 Democrats vote with Republicans, and just 70 Democrats skip the vote

In other words, this second resolution was even more popular with Democrats.

While 17 Democrats sided with Republicans in the main contempt vote, it was met with outrage from Democrats.

They hate bi-partisanship. They hate Democrats who reach across the aisle.

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), joined by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and many other Democrats, staged a walkout during the vote as Democrats charged the GOP with staging a witch hunt against Holder that demeans the lower chamber

So even Nancy Pelosi was afraid to go on the record by voting against the contempt charge. Maybe she knows something we don’t know.

For the record, the criminal contempt resolution gives the House the option of referring the matter to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution of Holder in federal court,. But the chances of that are slim to none, since it is unlikely a US Attorney will choose to prosecute his boss.

Of course, in a better world un by the rule of law, this would be the case. And, of course, if we were talking about Republicans, the news media would demand it.

The civil contempt resolution will allow the House to file a civil suit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that Holder is in contempt, as well as an injunction ordering him to comply in turning over the Fast & Furious documents. But that action could take years to work through the appeals process.

So, once again, we are left with largely a symbolic victory. Still, it is something. And it will go on Eric Holder’s ‘permanent record.’

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, June 29th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “Bi-Partisan House Votes Holder In Contempt”

  1. Mithrandir says:

    What options do Republicans have that they are not using, or don’t want to use?

    ♠ Stop funding the DOJ?
    ♠ Have Holder arrested?
    ♠ Impeach Obama over this?
    ♠ Pass a new law making contempt an immediate crime such as attempted rape?
    ♠ Pass a law that makes a positive contempt vote, trigger an investigator with power to go physically find and remove whatever evidence is requested, (and anyone blocking it is arrested for obstruction) ABOVE executive privilege—as no on is above the law…..remember?

    Certainly the FBI doesn’t mind kicking down doors and taking all paper and electronic devices for investigations….why does lying to the American people that results in death, get received as a “symbolic victory?”

  2. canary says:

    To bad they can’t hold him in jail til he hand it over being as it’s a breech of National Security.

    I hope the Democrats that didn’t vote will hear a lot of lips smacking butt noises as they walk the halls.

  3. AcornsRNutz says:

    “And it will go on Eric Holder’s ‘permanent record.’ ”

    Can we put him on double secret probation?

« Front Page | To Top
« | »