Holder’s contribution Contempt seems to flow both ways
WASHINGTON — Fights between Congress and the executive branch over access to information are a staple of American politics. Every president will prefer less disclosure about the messy internal processes of his administration. Congressional investigators suspecting scandal prefer more. In the end, some accommodation short of a constitutional crisis is usually achieved.
The government’s “gun-walking” program would be considered a scandal in any administration, involving 2,000 loose firearms and a dead Border Patrol agent. But an accommodation with congressional investigators has not been reached. The balance of powers has become a showdown. And the main reason is Attorney General Eric Holder.
In a February 2011 letter to Congress, the Justice Department denied any knowledge of “Fast and Furious.” During May congressional testimony, Holder claimed that he had only recently learned of the matter. Both letter and testimony turned out to be false. Holder’s top aides had reviewed wiretapping applications containing specific details. Holder had received memos referencing the operation. Congress had been left under a false impression for nine months.
The response of the Justice Department to this disclosure was to fight further disclosures—permitting investigation into the original program but not into the misstatements and corrections that followed. Holder has absurdly claimed credit for providing 7,600 pages (about 8 percent) of the material investigators have requested, as though the problem might not be found on page 7,601.
Any Justice Department would defend its prerogatives. But this one has also exhausted its credibility. False statements have given way to transparent obstruction. Holder treated Congress with contempt long before it considered citing him for it.
“I take pride in being careful, not intemperate,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former state Supreme Court judge, told me. “But I’m just fed up.” He is particularly offended by the lack of accountability. “There were 2,000 weapons that walked. Who knows how many more agents are at risk? Yet when I asked if it happened in Texas, I got no answer. Another stonewall.” These events, says Cornyn, “raise a question: What does it take to get fired in Eric Holder’s Justice Department?”
Cornyn has called for Holder’s resignation. Unlike the legal determination of contempt, this is a cumulative judgment. Holder began his tenure by supporting a special prosecutor to investigate enhanced interrogation by CIA agents, even though career prosecutors found insufficient evidence for charges—leading seven former CIA directors to denounce his assault on the institution. The attorney general proposed a New York civilian trial that would have given Khalid Sheik Mohammed a forum to embrace martyrdom and encourage violence—leading to a revolt of New York Democratic politicians and the removal of the case from Holder’s direct authority. His handling of the Fast and Furious case was botched from the start—requiring President Obama to assert executive privilege to cover a trail of incompetence and forcing Democratic members of Congress to rally in the cause of opacity and mediocrity.
The problem is not primarily a matter of ideology. Holder is the critic of enhanced interrogation who defends the use of killer drones against American citizens. He is the enemy of indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay prison who has institutionalized indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay prison. His views seem to conform exactly to the contours of the president’s political requirements at any given moment.
Yet this does not stop the lecturing. Unlike his congressional detractors, Holder was not “scared” of what Mohammed would say at trial. He prefers not to “cower.” He says his critics lack “confidence in the American system of justice.” It is Eric Holder’s distinctive contribution to the American political system: self-righteousness without the inconvenience of principle.
“The supreme arrogance, the lack of accountability,” says Cornyn, “are driving people up the wall….Is he going to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States or the political arm of the administration? Every time Eric Holder has had a choice to make, he has made the political choice, not the one grounded in a reasonable interpretation of the law.”
This presents an immediate, practical challenge. Holder’s appointment of two prosecutors—one an Obama campaign donor—to investigate administration national security leaks is discredited before it begins. Which points to an immediate, practical need: an attorney general who inspires more trust than contempt.
Michael Gerson is a columnist for the Washington Post; email michaelgerson@washpost.com.
Jun 30, 2012 at 8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Well I guess we could all find things we don't like about what politicians from the other party do. But at least what was nice was making our thoughts known without name calling back and forth like happens so many other times on these blogs. Thanks
Jun 30, 2012 at 7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fair enough, but I actually have less trouble accepting a "symbolic walkout vote" than a " I have signed a no tax", or any other pledge vote, abdicating one`s responsibility to consider every possibility when situations arise.
Jun 30, 2012 at 2:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Pharm sorry I couldn't respond back. work first. I don't care if it is Dem or Rep. Put it on record let the voter decide if they agree or not. explain why you voted the way you did. what is even worse is voting present. I still say have a spine and at least vote. up or down period.
Jun 29, 2012 at 6:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
WOW vatoloco my family came here in the 1640s and helped found Long Island NY. Doesn't that count for something? I don't agree with you so I should leave? By their standards you would probably be burned at the stake!
Jun 29, 2012 at 1:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
that's different pharm because that was the ridiculous right.
Jun 29, 2012 at 1 p.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2008/02/14/...
Joker?
Jun 29, 2012 at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
donnaw maybe they thought if they gave everybody guns then crime would disappear like it has in Wisconsin with concealed carry.
Jun 29, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-s...
Sorry, try this.
Jun 29, 2012 at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
I hope everone across this country votes out all the house Democrats who walked out on the contempt vote of Holder. They were elected to vote period. I don't even care if they disagree with the vote , just vote. Vote no if you disagree, just vote. This is such a childish move if you don't wanna do what you were elected to do then don't run again let someone else in who has a spine. To all elected: do your job and vote up or down on bills not stammer off and whine because you don't think the outcome will be the way you voted
Jun 29, 2012 at 11:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50
3544_162-20002339-503544.html
Another tidbit about supposed "gunwalking" by the ATF.
Jun 29, 2012 at 10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
I read your "fairy tale' cite also. By using the term "gunwalking", when only one instance, by an agent not authorized to do so, occurred, your author loses what little credibility he started with. Spin goes to the "right" as well.
Jun 29, 2012 at 7:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
@pharm: I just read your Fortune article. Nice spinning, but essentially a fairy tale. I urge you and everyone else to read my National Review link which was written by an insider. Put your politics aside, and try to figure out what really happened in Arizona.
Jun 28, 2012 at 10:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sadly the fringe left is confusing 2nd ammendment rights, for citizens of this country, with moving these same weapons across national borders with the sole intention of getting them into the hands of criminals involved in the drug trades of another country.
Jun 28, 2012 at 7:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
armancay - you are absolutely right. These are totally benign instruments. In fact I don’t even know why I had weapons training or why we need training for concealed carry as they are so benign. I personally don’t know why anyone would want to conceal this macho-man bling anyway.
Remember no one has EVER been killed by a gun. Guns don’t kill people…….people kill people.
Jun 28, 2012 at 7:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why would Obama assert executive privilege other than he is afraid of what the inquiry would find and point the finger at his administration? Remember his promise of transparency during his campaign speeches?
Jun 28, 2012 at 7:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Okay, let's try that again.
armancay....your comment is silly. Your ability in logic is missing. Apples, oranges, apples, oranges, get it?
Jun 28, 2012 at 7:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Anyone else remember the Iran Contra Affair?
Jun 28, 2012 at 6:30 a.m.
Jun 28, 2012 at 2:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
I don't understand. I thought guns were always good. Isn't that what you guys are always saying but now you are saying guns aren't good?
Jun 28, 2012 at 1:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
There are many troubling aspects to this and other cases. First, IMHO, the idea of giving them guns is just plain stupid; no matter how it is done or who does it. Second, the absence of media coverage on this for almost 2 years raises more questions than it answers. Lastly, not that I am a fan of congress no matter what party is running the circus, they do have oversight authority per our constitution. Any elected or appointed office that can't abide by our nations laws/rules is a huge red flag to other problems. If the person in charge of the attorney general’s office can't perform his job and his own boss can't correct it then there are more problems. The ignorance of those that follow the msnbc "nothing to see hear" mantra just display their willingness to not be informed.
Jun 27, 2012 at 11:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Operation "Wide Receiver" lost 400 guns in Mexico.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/us/atf...
Jun 27, 2012 at 11:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here`s an excellent article that explains "F&F"
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/20....
Jun 27, 2012 at 7:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Here's an excellent article which explains F&F in a lot more detail than most of what's out there.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3...
Jun 27, 2012 at 12:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
illdrinktothat, I assume you are referring to "Wide Receiver" which ran under the Bush administration.
I don't think the programs were very similar. There are important differences.
1. "Wide Receiver" guns were followed with tracking devices, seized on delivery, and the buyers apprehended.
2. "Wide Receiver" alerted Mexican officials each and every time a gun crossed the border.
3. No deaths are associated with "Wide Receiver"
4. When the hidden tracking devices were being compromised "Wide Receiver" was ended by the Bush adm. in 2007.
5. There are not any reports of a cover up or lies being told by the Bush adm. about "Wide Receiver"
To liken "Fast and Furious" to "Wide Receiver" is far fetched. "Fast and Furious" was poorly contrived, managed, and reported from start to finish and beyond by an inept and arrogant Obama administration.
Jun 26, 2012 at 10:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Thanks Gazette, for allowing us the opportunity to have a discussion on real matters of importance (versus the trivial Rep vs Dem discussions that seem to attract all the shallow-minded trolls on most of the articles.) Really!! Thanks!!
-
This Fast and Furious thing is a lot bigger than what's being discussed - although the head of the Justice Department blatantly lying to Congress is a pretty big thing. The real important/bothersome story seems to be being supressed.
-
If you look at previous reports, the "Big Guys" is Mexico who were wanting the guns, paying for the guns, drawing the guns to Mexico were not really drug kingpins. For this operation, it was a fake DEA entity using US cash. We created the crime. It's like a prostitute, a pimp, and a john all trying to arrest each other and finding out they all work for law enforcement! If our government had not created the crime, there would have been no crime. That's the real issue. Those guns were never headed to bad guys. They were headed toward our fake criminal activity. How do you feel about government entrapment?
-
I think the REAL bad guys tricked us good by shooting our own people with our own guns that we paid for.
Jun 26, 2012 at 9:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gee SuperDave...can you tell us which administration started the program which now is commonly known as "Fast and Furious"?
(Or a program very similar)
Jun 26, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
What is the big deal with gun walking? By your own definition there is nothing wrong with it. Sells more guns from the fire arm industry, doesn't it?
Jun 26, 2012 at 6:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Holder is a disgrace and should have resigned years ago. Fast and Furious makes Watergate look like a third-rate burglary - no wait, that's what it was! Compared to Fast and Furious which contributed to the deaths of over 200 human beings - and for what purpose, exactly?!?
Jun 26, 2012 at 2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Honor -- I think you should re-evaluate who is protecting whom. Maybe Holder is protecting Obama and Obama's far left agenda.
Jun 26, 2012 at 1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eric Holder must resign. He has shown his utter incompetence as the top law enforcement officer of the United States. How in the world can Obama protect this clown? Clearly, Holder is being Obama’s lackey because no one else would keep him employed.
If the Democrats don’t get on board and demand that Holder comply or resign, they are showing they also lack the integrity to be in elected office. The educated public will see through this smokescreen they are using.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.