House committee schedules vote to hold Eric Holder in contempt

[Pathfinder]

this is no great surprise to me.  I've held that Holder is contemptible since Odamna took office. he was under AG in Slick Willie's regime!

Crusader

FIFY CR

[Pecos Bill]

Ok, say Congress votes that Holder WAS in contempt, what happens then? Does he get jail time? Does he get a fine? Does he get fired from the AGs job? Or does he get a citation that he is in contempt of Congress and no raise in pay till after the elections?

Pecos

[Timothy]

Ok, say Congress votes that Holder WAS in contempt, what happens then? Does he get jail time? Does he get a fine? Does he get fired from the AGs job? Or does he get a citation that he is in contempt of Congress and no raise in pay till after the elections?

Pecos

Censure, impeachment (though that would be a Senate deal as he was confirmed by the Senate), nothing...it's complicated! 

These are times when we need a guy like FQ.  He might still be wrong but he's got lots of letters after his name!   

[tombogan03884]

John Mitchell was Nixon's AG, He is the only AG to ever wind up in Jail (19 months ) It was for his actions during "Watergate" and it didn't happen until June 22 1977, 5 years after the fact.
(Saw it in "Today in History"  this AM    )

But the point is, it can happen, but it won't happen quick.
Here's what I found on his case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell

In 1972, when asked to comment about a forthcoming article that reported that he controlled a so-called political slush fund used for gathering intelligence on the Democrats, he famously uttered an implied threat to reporter Carl Bernstein: "Katie Graham's gonna get her tit[13] caught in a big fat wringer if that's published."[14]

Mitchell's name was mentioned in a deposition concerning Robert L. Vesco, an international financier who was a fugitive from a federal indictment. Mitchell and Nixon Finance Committee Chairman Maurice H. Stans were indicted in May 1973 on federal charges of obstructing an investigation of Vesco after he made a $200,000 contribution to the Nixon campaign.[15] In April 1974 both men were acquitted in a New York federal district court.[16]
Former Attorney General Mitchell enters the Senate caucus room to testify before the Senate Watergate Committee, 1973

On February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up, which he dubbed the "White House horrors". The sentence was later reduced to one year by United States district court Judge John J. Sirica. Mitchell served only 19 months of his sentence, at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama, a minimum security prison, before being released on parole for medical reasons.[17] Tape recordings made by President Nixon and the testimony of others involved confirmed that Mitchell had participated in meetings to plan the break-in of the Democratic Party's national headquarters in the Watergate Hotel.[citation needed] In addition, he had met, on at least three occasions, with the president in an effort to cover up White House involvement after the burglars were discovered and arrested.

[PegLeg45]

As if no one saw this angle coming.........      

http://www.examiner.com/article/chris-matthews-claims-ethnic-motivation-behind-contempt-citation

Chris Matthews claims 'ethnic' motivation behind contempt citation

I guess BHO isn't the only feller that gives ol' Chris a tingle up his leg. 

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

As if no one saw this angle coming.........      

I guess BHO isn't the only feller that gives ol' Chris a tingle up his leg. 

I was looking for an article I saw about Michelle Malkin tearing up some Dem about it being politically motivated,
 (George Will pointed out that "of course it was politically motivated, everything that happens in DC is politically motivated.
Just like the Obama administrations effort to build support for gun control that has come to be know as "Fast and Furious was politally motivated )
But I found this about "Executive Privilege"

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/21/morning-bell-president-obamas-fast-and-furious-scandal-grows/?roi=echo3-12347548315-8950282-3c313690c5ef2549ac80652762177c44&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Executive privilege is legitimate when properly invoked. But even then, the Supreme Court has maintained that it is not absolute. The Department of Justice (DOJ) must provide a compelling rationale for each assertion. Shielding wrongdoing has never been a qualifying rationale.

Heritage legal expert and former Department of Justice counsel Todd Gaziano explains:

    First, the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The courts held that [President] Nixon’s purported invocation of executive privilege was illegitimate, in part, for that reason. There is reason to suspect that this might be the case in the Fast and Furious cover-up and stonewalling effort. Congress needs to get to the bottom of that question to prevent an illegal invocation of executive privilege and further abuses of power. That will require an index of the withheld documents and an explanation of why each of them is covered by executive privilege—and more.

It is now up to Congress to ascertain the specific reasoning for executive privilege with every withheld document. Even in the unlikely case it is determined that this was a proper invocation of executive privilege, the administration is still not off the hook to inform Congress of what they know.

Gaziano explains further:

    [T]he President is required when invoking executive privilege to try to accommodate the other branches’ legitimate information needs in some other way. For example, it does not harm executive power for the President to selectively waive executive privilege in most instances, even if it hurts him politically by exposing a terrible policy failure or wrongdoing among his staff. The history of executive–congressional relations is filled with accommodations and waivers of privilege. In contrast to voluntary waivers of privilege, Watergate demonstrates that wrongful invocations of privilege can seriously damage the office of the presidency when Congress and the courts impose new constraints on the President’s discretion or power (some rightful and some not).

President Obama now owns the Fast and Furious scandal. It is entirely up to him whether he wants to live up to the transparency promises he made four years ago, or further develop a shroud of secrecy that would make President Richard Nixon blush. If the stonewalling continues, and the privilege is not waived, it will be up to the American people and the media to demand the reasoning for the cover-up.

>>>>>>>>>MORE AT LINK<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Found the link I was looking for, you need to read the whole thing and watch the video, she gives them hell 

One teaser

"“For some of us the core issues of national security, Second Amendment rights, integrity in government actually matters, it is not just some sort of TV game debate for us, Tamara.”

Holder did not appreciate that, and there were plenty more raised voices before Malkin pointed out that Wide Receiver was “planned, controlled delivery and retrieval“ and that ”they got those guns back,” but that didn’t happen in the Obama administration because there was “underlying gun control agenda that is clear in these documents.”

“Clearly they are the ones with the ideological zealotry that caused bloodshed in this country. The blood is on your people’s hands, Tamara!” she said passionately.

“No, actually we‘re all Americans and it’s on all of our hands,” Holder responded, before saying these things just “take time” to figure out and that the contempt charge is too soon.

Malkin interrupted, and when Holder objected Malkin shot back, “No, I’m not going to let you get away with that lie!”

Watch it all here

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/malkin-unloads-on-liberal-hannity-guest-over-fast-and-furious-the-blood-is-on-your-peoples-hands/

[twyacht]

WH Press Boy Carney looked like sh**, did you see the bags under his eyes? He knows he has to spin a talking point that even the lib media is saying WTF? Really?

Pelosi stated this was about voter suppression, Rep Gromby R-KY, said she needed to see a medical professional and was "mind-numbingly stupid" in her remarks.....

I think the strategery is to let the POTUS and his Admin. bury themselves in ineptness and B.S. Of course the low information voter, doesn't care....

More folks are informing themselves,....and will only increase their awareness as we get closer to Nov.

After all,....according to BHO "The Middle Class Is Just Fine"........

Please make a campaign stop, like you did with Joe the Plumber, in my neighborhood.....I'll be more than happy to inform you how well I'm doing...Financially, my retirement account, my utilities, my cost of living increases, etc,.. et al...

No Sir,....I am not better off than I was 4 years ago....