Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

[LkWd_Don]

What I really find very interesting is that Deputy Assistant AG Jason Weinstein became aware of the operation in December of 2009 yet AG Holder would not have been made aware of a funding request going to the DOJ to fund an operation that his Agency was partnered in, when not just the supervisory but fiduciary responsibility of everything happening within his Agency that he leads falls completely on his lap, desk, head, whatever.

Whatever inference you are trying to make here, the part in bold doesn't seem to make any sense as
what an IG was doing in 2009 may well have been kept (and should have been kept till the conclusion of
the investigation) from Holder.

I made no reference to the IG in that instance or to an investigation, an Assistant AG does not hold the same Supervisory or fiduciary responsibility for the Department as the AG does and is why Holder being the AG even then should have been aware or should be considered as grossly negligent of his duties as the Head of the Department.

As that statement contained no inferencece to the IG or to what would have been a premature investigation if conducted in January 2009 well before (nearly two years before) F&F failed and resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry the night of December 14th/15th of 2010, I find myself wondering if you paid close enough attention while reading the post to know that or if for whatever reason, you are trying to misdirect attention by implying something that could not have existed in January 2009.
I will post both of those links again for your perusal.
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conten...ment-FINAL.pdf
http://issues.oversight.house.gov/fa...enTheyKnew.pdf

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Hopyard]

I made no reference to the IG in that instance or to an investigation, an Assistant AG does not hold the same Supervisory or fiduciary responsibility for the Department as the AG does and is why Holder being the AG even then should have been aware or should be considered as grossly negligent of his duties as the Head of the Department.

As that statement contained no inferencece to the IG or to what would have been a premature investigation if conducted in January 2009 well before (nearly two years before) F&F failed and resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry the night of December 14th/15th of 2010, I find myself wondering if you paid close enough attention while reading the post to know that or if for whatever reason, you are trying to misdirect attention by implying something that could not have existed in January 2009.
I will post both of those links again for your perusal.
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conten...ment-FINAL.pdf
http://issues.oversight.house.gov/fa...enTheyKnew.pdf

You are right. I misread where you wrote. " AG" and confused part of your post with one which
I think was put up by MCP. (I can't see the previous page while typing so I can't double check that.)

Nevertheless, I can't agree with the implications of your first paragraph here,
which I put in bold. We aren't Japanese. Our CEOs and Agency heads aren't expected to fall on their swords
over the misdeeds of underlings, if any. It is usually sufficient to ferret it out and punish the guilty.
This the IG (not AG) has been doing or trying to do despite interference by a House Commitee and the
refusal of The Senate to confirm a permanent IG.

The Agency IG (and here I mean IG not AG) has been doing that. Apparently there have been
Grand Jury proceedings otherwise Issa wouldn't have attempted to obtain the transcripts of these.
Is Congress in the business of second guessing a GJ?

Everyone seems in a big hurry to yell cover up and make a lot of noise, and not let the processes
which exist work. I have my own view of why that is, and I'm sure it differs greatly from yours,
but to go there would violate our rules. So, I'm sticking with Separation of Powers being sufficiently
necessary for the system to work, EP having been claimed many times before, and therefore I see
no rational purpose to what the Issa Committee is doing.

[LkWd_Don]

You are right. I misread where you wrote. " AG" and confused part of your post with one which
I think was put up by MCP. (I can't see the previous page while typing so I can't double check that.)

Thank you for confirming that.

Nevertheless, I can't agree with the implications of your first paragraph here,
which I put in bold. We aren't Japanese. Our CEOs and Agency heads aren't expected to fall on their swords
over the misdeeds of underlings, if any. It is usually sufficient to ferret it out and punish the guilty.
This the IG (not AG) has been doing or trying to do despite interference by a House Commitee and the
refusal of The Senate to confirm a permanent IG.

I am not suggesting that we are Japan or any other foreign country either!
I am trying to make a point that had Holder legitimately not known about something going on within his own Department (under his nose) that rather than Fall on his Sword as you call it, that there should have been some disciplinary action taken against those who circumvented his authority.
Seeing no evidence of either happening and the POTUS trying to protect Holder, leads me to question not only Holders Integrity but his abilty to be a responsible Head of a Governmental Agency.

The Agency IG (and here I mean IG not AG) has been doing that. Apparently there have been
Grand Jury proceedings otherwise Issa wouldn't have attempted to obtain the transcripts of these.
Is Congress in the business of second guessing a GJ?

Care to provide a credible source citation that shows the IG was seriously investigating rather than refusing to investigate as all evidence presented to Rep Issa indicates? I have read your statements but see no evidence indicating that the IG really started to do anything till after the Oversight Committee started their hearings. At that point IMHO the IG had already proved incompetent and possibly involved.

Everyone seems in a big hurry to yell cover up and make a lot of noise, and not let the processes
which exist work. I have my own view of why that is, and I'm sure it differs greatly from yours,
but to go there would violate our rules. So, I'm sticking with Separation of Powers being sufficiently
necessary for the system to work, EP having been claimed many times before, and therefore I see
no rational purpose to what the Issa Committee is doing.

I will agree that the Separation of Powers exist and that they exist for a reason, but I would also emphatically state that far too often the POTUS exceeds his authority under that Separation of Powers concept. Trying to claim EP when none exists is simply proof of that. Even my favorite POTUS (Reagan) got his hands slapped for trying to invoke EP.

EDIT: Delected case quote and comment. Will look for correct case

[mcp1810]

OK, let's grant you your premise. That does not automatically mean the two things folks are infering:
1) that there must be a prosecution; 2) that higher authority authorized something they had no authority to
authorize.

There are all manner of laws that start with the language in that code --any person who shall--- or whatever it says,
but elsewhere in other code there are to be found law enforcement exceptions. Yes, cops carry guns in
hospitals.

Yes and normally when disputing something one cites such exceptions. Can you cite any in this case? How about for ITAR?
And besides, you yourself said they were not agents so an exemption for LEOs would not apply.
So who in the federal government legally has the authority to tell a person that laws don't apply to them and where do they get that authority?

[Hopyard]

I am trying to make a point that had Holder legitimately not known about something going on within his own Department (under his nose) that rather than Fall on his Sword as you call it, that there should have been some disciplinary action taken against those who circumvented his authority.

IT sounds like a GJ was convened. We of course
have no clue what took place in such a convention, and Congress is not entitled to inquire.

Meanwhile, the IG--- did provide thousands of pages of documents to the committee; I am left to assume
they found little wrong doing, that this was not what the committee hoped for, and thus they have embarked on
a witch hunt.

Seeing no evidence of either happening and the POTUS trying to protect Holder, leads me to question not only Holders Integrity but his abilty to be a responsible Head of a Governmental Agency.

Are you privy to all actions which might have been taken against those involved? Your seeing no evidence
of such means nothing has happened. Again, by the manner in which the subpoena had to be re-cast between
last Friday and last Wed, it is clear a GJ was convened.

Moreover, Issa himself pretty much said on TV Sunday that there wasn't any evidence of a conspiracy -- I forgot the exact phrase; but then he added the word "yet."

That is a tip off to his hopes and aspirations, I suspect, but it isn't grounds for complaining about EP.

Care to provide a credible source citation that shows the IG was seriously investigating

Sorry, I think anything I provide you with will be deemed as non-credible. I don't want to go down the route
of swearing my sources are better than your sources like two children fighting over whose
dad is stronger.

[LkWd_Don]

IT sounds like a GJ was convened. We of course
have no clue what took place in such a convention, and Congress is not entitled to inquire.

That is a response to

I am trying to make a point that had Holder legitimately not known about something going on within his own Department (under his nose) that rather than Fall on his Sword as you call it, that there should have been some disciplinary action taken against those who circumvented his authority.

??

Meanwhile, the IG--- did provide thousands of pages of documents to the committee; I am left to assume
they found little wrong doing, that this was not what the committee hoped for, and thus they have embarked on
a witch hunt.

Putting aside the accusation of a witch hunt without credible source material. The IG presenting/providing documents to the Committee and the Committee concluding that the IG did nothing speaks for itself.

Seeing no evidence of either happening and the POTUS trying to protect Holder, leads me to question not only Holders Integrity but his abilty to be a responsible Head of a Governmental Agency.

Are you privy to all actions which might have been taken against those involved? Your seeing no evidence
of such means nothing has happened. Again, by the manner in which the subpoena had to be re-cast between
last Friday and last Wed, it is clear a GJ was convened.

Again you misconstrue! Show me where Holder took action against a subordinate for circumventing his authority and I will see such evidence. In the meantime, from what I can see, all of the players who were there are still there and in their respective positions indicating that nothing has happened. Thus my seeing no evidence. J because I see no evidence of wrong doing, does not mean that wrong doing was not there and brings us back to Why hasn't Holder complied and turned over the documens that have been requested and now demanded.

Sorry, I think anything I provide you with will be deemed as non-credible.

That is not true. There are many sources that I consider credible. Starting with multiple Governmental Agencies, Major Law-Firms or Schools such as Cornell Law, many public and non-profit research facilities (un-paid to include Schools/Universities). Sources that I tend to say are not credible are Political Action Committees (focused on Campaigning or Lobbying activities) and any site that anyone wishing to can edit the information or contribute to the information available regardless of the accuracy of such contributions like wikipedia and many blogs that are out there. There are non-politically motivated news agencies out there that are very credible and when they find they made a mistake, they post a retraction or edit their information. Likewise there are some that it seems that hour are needed to scan through multiple corrections and retractions every day because they fail to verify before publicizing. These I shy away from.

[LkWd_Don]

Here is a Congressional Research Service Report done to the topic of EP. It is a good read, covering Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History, Law,
Practice and Recent Developments, you should read it.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL30319.pdf

It clearly indicates that the Separation of Powers has even been infringed upon by the courts as they are in effect legislating from the bench in the same manner that the POTUS in effect legislates by Executive Order.

In fact, it was not until the Watergate-related lawsuits in the 1970’s seeking access to President Nixon’s tapes that the existence of a presidential confidentiality privilege was judicially established as a necessary derivative of the President’s status in our constitutional scheme of separated powers.

My point made in the above quote.

[Hopyard]

Putting aside the accusation of a witch hunt without credible source material. The IG presenting/providing documents to the Committee and the Committee concluding that the IG did nothing speaks for itself.

Yes, but you and I disagree as to what is being said. Which is why this conversation is dragging on though
16-17 pages and no doubt will go on for more unless the mods whack us.

Again you misconstrue! Show me where Holder took action against a subordinate for circumventing his authority and I will see such evidence. In the meantime, from what I can see, all of the players who were there are still there and in their respective positions indicating that nothing has happened.

THe key phrase here is "from what I can see."
Neither of us, unless you work for that House Committee, are in much of position to see much of anything.

Thus my seeing no evidence. J because I see no evidence of wrong doing, does not mean that wrong doing was not there

Nor does it mean that wrongdoing was there. As with many threads here,
you and I can't know from what we hear or read in the newsy. We both have opposing hunches and
in our gut beliefs about what is going on; but neither of us knows, unless you work for DOJ at a high
level or for Congress at a high level. Hence we are left to our speculations and little more.

and brings us back to Why hasn't Holder complied and turned over the documens that have been requested and nodemanded.

Which brings us back once more to the issue of Separation of Powers. Moreover, it also
brings us to the issue that while you assume Holder has done something wrong, I tend to assume
Issa is doing something wrong. Hence, we can't go anywhere with this conversation, frankly.
Time and an election will sort it out for us, maybe.

That is not true. There are many sources that I consider credible. Starting with multiple Governmental Agencies, Major Law-Firms or Schools such as Cornell Law, many public and non-profit research facilities (un-paid to include Schools/Universities).

Some of the non-profits are just lobbying companies in disguise.
I'll judge them as they come. Cornell Law; Government Agencies; major Law Schools and firms when
commenting solely on law and not on policy. OK, we have some sort of base were I inclined to play
academic games.

Sources that I tend to say are not credible are Political Action Committees (focused on Campaigning or Lobbying activities) and any site that anyone wishing to can edit the information or contribute to the information available regardless of the accuracy of such contributions like wikipedia and many blogs that are out there.

I agree mostly, though I have found only one serious error on Wiki over time. I like to start there, and
if need be go to the citations. Also, Google keyword searches sometimes will turn up good stuff as will
Google Scholar a resource many don't even realize exists; I'll guess.

There are non-politically motivated news agencies out there that are very credible and when they find they made a mistake, they post a retraction or edit their information. Likewise there are some that it seems that hour are needed to scan through multiple corrections and retractions every day because they fail to verify before publicizing. These I shy away from.

Well we immediately will run into a problem with that as we'd likely argue forever over the validity of NYT reporting
or Washington Post Reporting, or LA Times Reporting.

Anyway, this is way off topic and just adds a complexity to the discussion that I think isn't necessary.

[Hopyard]

Yes and normally when disputing something one cites such exceptions. Can you cite any in this case? How about for ITAR?
And besides, you yourself said they were not agents so an exemption for LEOs would not apply.
So who in the federal government legally has the authority to tell a person that laws don't apply to them and where do they get that authority?

What about ITAR? State, Commerce and Homeland Security all have discretion and export licenses are
granted; if your point is that there is not evidence that DOJ went to Commerce or consulted State,
therefore the operations could not be legal, you would have a valid point only if we knew more about
behind the scenes deliberations. I agree with you that on the surface it appears to violate ITAR, but
we have no idea what steps may have been taken to make the operation kosher. And we aren't going
to get that from anyone; because even if done (something I doubt) it would be classified most likely. And
it would certainly fall under the EP on deliberations which our other participant denies exists.

Look, I understand that some folks want blood, but this is IMO going nowhere. There isn't enough there, there.

[Hopyard]

OK-- I'm sparring with MCP and LkWd_Don and to some extent my buddy Sig, and I did some
physical sparring in a gym which was at 90 ish by 10 this morning. Over and out for tonight; at least on this
topic.

[Pistology]

What about ITAR? State, Commerce and Homeland Security all have discretion and export licenses are
granted; if your point is that there is not evidence that DOJ went to Commerce or consulted State,
therefore the operations could not be legal, you would have a valid point only if we knew more about
behind the scenes deliberations. I agree with you that on the surface it appears to violate ITAR, but
we have no idea what steps may have been taken to make the operation kosher. And we aren't going
to get that from anyone; because even if done (something I doubt) it would be classified most likely. And
it would certainly fall under the EP on deliberations which our other participant denies exists.

Look, I understand that some folks want blood, but this is IMO going nowhere. There isn't enough there, there.

Our government can't violate the law - by any machinization "to make the operation kosher", lie about it, stonewall about it, and claim EP! The IG is Holder's DOJ employee; and the Senate is majority Democratic and so, in the face of a House vote of Contempt of Congress against Holder, maybe unlikely to call a special committee to investigate the crimes of F&F. But, especially in this season, that is far from "nowhere".

[Sig 210]

and I did some
physical sparring in a gym which was at 90 ish by 10 this morning. Over and out for tonight; at least on this

Take it easy. Today i'll be sparring with a load of sod in the 110 degree heat. Should have laid that sod last month.

[Hopyard]

Take it easy. Today i'll be sparring with a load of sod in the 110 degree heat. Should have laid that sod last month.

Good luck with that. Stay hydrated.

[Hopyard]

Our government can't violate the law

- And what makes you think it did? Do you know with certainty the totality of communications between
DOJ, State, and Commerce may have taken place? DO you know with certainty what latitude
and what other laws (amongst the 10,000 + we have) may have covered the operation in the cloak of legality?

Low level employees, and even higher level employees, unknowingly break all manner of laws as they go about
their daily tasks--- mostly because of the complexity of them all. Sometimes they get an appropriate reprimand or demotion. Sometimes the get dismissed.


All we know is that the IG conducted an investigation, interfered with by Congress, gave the results to Holder and to Congress, and a
Grand Jury was convened. Everything else is supposition.

EP goes to Separation of Powers, and is an essential element of our system of checks and balances. While one participant here wants to deny that it is legitimate,
that defies history. He wants case law to show that it is legit, but an absence of case law doesn't prove something is wrong; it proves it is right, else
there would have been much more litigation through the years.

by any machinization "to make the operation kosher", lie about it,

We know
of one piece of testimony which was retracted/corrected. That is not the same thing as lying about "it."

stonewall about it, and claim EP!

EP for deliberative materials is kosher, and is not
about hiding things. It is about protecting Separation of Powers.

The IG is Holder's DOJ employee; and the Senate is majority Democratic and so, in the face of a House vote of Contempt of Congress against Holder, maybe unlikely to call a special committee to investigate the crimes of F&F. But, especially in this season, that is far from "nowhere".

You keep using the word crimes. Where is your evidence
that crimes were committed? At the higher levels Issa himself did not make that claim against the White House or
Holder. He complains only that he can't get the information he seeks, though he has sought information he is
not entitled to have; and which his own assertion regarding the White House would indicate he has no need for.

At lower levels there may have been crimes. We of course don't have a clue as to what went on in the Grand Jury, now do we? And you know well we should not.

Our governors aren't held responsible, nor are our State AGs, when a local DA declines to prosecute a case of police misconduct; even sometimes manslaughter. You are trying to use
an unrealistic standard for this matter.

[Pistology]

The voters are going to be calling for more facts.
You want to bury yourself in subjective legal theory and history and close your eyes to ITAR, the murder of two federal agents and hundreds of Mexicans, and three inconsistencies in Holder's responses - uncovered in time not by voluntary correction but by contradictory accounts and evidence. It isn't this investigation that's "going nowhere".