Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Some Dems may vote to hold Holder in contempt???? (Original Post) jimlup Jun 2012 OP
Some DUers would also like to see Holder gone. MineralMan Jun 2012 #1
But in this context??? jimlup Jun 2012 #3
In whatever context you like. MineralMan Jun 2012 #5
But "Fast and Furious" is actually a program Holder put a stop to. jimlup Jun 2012 #6
Yes. I know that. MineralMan Jun 2012 #7
Isn't the contempt vote a moot point anyway? Proud Liberal Dem Jun 2012 #2
Not necessarily Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2012 #4

MineralMan

(146,354 posts)
1. Some DUers would also like to see Holder gone.
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:20 AM
Jun 2012

Those DUers couldn't be classed as Blue Dogs, I'm sure.

jimlup

(7,968 posts)
3. But in this context???
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:37 AM
Jun 2012

This Fast and Furious thing is a bogus attempt to pin a scandal on Holder that isn't even real. When this goes down it will only hurt democrats. A very bad decision to vote to hold Holder in contempt in this situation and a bad precedent for House Democrats. Actually an almost unspeakably bad president. I'm appalled that some Dems would break ranks to curry favor with an out of control NRA.

MineralMan

(146,354 posts)
5. In whatever context you like.
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:49 AM
Jun 2012

My point is that Holder is unpopular with groups on both ends of the political spectrum. Personally, I'm in favor of leaving it all alone until after the Election. I disagree with those on DU who think Holder should be fired, and I disagree with those on the right that think he's a gun grabber. I also disagree with the entire Fast and Furious fiasco.

I'm used to disagreeing with what the federal government does. It happens a lot.

jimlup

(7,968 posts)
6. But "Fast and Furious" is actually a program Holder put a stop to.
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 12:56 PM
Jun 2012

And I don't think that is why the Republicans want to embarrass him. Like Holder or not this is nothing but a witch hunt from their side and to let it succeed with some on our side singing their tune is disgusting to me and gives new life (as if it needs any) into the "democrats lack backbone" argument.

If we can't stand together against the reptilians on this one what can we stand together for?

MineralMan

(146,354 posts)
7. Yes. I know that.
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 12:59 PM
Jun 2012

I'm not attacking Holder. He is Obama's appointee. I may disagree with some of his decisions, but I don't disagree with him holding the position.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,464 posts)
2. Isn't the contempt vote a moot point anyway?
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:35 AM
Jun 2012

Since President Obama has asserted EP? What is it that Issa wants to see so badly, anyway? What does he believe is being hidden?

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
4. Not necessarily
Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:48 AM
Jun 2012

EP is only valid for national security issues and deliberations from immediate WH staff. EP cannot be used to supress evidence of criminal wrong-doing; which is what is being alleged (That's not MY estimation, jsut the allegation being leveled -- so don't flame me, please!). Case in point: Nixon suppressing tapes where he discusses covering-up the break-in.

And just like Nixon this will probably end up in court. As things go that probably means it won't be resolved until after the election. That means it becomes a campaign issue, so get ready for lots of back and forth on this. The nausea has only just begun.

If the contempt vote passes it becomes campaign commercials for Romney and his PACs at a minimum. Legally Boehner could order Holder arrested by the House Sergeant-at-Arms but that would be unprecedented and an overreach (a gift to Obama, really). He could demand a special prosecutor be appointed but one branch of government cannot order another branch of government on how to conduct their respective duties. That would then become a matter of political weight ass well. Boehner's third option is my first suggestion: it goes to court where it will sloth its way up to the USSC.

Me? I'm taking up watching pro-wrestling. It's more authentic and it has muscley, sweaty, grunting menz.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Some Dems may vote to hol...