I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but Democrats ARE NOT going to convict there own, regardless.
The Law is broken. The only way Holder is going to pay for his multiple crimes is when, during the next Civil War, someone identifies him, even with a beard, shoves a knife into his rectum, shoots him in the head, and shows his body in a 7-11 freezer.
That is, apparently, the only way to dispose of power crazed tyrants. If you doubt me, ask Perjuring Bill about admitting that he lied to a Grand Jury.
One major difference between the Monica Lewinski affair and Operation Fast and Furious is that the former was something that many Americans believed should have remained a private matter--not worthy of public outrage. Nobody, of any political stripe, can really argue that Fast and Furious is a private matter between Obama and his appointees. Even many Democrats--whose minds would be unable to comprehend the notion that Obama could have deliberately planned to put guns into Mexican criminals' hands--would probably recognize that Obama's failure to go after the people responsible constitutes a gross dereliction of duty.
I agree that Attorney General Holder should be impeached. However, he should also be convicted. There is, unfortunately, a “minor” problem under Article I of the Constitution. While a bill of impeachment can be passed by vote of a simple majority in the House, only the Senate can convict and that requires a two-thirds vote. Obama administration loyalists in the Senate could easily prevent a two-thirds vote for impeachment there.
That's why I consider the debate about impeachment to be rather a waste of time. General Holder may be impeached by the House, but the chances of conviction in the Senate are, for all practical purposes, nonexistent. And, without a conviction, he can continue in office until fired by a new Republican president and be highly regarded by Democrats -- as has been the case with former President Clinton, now the reigning grand old man of the party.