Skip to comments.DOJ Says It Will Not Prosecute Holder (Shocking!)
Posted on 06/29/2012 12:44:58 PM PDT by NOVACPA
The Justice Department has declared that Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to withhold information about a bungled gun-tracking operation from Congress does not constitute a crime and he won't be prosecuted for contempt of Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at newser.com ...
How totally unexpected. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.
LARRY MARGASAK and PETE YOST | ASSOCIATED PRESS |
Are the authors of this piece. Yet above, YOU have claimed authorship.
That's curious, isn't it?
Of course nothing was going to happen to Holder, yesterday was nothing but a “Dog and Pony Show.” The Republicans knew nothing would ever come of it.
Wait, we have an AG? Who Knew?
If you define curious as a simple mistake, then yes.
The fox won’t let you count the chickens!
It would be a simple mistake if you had attributed the article to someone else.
Attributing it to yourself is something different.
How does that stolen valor taste now?
I heard Al Capone NEVER arrested himself.
WHAT is the purpose of Congress?
Kim Jong Un is an unaccountable dictator, sure, but at least he’s HONEST about it, ya gotta give him that.
I am not eating anything feathered, as there was no intent of scienter in my using the author field incorrectly.
You are proceding from a false assumption.
Go thou and say no more.
Knock off giving yourself credit for the work of others.
They are above the law. People go to jail for less crimes.
“I’m Shocked To Find That There Is Gambling Gouing On In This Establishment”(here are your winnings for the night,Inspector Renaud).
It is good that the DOJ acted so quickly since the decision to not prosecute is a condition precedent to Congress taking it to court with its own attorney.
Is there anyone on this planet who expected anything else?
The question is what will Congress do now?
Probably apologise to Holder for bringing it up.
Didn’t expect this Administration’s DOJ to do anything. The real question is, what is the statue of limitations for contempt of Congress?
Issa said (on Greta VonSustrens show yesterday) that this was anticipated for the Criminal Contempt citation. That is why a similar Civil Contempt citation was voted on right after the Criminal one was.
Now this goes to the DC Courts, where Holder and the DOJ do not have authority.
And the House always has the option to arrest Holder directly, but this hasnt been done in 80 years, there is no longer a Congressional jail and a stand-off between the House Sgt-at-arms and the FBI wouldnt be pretty.
I am sorry but this holds no humor for me. There is something seriously wrong about all this and the deliberateness is frightening. This administration is defying the American people with breathtaking ferocity. They aren’t just kissing off Issa and committee, it is against “we the people,” and they are showing us just what their rule of law is all about. We are up against some very dangerous people and I think our goose is cooked.
It’s a crime that H0lder is not in Mexico gather up the remaining guns of his.
It’s a crime that H0lder is not in Mexico gathering up the remaining guns from his illegal and treasonous acts.
Doesn’t matter, Congress will prosecute him. They have the power to impeach. Senate has power to remove and jail him. All without the effing DOJ.
The rule of law is being ignored in many cases and being applied selectively in other cases. If that is not anarchy and tyranny I don’t know what is.
I don’t think it is lawful to have some states where you honor the 287g agreement and others where you don’t. Nobody expected the Robert’s ruling yesterday because they expected the ruling to stay within conventional boundaries of law. Not some contortion of logic where they could hear the case because it did not involve a tax and then twist the bill so that it could be a tax. That is nothing but wrong and you don’t need a bunch of legal scholars to figure that out.
Do you or I get to choose what laws we obey or choose how we obey them and in what parts? Is our ignorance of the law any defense?
Yes, the administration is in open revolt against the law and the people. It is no laughing matter. We are in a place where we have never been in modern history or perhaps ever.
No elected official is doing anything I can see. Can you?
There are oaths of some sort sworn by all law enforcement officials that they will uphold the law and specifically oaths sworn by Federal Employees and officers of the military to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is part of the United States Code. As of today, I don’t think it means anything anymore.
The oath is here:
Title 5 Part III Subpart B Chapter 33 Subchapter II § 3331
The oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.
I think that every federal employee who took the oath and every officer needs to review it again and wonder what it means. One has to be dead right in how he upholds the oath or he will be dead wrong. Usually, it is the harder right and the easier wrong we have to choose between.
This is copied from the USC and provided by Cornell Law School for convenience.
Quoting from the USC:
“An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath:
I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
This section does not affect other oaths required by law.”
I’m no lawyer but if the rule of law ever does return people may want to be thinking about the phrases: negligence, “culpable negligence” or “dereliction of duty”. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it doesn’t matter.
Like Limbaugh said today, I feel like the chief of police in our town just announced that officers would now be helping criminals commit crimes.
Ever hear of the battle of Athens?
It has been posted on this space before.
Maybe they could sue, and add obstruction of justice as a charge? Ironic, isn’t it?
You hit the nail on the head, Toespi
Correct me if I am wrong. During this nightmare of 3 1/2 years, Obama has vehemently gone against every issue that the popular polling data shows the American people are in opposition to. I truly believe this is his game and purpose. Stuff it down their throats and see how much they will take, how far can we take these people into tyranny without rebellion. He is the best planned terrorist attack to ever strike this country. His presidency makes 911 look like child’s play.
So far as memory serves me correctly you would be correct in your assertion of his having done nothing the majority of the people want. He has only played to the dependent base who are on the dole and the radicals with some other destructive agenda or deep seated guilt for their father’s having been successful enough to leave them rich or some actors who are shamelessly over paid for looks or luck of the draw.
Yes, it does make 911 look like child’s play.