List of Democrats Voting Holder in Contempt

Pundit Press ^ | 6/27/12 | Aurelius

[rightistight]

Already, there are a few democrat members of the House that have declared that they will be voting to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. This on its face destroys the far-Left's assertions that the vote is strictly partisan. It is literally the opposite now: bi-partisan...

Representative Jim Matheson of Utah has declared that he would vote Holder in contempt. Mr. Matheson also unequivocally voiced his distaste for the corruption the Obama Administration is fostering, saying, "Sadly, it seems that it will take holding the attorney general in contempt to communicate that evasiveness is unacceptable. It is a vote I will support."

Representative John Barrow of Georgia has also stated his support for finding Holder in contempt. Mr. Barrow said, in part, "the Attorney General has decided to withhold relevant documents. The only way to get to the bottom of what happened is for the Department of Justice to turn over the remaining documents, so that we can work together to ensure this tragedy never happens again."

Representatives Nick Rahall of West Virginia and Collin Peterson of Minnesota have joined as well. Defending his planned vote, Peterson described the Obama Administration's rational for executive privileges as "gobbledygook." He went on to say, "I don’t know what the hell they are talking about."

[liberalh8ter]

Three does not a list, make.

[The_Victor]

I’m sure the MSM narrative will still include the phrase “mostly along party lines...”

[DannyTN]

Three is a list. One is a list.

It’d be nicer if the list was longer. But at least there are some democrats that won’t stomach some forms of corruption even if it wears a democrat label.

[kevkrom]

Multiple sources are estimating appx. 30 Democrats will vote in favor of the contempt resolution.

[Wyatt's Torch]

Stupid question: what real world impact does contempt of Congress carry? Is it toothless and will be ignored or does something tangible happen?

[snowrip]

That would be the same dinosaur media that shrills “But it’s BIPARTISAN!” when one lone republican joins a 100% democrat vote.

[Islander7]

Sources told Fox News that about 20 Democrats are likely to vote with Republicans on Thursday.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Look again. That’s four.

[mware]

I heard on the news this morning that there may be two different contempt votes.

One civil contempt and the other criminal contempt.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Remember these:

Matheson

Barrow

Peterson

Rahall

[atomic_dog]

Yawn! Wake me up when a Dem from NY, MA, CA, HI or NJ votes for contempt.

[Hoffer Rand]

Matheson is facing a fairly stiff challenge to his reelection for the first time, and he’s running to the middle. He’s just trying to put some distance between himself and this administration for self-preservation. Let him get past this election (if he survives) and he’ll go back to being a dem “yes” man.

[GreenHornet]

I’m sure the MSM narrative will still include the phrase “mostly along party lines...”

I agree. However, as we all know, when only one Republican crosses the aisle and votes with the Democrats on anything, the MSM reports that "the measure passed with bipartisan support."

[Tenacious 1]

Is it toothless and will be ignored or does something tangible happen?

The contempt charge negates Holder's ability to represent the DOJ in court. It's a vote of no-confidence. It also allows congress to appoint an "independent" investigator/prosecutor of their choosing to investigate the case. That is, if employed, it would take the whole investigation out of the DOJ's control. If they continue to stonewall or obstruct the independent investigation, the independent investigator/prosecutor can file charges against Holder.

However, the President's Executive Privilege stance now must be investigated first. The whole process will take years and will fall out of the news cycle long before November.

I believe that was the strategy behind Obama claiming executive privilege. It will only become a problem for the president after the election and likely will go away after he is unseated.

So, yes there are some teeth if they continue to press. But Holder will not go to jail and/or implicate Obama before November.

[Hoffer Rand]

Matheson is facing a fairly stiff challenge to his reelection for the first time, and he’s running to the middle. He’s just trying to put some distance between himself and this administration for self-preservation. Let him get past this election (if he survives) and he’ll go back to being a dem “yes” man.

[Cheerio]

In the Bloggers & Personal forum, on a thread titled List of Democrats Voting Holder in Contempt, atomic_dog wrote: Yawn! Wake me up when a Dem from NY, MA, CA, HI or NJ votes for contempt.

[liberalh8ter]

Don't get me wrong...I'm happy to hear there are Dems crossing the aisle on this issue however, it's pathetic when you consider this is the AG obfuscating Congress on an policy that resulted in the death of a BP agent and hundreds, if not thousands of Mexicans. Instead an atmosphere of the usual partisan fighting, there should be outrage.

[b4its2late]

One makes it bi-partisan, to the WH anyways, when one pubbie jumps to their side of a vote...

[CedarDave]

Multiple sources are estimating appx. 30 Democrats will vote in favor of the contempt resolution.

Didn't know there were that many racist Democrats in Congress.

/sar