Posted on 06/05/2013 3:43:01 AM PDT by Moseley
Eric Holder -- Obama's Attorney General -- should be impeached by the Republican House of Representatives. Without a doubt, Holder's obvious perjury in lying to Congress is the most serious offense. But to understand one of Holder's underlying offenses (in a long string), one must know the difference between "good law" and "bad law." Under the letter of the law, the search warrant for Fox News reporter James Rosen's emails appears proper. But the Attorney General defied U.S. Supreme Court precedents.
In March 1971, The New York Times received a copy of the secret Vietnam War "Pentagon Papers," 7,000 pages long, by a government contractor Daniel Ellsberg. The Times published excerpts in July 1971 and the government sought an injunction against further publication.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the news media has a right to publish secret or classified information, once obtained. In the case of New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S. Ct. 2140, 29 L. Ed. 2d 822 (1971), a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects journalists from interference from the government even concerning government secrets. The justices offered a wide variety of different explanations of their conclusion, but voted 9-0 for the final result.
So, the U.S. Constitution requires a sharp distinction between government employees and the news media. Yet displaying a DoJ culture of contempt for the courts, and lacking both honesty and integrity, the DoJ under Eric Holder defied the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a scenario surprisingly similar to the Vietnam "Pentagon Papers," Fox News published James Rosen's report on North Korea's development and testing of nuclear weapons and the Obama Administration's weak handling of the crisis. Rosen obtained this information from U.S. State Department employee Stephen Jin-Woo Kim. Rosen's report definitely pushed the envelope
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Yes
Yes,its a start
Not only ‘yes’ but ‘hell yes’. Won’t make any difference because the Senate will never convict but it’s still the right thing to do and well justified by Holder’s actions.
Yes
You’ll have to wake up Boehner first and get the bottle of booze out of his hand.
The choice is IMPEACH or CW2.
how about his boss????
once holder goes, all these scandals will fall from the face of the earth like they never happened. move on, shall we?
Yes.
Next question?
Hell yes!
Holder must have embarrassing pictures of Royce Lambert. This isn't the first time that Holder has gotten away with illegal or unethical activities in Lambert's court.
I will respectfully differ somewhat from just about all of the respondents on this thread in saying that impeachment should be a last resort. I believe that was the original intent of the writers of the constitution.
I believe that intent is reflected in the requirement that conviction requires two thirds of the members present in the senate. Our founding fathers did not want it to be easy or convenient to remove people from office. They set a very high standard.
Right now we have some indication that Holder has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, but evidence right now is not sufficient to convince two thirds of the Senate to vote to convict.
If the question were phrased differently, for example, should Holder be removed from office? or should congress impeach and move to convict Holder if all other measures fail? then I can say unequivocally, yes! As the title of this article says it, should congress impeach Holder? then I have to say maybe, but it is too early to say anything more definitive.
‘evidence right now is not sufficient to convince two thirds of the Senate to vote to convict’
Wouldn’t matter. They just won’t convict.
yes
There is an organization and an enterprise that engineers these things.
The organization(s) is a political crime syndicate dominated by two families, Democrat & Republican. Similar to street gangs and their recognition signs, the political thugs have their recognition postures such as the following members of the Democrat Political Crime Family:
That’s almost certainly true, but that is the main thrust of my argument. The founding fathers knew that getting two thirds of the Senate to convict would be very, very difficult. They wanted to make it so that it would be almost impossible to remove someone from office.
Right now we would have to get more than 20 democrat senators to vote to convict.
Of course Holder should be removed from office, indicted, convicted and sentenced to a decades of hard labor.
But it will never happen.
The penalty for such massive crimes against the Republic must be death.
The temptation to repeat should be thwarted with fear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.