What Rep.Elijah Cummings said about the vote to hold Holder in contempt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

Washington, DC (June 20, 2012) – Rep. Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, issued the following statement today about the Committee’s vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

“What we just witnessed was an extreme, virtually unprecedented action based on election year politics rather than fact,” said Cummings. “Even in the face of an assertion of executive privilege, the Republicans didn’t even pause to consider the law and instead decided to take this extreme step.

“The House has never held an Attorney General in contempt, and the only precedent for what this Committee did today was in the 1990s when then-Chairman Burton held Janet Reno in contempt. It was so extreme that even then-Speaker Newt Gingrich refused to bring it the floor for a vote. If Speaker Boehner brings this contempt citation to the floor, he will be known as one of the most extreme Speakers in history.”

http://cummings.house.gov/press-release/cummings-issues-statement-committee-contempt-vote

Me: the Republicans are just desperate. Most of them don't know what they are doing.

[madaboutharry]

1. I doubt they even understand the law.

They're hacks.

[enough]

2. They don't understand and they don't think it's necessary to understand.

Hacks is a good word for it.

[bongbong]

3. The understand only only one thing

And it comes after they ask, "What are your orders for me today, Mr. Billionaire?"

[Larry45]

4. I don't see the big deal. I want more transparent government!

As a democrat I admit with the way things are going down, it really does look like Holder has something to hide. To me, it seems that if there is nothing to hide then its no big deal to hand over all the documents. The truth is more important to me than politics. I agreed with Obama's past comments that government should be more transparent (with the exception of national security issues, of course) but feel disappointed that his executive order appears to hide something big. The legal points about withholding the docs may be true, but it feels like a false front since Obama has appeared to stretch the limits of what is legal in the past (i.e. individual mandate). There should be a thorough investigation into all the "gun walking" programs regardless of who was president.

[pinto]

5. House Repubs aren't interested in solving anything. They want a resignation, that's their point.

The committee is tasked with assisting the government with resolving the flaws in the federal oversight of the program. Assisting, resolving, playing a constructive role and moving forward. It's clear all they want is Holder's head as part of their obsessive partisan anti-Admin agenda. I'm glad to see the Exec Order call their grandstanding.

[Larry45]

16. Fast and Furious

I agree this has definitely become political and the republicans would love for Holder or even Obama to be implicated in fast and furious. However, to me its more about Brian Terry's loss of life along with many others, and their families. I want to get to the bottom of it so we can prevent these kinds of programs in the future. That said, I think Obama's exec order was a poor political move. When the house votes to hold Holder in contempt, the case will then go to the department of justice, and then will probably take a very long time to move forward. Obama has unnecessarily injected himself into the situation and now looks like he is involved in a cover-up.

[NRaleighLiberal]

6. Do you really feel that the individual mandate stretches the limits of what is legal?

And what about the fact that this program started in 2006 as Wide Receiver - where is the questioning of Mukasey and other Bush people?

[Larry45]

10. Fast and Furious

I think all of the gun walking programs should be investigated. In fact I agree with Rep Welch when he asked “Does it make sense to take a little but more time to work this out?” The amendment he proposed wanted to investigate all gun walking programs including those during the Bush years before voting on Holder's contempt. While rejecting the amendment, Issa pledged to Welch that he would investigate all the gun walking programs as part of the investigation. The question right now is why is Holder stalling the investigation by withholding information that was subpoenaed last October. The executive privilege has really heightened this question!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. What is he supposed to be hiding?

[Larry45]

12. Fast and Furious

The Department of Justice having knowledge of Fast and Furious. Unfortunately, Obama has now thrown a great deal of suspicion on himself with his executive privilege order. He said he first heard about fast and furious on the news, but now a lot more people are going to question if that is true!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. So the right wing say

but actually, no

[MADem]

11. So you want Holder to break federal law to satisfy Issa's partisan, grandstanding demand?

You agree that Issa is right to KNOWINGLY ask the Attorney General of the United States to KNOWINGLY break federal law and hand over documents he is prohibited by law from handing over?

And you agree that Issa's threat of contempt if Holder doesn't break the law is appropriate?

Good grief. You are unclear on the issues here.

[Larry45]

13. Fast and Furious

There is real legal debate if turning over the documents to the House Committee on Oversight and Government reform, is actually illegal. I just don't believe the righteous intention that its all about not breaking the law. I won't insult you for your belief that its all about keeping the law. My experience is that in politics "it depends on what your definition if is, is." when you want the law to mean something.

[MADem]

14. So you DO want Holder to break existing federal law to satisfy Issa's grandstanding, partisan

and purely political demands.

There is no "debate." Stow that bullshit. Holder is refusing to release elements of an ongoing IG investigation because it is AGAINST FEDERAL LAW for him to do so. Issa is demanding that Holder either break the law or be held in contempt--and Issa has the squirrel balls to call himself a lawmaker.

"Belief" has nothing to do with it--that's for Republican evangelicals. This isn't a definition of "is" issue either, so stuff that crap, too.

I'm talking about existing federal law. You're talking rightwing talking points.

I think you took a wrong turn somewhere....you want the website down that muddy road to the right.

[Larry45]

17. Fast and Furious

Sorry dude, but the fact is that there is debate on this topic. Just as you said, these points can be found in the right wing talking points and I will add with attorneys all over fox news outlining their side of the debate. You seem hostile about this.

[MADem]

22. There is only debate amongst people who do not understand the issue or who want to shit-fling.

Anyone who does know what is going on understands that it is ILLEGAL, under FEDERAL LAW, for Holder to provide those materials.

That's the bottom line.

I'm not "hostile" (nice try at trying to make it about me; those "personal attacks" say more about you than you realize)--I'm just right on this matter, have little patience for people who try to claim two plus two is seven, and there simply is no "interpretation" involved, here.

Federal law is federal law--unless you, and Darryl Issa, think the Republicans can pick and choose the laws they decide to obey.

It's not up for debate--it's certainly up for OBFUSCATION, as you are trying frantically to do, but it is not up for debate. Too bad if Issa or you don't like it.

[coalition_unwilling]

24. Not being snarky here, just genuinely curious. Exactly what federal

statute(s) would Holder be violating if he were to comply with Issa's subpoene?

This sounds like a constitutional law question of competing jurisdictions: Issa's duty of congressional oversight competing with the executive's right and duty to assert executive privilege. Time for the Supreme Court to weigh in maybe on which power has supremacy?

But I have not been following the dispute closely until the past day or so, so I may be misunderstanding what is going on here.

[MADem]

25. I'm afraid you'll have to read the whole thing--I can't get this document to cut/paste.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97108367/2012-06-14-Dem-Briefing-Memo-062012-FC-Business-Mtg

Go down to the section that reads "Documents Protected by Federal Law" and "Documents Protected by Grand Jury Secrecy Rules" and "Documents Relating to Ongoing Investigations and Prosecutions" and "Documents Relating to Correspondence With Congress" and you'll find the answers to your question.

[coalition_unwilling]

26. Thanks! Will look at later today. - n/t

[pacalo]

18. You must have missed Rachel Maddow last night.

Watch the first two video segments:

-- "Goofy gun conspiracy surfaces in Congressional action"

-- "Gun rights fanatics invent violence conspiracy, ignore actual gun violence"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/


Please tell me that you don't get your misinformation from Fixed News.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

27. I think you are correct about that

[meow2u3]

7. House rethugs are two-bit criminals who think their word is law

In other words, they're nothing but tinhorn tyrants, petty little boys who never grew up throwing a tantrum because Holder wouldn't hand over privileged documents (possibly) concerning an ongoing investigation. These overgrown brats would rather let dangerous criminals skate before allowing the Obama adminstration to do its job. Absolutely disgusting!

[freshwest]

9. +1,000. Needed to be said.

[Angry Dragon]

15. Republican hate knows no bounds

I wonder if they realize how close to the line of treason they step??

[WI_DEM]

20. Boehner has no backbone--he can't stand up to his tea bagging members.

[bluedot95]

21. Spam deleted by cyberswede (MIR Team)

[MADem]

23. This is the second spam I've seen from you today.

Look, I realize you are spamming for a "D" supporting site, but I would recommend that you put that information in your SIG LINE, that way no one will accuse you of solicitation or hit alert on you.

It's not cool to jump into a thread about a serious issue, write a bullshit "ME TOO" line or two, and then launch into a solicitation to try to hawk your wares.

I do understand that your heart is in the right place but it just looks....craven. It also distracts from the conversation about the issue.

Stick that in your sig line, if it does benefit GA Dems and isn't a private and for profit concern. Is there a profit distribution assertion anywhere on the site that will show how much money the GA Dems get from the effort?