Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith Full Committee Hearing

U.S. House of Representatives ^ | June 7, 2012 | Chairman Lamar Smith

[neverdem]

Contact: Charlotte Sellmyer, 202-225-3951

Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith Full Committee Hearing Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice

Chairman Smith: Regrettably, the Obama administration has shown a disregard for the Constitution and rule of law in an effort to impose their agenda on the American people. There are many examples.

Efforts to block congressional inquiries about the Administration’s actions undermine the balance of power on which our nation was founded.

The Department of Justice still has not provided enough information about Operation Fast and Furious so that the American public and Congress can judge who in the Department bears responsibility for the decisions that led to Agent Brian Terry’s death.

The Justice Department refuses to comply with Congressional subpoenas that may shed light on why this program was authorized and who had knowledge of the inappropriate tactics.

The Department of Justice also has failed to provide relevant information that would have revealed the extent of Justice Kagan’s involvement in the development of the Affordable Care Act when she was Solicitor General.

If she did give counsel on the health care bill, which was her job, then she should recuse herself rather than evaluating the law as a member of the Supreme Court. The Justice Department has refused to let us interview her former assistant.

Neglecting to enforce or defend the laws enacted by Congress is another violation of the Administration’s constitutional obligation to the American people.

Under this President, the Justice Department has engaged in a pattern of selective enforcement of the law in order to advance its own partisan agenda.

For instance, the Obama administration has sought to prevent state and local authorities from enforcing immigration laws.

At the same time, the Justice Department has refused to bring cases against sanctuary cities that violate Federal law by prohibiting their officials from communicating with the Department of Homeland Security about illegal immigrants they encounter.

Such sanctuary cities directly challenge the federal government’s authority to enforce immigration laws. The Administration’s unwillingness to uphold immigration laws has led to injuries and even death.

The Administration refuses to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted by Congress and signed by then-President Bill Clinton.

This was a significant piece of legislation that was approved by a vote of 342 to 67 in the House and 85 to 14 in the Senate. Regardless of how one feels about the substance of the bill, the Department of Justice has an obligation to defend the laws of the land.

Efforts by the Administration to override election laws enacted by States also raise constitutional concerns.

Instead of acting to prevent voter fraud, the Department of Justice has challenged common-sense voter ID laws that require voters to identify themselves before they are allowed to vote.

The Department of Justice recently moved to block implementation of voter ID laws enacted by legislatures in Texas and South Carolina.

The Texas proposal was based on a similar law passed by the Indiana legislature, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2008. The Justice Department’s challenge to the law ignores Supreme Court precedent that affirms a state’s right to enact laws to protect the integrity of its elections.

The Department of Justice even threatened to sue Florida for trying to remove ineligible non-citizens from its voter rolls.

Why would the Department of Justice not want states to remove ineligible felons, ineligible non-citizens, and the dead from their voter rolls?

The Administration’s actions aren’t just wrong--they are arrogant, undemocratic, and an insult to the rule of law.

The Administration’s disregard for the Constitution and rule of law not only undermines our democracy, it threatens our national security.

The Justice Department has not taken the initiative to prosecute leaks of national security secrets. Recent leaks about a foiled bomb plot out of Yemen and a cyber attack against Iran are, in the words of Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, “very detrimental . . . very concerning . . . [and] hurt our country.”

For the past three and half years, this Administration has engaged in a pattern of obstructionism, unaccountability, and partisanship.

The American people should have confidence that the Department of Justice fairly enforces laws. That confidence is lacking today. This hearing will explore how that confidence can be restored.

[goodnesswins]

"Regrettably, the Obama administration has shown a disregard for the Constitution and rule of law in an effort to impose their agenda on the American people. There are many examples."

UH....isn't that treason?

[oldbrowser]

For the past three and half years, this Administration has engaged in a pattern of obstructionism, unaccountability, and partisanship.

And now that they are about to be voted out of office we are finally going to have hearings on how to avoid this sort of thing in the future.

We will then pass laws that can be used against future (republican) administrations as they try to undo the damage done for the past three and half years

[kidd]

The American people should have confidence that the Department of Justice fairly enforces laws. That confidence is lacking today. This hearing will explore how that confidence can be restored.

Another hearing?

I am losing confidence that Congress is willing to defend the Constitution.

I am beginning to shift blame from the criminal to the crime enablers.

[ScottinVA]

For the past three and half years, this Administration has engaged in a pattern of obstructionism, unaccountability, and partisanship.

So-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o... the next step is...??

Oh, I momentarily neglected one important fact... they're republicans, which means the next step is.... more words.

[Red Badger]

None dare call it treason..............

[RobinOfKingston]

So, what’s Lamar going to do with this bill of particulars, now that it is compiled and apparently engrossed beneath his official letterhead, and to what end?

How many divisions does Congress have?

The time for “jaw, jaw” is long past, and the time for “war, war” is at hand. Politically speaking, of course.

Sorry, Winston.

[Iron Munro]

Whine a little louder - that will make Obama toe the line.

Nixon and Clinton were impeached for a very small fraction of what Obama has done and continues to do. But no one in Congress or the Senate has the guts to even call Obama an outright liar or traitor to his oath of office, let alone say the word “IMPEACH”.

[rarestia]

That depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is...

[Servant of the Cross]

My reading of this official statement of the litany of DOJ abuses (including Justice Kagan involvement in obamacare!) is that Joe Biden would define this as a BFD. This is the final step before a contempt of Congress citation.

Here is the Judiciary Committee. The GOP has to be sure they have the votes to make the contempt charge stick, or they lay a huge egg. My guess is they have just obtained them which is why Congressman Smith just issued this incredible official statement on behalf of the Judiciary Committee.

Here's my other support - Cummings to Issa: Halt contempt proceedings against Holder

I understand the frustration and skepticism with the GOP, but this is huge (not hugh). Big time!

[Servant of the Cross]

ping

[nathanbedford]

FReepers on this thread have quite understandably expressed skepticism that the Congressional Republicans will be able to deal effectively with this bill of particulars against the Obama administration and the Holder Department of Justice.

It is easy to observe that normally elections are not won or lost on issues of this type, therefore, the passivity of the Republicans is not at all surprising. This is not what grabs Joe sixpack and sends him to the polling stations. Yet, if the tables were turned and the Democrats, educated as they are in Alinsky School for Radicals, would find a way to exploit these real outrages committed by Holder and Obama. Alinsky has taught them that they should personalize the issue. Find some person who has been individually damaged by these policies and make him or her into a martyr. Next, find an individual on the other side and demonize him or her.

I see no disposition among Republicans to exploit these issues in this manner. Please do not offer lectures about the seriousness of the issues and our responsibility to take the high road. There is no high road unless it leads without detour to victory at the polls because there is no justice otherwise. This administration has demonstrated by the particulars for which it is being indicted that it is not constrained to operate within the rule of law. Nothing could be more serious for the health of the Democratic Republic but, alas, very few things could be less of motivating election issue.

There are other ways besides personalizing and dramatizing the actual human cost of these policies. It is conceivable that there are law professors at Harvard or elsewhere who might, who just might be inclined to act the Alan Dershowitz against the Justice Department even as Dershowitz has indicted George Zimmerman's special prosecutor. If a luminary of the established legal elite could be induced to speak truth to power it might begin to undermine the legitimacy of the Obama administration in academia. The surprising example of Alan Dershowitz speaking out on behalf of justice in a racially charged case is perhaps very instructive here. The Obama administration and the Holder Justice Department have been shielded from criticism within the legal community, the media, academia, and, yes, even Republicans themselves because of their skin color. Dershowitz has run counter to type. Might it be the beginning of a trend?

I understand that the capacity of our academic elites to commit political correctness and rationalize almost any grotesquerie by this administration approaches the infinite but there is always a chance....

I am of the belief that middle America in this election is about to take control of the nation away from the elites. As that becomes more evident even to the faculty at Harvard, the defections against Obama, not just among Democrats like Gov. Rendell, Mayor Booker or former President Clinton, but among liberals in academia and elsewhere should begin and swell. If we can appeal to the intellectual vanity of this group, we might just make headway.

There is much that could be done but I agree with the sentiment of this board that very little likely will be done.

In Romney and Behner we hardly have charismatic men of courage to ride against the hosts as our paladins. 0h for Newt Gingrich! So we must do it ourselves. I hope the Tea Party takes up the cause.

[WMarshal]

I may be giving the Republican leadership more credit than it deserves when I make the following speculation. Could the Republicans start impeachment hearings in July or August 2012 during the height of the campaign season. They could time it in such a way that it does not get referred to the Senate until October to put the Democrat held Senate on the ropes?

This would expose the dirty laundry of the Obama admin at the worst time in such a way that the press could not ignore it.

Also, impeachment proceedings can span two congresses without the need to re-adopt impeachment rules or procedures. They could hold hearings all fall and then vote for impeachment on the last day of the lame-duck congress so that the Senate trial could be held in a Republican controlled Senate. Even after an accused has left office, it is possible to impeach to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of his prior office (such as a pension).

[basil]

ping!

[basil]

IMHO, this whole deal is about racism. If anybody or group of people should start impeachment proceedings against obummer and Holder, it would immediately be called “racism” by our main street media, and could possible lead to some very bad riots and such, where people might die.

Am I making sense?

[basil]

IMHO, this whole deal is about racism. If anybody or group of people should start impeachment proceedings against obummer and Holder, it would immediately be called “racism” by our main street media, and could possible lead to some very bad riots and such, where people might die.

Am I making sense?

[itsahoot]

Oh, I momentarily neglected one important fact... they're republicans, which means the next step is.... more words.

Greta tried to pin Issa down last night, he danced the two-step to perfection. I will give him credit, he did say he was in favor of contempt, and tried to lay the stall at the feet of Boehner, right or wrong, I can't say.

Greta was upset 18 months of talk, no action, just do it.

[expat2]

Yes, you are.

But, in addition, impeachment would be an unnecessary and futile (because the Senate wouldn't convict) step if he is a one-termer and would waste valuable political capital. If he should scrape thru into a second term, however,......

[joe fonebone]

HEY!!! CLUELESS LAMAR!!!!!

you are on the judiciary committee...

judges are enforcing the illegal agenda fubo and his gang are trying to force on us..

what pray tell is the solution???

YOU ARE ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE!!!

START IMPEACHING THESE ROGUE JUDGES!!!

the republican party are socialists..

they do not care about the republic or the constitution..

they only care about their power..

wanna prove me wrong..

DO SOMETHING... WRITE UP ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ON ROGUE JUDGES..

won’t happen.. socialist is as socialist does..

[itsahoot]

Am I making sense?

Not sense, excuses.