Posted on 12/08/2011 7:52:17 AM PST by thouworm
Watch live on C-SPAN3
or on the internet at this link:
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Atty-Gen-Holder-on-Operation-Fast-and-Furious/10737426112-1/
Recalls Issa’s letter: “it is clear that Grindler did one of two things. Either, he altered you to the name and operational details of Fast and Furious, in which case your May 3, 2011 testimony in front of Congress was false; or, he failed to inform you of the name and the operational details of Fast and Furious, in which case Grindler engaged in gross dereliction of his duties as Acting Deputy Attorney General. It is fair to infer from the fact that Grindler remains as your Chief of Staff that he did not engage in gross dereliction of his duties and told you about the program as far back as March of 2010.”
he is going for the jugular. can’t wait for Holder’s reply....
We have taken steps I have ordered an examination blah blah blah personnel changes and the chaffetz said no one was fired...
He never reads anything, he never writes anything. Can we conclude that he's illiterate?
iecess what are they voting on at 2:30?Firing Holder?Holding HOLDER in contempt? Impeachment hearing?
Recess what are they voting on at 2:30?Firing Holder?Holding HOLDER in contempt? Impeachment hearing?
Wag the Dog: shooter on Virginia Tech campus.
that was good
Nary a clue.
From what we’ve perceived so far, whatever the vote is it will be - or better be - meaningless.
Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith Full Committee Department of Justice Oversight Hearing
For Immediate Release
December 8, 2011
Contact: Kim Smith Hicks, 202-225-3951
Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith
Full Committee
Department of Justice Oversight Hearing
Chairman Smith: Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Judiciary Committee last May and we appreciate his willingness to appear today to address many issues, including questions about his previous testimony.
While I am pleased to welcome back Attorney General Holder, I am disappointed in the Department’s repeated refusal to cooperate with this Committee’s oversight requests.
This lack of cooperation is evident in the Department’s handling of inquiries related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) Operation Fast and Furious, and the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.
Operation Fast and Furious intentionally allowed straw buyers for criminal organizations to purchase hundreds of guns so that the ATF could track them across the U.S.-Mexico border. But Fast and Furious had a fatal flaw. Once purchased, there was no attempt to follow the firearms. Instead, the guns were allowed to cross over into Mexico without any coordination with Mexican authorities or any attempt to track the firearms.
Tragically, two of the guns were found at the scene of the shooting death of Customs and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. And by the Department’s own admission, hundreds of guns remain unaccounted for.
It’s been a year since the death of Agent Terry. Yet, many questions remain as to how such a reckless and dangerous law enforcement program was allowed to operate under the Justice Department.
And inconsistent statements from Department officials about who knew what and when have only raised more concerns.
I am also disappointed in how the Department has responded to my oversight requests regarding Justice Kagan’s involvement in health care legislation or related litigation while she served as United States Solicitor General.
Despite claims from Obama administration officials that then-Solicitor General Kagan was “walled off” from discussions regarding the President’s health care law, recently released e-mails indicate there may be more to the story.
On March 21, 2010, an e-mail from the Deputy Solicitor General forwarded to Solicitor General Kagan contained information about a meeting at the White House on the health care law and asked: “I think you should go, no? I will regardless but feel this is litigation of singular importance.” Solicitor General Kagan responded by asking him for his phone number.
We also know from the e-mails that she personally supported the legislation’s passage. In a March 21, 2010, exchange with a Justice Department colleague discussing the health care legislation, Ms. Kagan exclaims, “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.”
These e-mails reveal inconsistencies with the administration’s claims that then-Solicitor General Kagan was walled off from this issue.
To help clear up any confusion, I wrote the Justice Department to get additional documents and conduct staff interviews. It took nearly four months before the Department sent a one page response that denied my request.
The Department did not assert any legal privilege over the requested information but simply refused to comply with the request. That is not a sufficient answer.
Health care legislation was passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009. On January 8, 2010, Ms. Kagan told the Deputy Solicitor General that she “definitely would like the Office of the Solicitor General to be involved in” preparations to defend against challenges to the pending health care proposals.
Ms. Kagan found out she was being considered for a potential Supreme Court vacancy on March 5, 2010. So the issue is how involved was she in health care discussions between January 8 and March 5. Just as President Nixon had an eighteen and a half minute gap, does Ms. Kagan have a two month gap?
The Office of the Solicitor General is responsible for defending the positions of the federal government in litigation before the Supreme Court. So it was the duty of then Solicitor General Kagan to participate in meetings and discussions regarding the legal defense strategy for the President’s health care proposal.
It would have been a surprising departure from her responsibilities for Solicitor General Kagan not to advise the Administration on the health care bill.
But if the Department continues to assert that she was “walled off from day one” from discussions, then they should be willing to provide Congress and the public with documentation to prove that statement.
The law clearly states that Justices must recuse themselves if they “participated as counsel, advisor or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case” while they worked in a government capacity.
The public has a right to know the extent of Justice Kagan’s involvement with this legislation as well as any previously stated legal opinions about the legislation while she served as Solicitor General.
The NFL would not allow a team to officiate its own game. If Justice Kagan was part of the Administration’s team that put the health care mandate into play, she should not officiate when it comes before the Supreme Court.
If the Department has nothing to hide, why not provide Congress with the requested information? The continued refusal to cooperate with legitimate oversight inquiries only heightens concerns that she might have a conflict of interest.
President Obama has promised an “open and transparent government.” Unfortunately, we often see a closed and secretive Justice Department.
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/Statement%20at%20DOJ%20Oversight%20Hearing.html
I am wondering if the vote is regarding the DOJ stonewalling of Kagan or F&F?
excellent summary. thanks,
If not anything, Holder is quick on his feet. Hard to nail down jello. Trent has done the best.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trent: So the answer to his question would have been NO, that you haven’t given him all of the pertinent emails...
It is very simple in my mind. If there are no emails from you that have been given to Mr. Issa, if there are none regarding this committee, we are left with three options here:
1) that this is not that big a deal to you, and I know that it is,
2)Or somehow for some particular reasons, you don’t write emails so that there can’t be any record
3) OR, that you haven’t given us those emails...
Holder: blah, blah, blah
...I made an exception to the way in which the Justice Dept has always conducted itself with the provision of these materials around that Feb 4th letter and acted in a way with regard to all OTHER email material in the way that all other Attys General before me have, and, on that basis, there are email materials that we HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT PRODUCE.
Trent: that is one of the first clear answers that I have gotten today...Is that you have agreed that you have not given the chairman all of the pertinent emails and you are saying that you are NOT going to. At least, that is a clear answer for all of us.
Holder will be thrown under the bus as soon as Obama finds someone to replace and cover for him as well as Holder.
news out on this hearing
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lying-holder-says-has-do-your-state-mind_611731.html
Oops!
I believe Mr. Eric just purchased the rural agricultural endeavor...
.
POE questions Holder:
Update at 1:15pm EST: Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) focuses on the hundreds of Mexican nationals that were killed as a result of this operation. Says willing suspension of disbelief is needed to accept Holder’s claim that he didn’t know about Fast and Furious. Poe demands to know what person was responsible for authorizing the operation. Holder says he doesn’t know. Poe asks Holder if it’s a violation of international law for one nation to allow guns to be smuggled into another country. Holder equivocates and says if both countries agree - like in Wide Receiver - it may be legal. Poe then asks Holder if Mexico knew about Fast and Furious. Holder had no coherent response. Ostensibly, because Mexico, in fact, did not know.
http://barracknow.blogspot.com/2011/12/live-blogging-todays-fast-and-furious.html
~~~~~~~~~~~
POE: Did the Mexican govt agree to Operation Fast & Furious?
Holder: Not the way in which it was actively carried out.
POE: Would you agree that this operation was reckless?
DUHHHHH! Poe’s next question should have been:
What exactly DID the Mexican government agree to?
When did you first inform the Mexican govt that this operation had run amok?
"Update at 1:15pm EST: Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) focuses on the hundreds of Mexican nationals that were killed as a result of this operation. Says willing suspension of disbelief is needed to accept Holder's claim that he didn't know about Fast and Furious...
Random thought as I ignore the ponderous musings of Judy Chu... Isn't it noteworthy that none of these Democrats seem to be overly concerned abou a black Attorney General's culpability in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican nationals? Interesting way for Democrats to court the hispanic vote."
Great observation.
bump
They are running late returning from recess.Santorum is on.Why don’t people like him he sounds very conservative
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Atty-Gen-Holder-on-Operation-Fast-and-Furious/10737426112-1/
Is this a replay or is it starting again on CSPAN?
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Atty-Gen-Holder-on-Operation-Fast-and-Furious/10737426112-1/
thanks. The Chaffetz interrogation was so blistering, I couldn’t transcribe. Will have to wait for official transcription.
Meanwhile, on Drudge:
HOLDER: ‘Nobody at DOJ lied’...
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/holder-nobody-doj-has-lied/244706
Lying ‘has to do with your state of mind’...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lying-holder-says-has-do-your-state-mind_611731.html
Smuggled ATF Guns Will Be Used in Crimes for ‘Years to Come’...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/08/holder-suggests-fast-and-furious-guns-will-be-used-in-crimes-for-years-to-come/#ixzz1fxckX8d6
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.