Posted on 06/20/2012 1:44:21 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Then I'm in error. I've seen no explanation in any of these threads, and figured because it was called "Contempt of Congress" that both chambers would have to vote. The fact of Grassley's involvement sustained that belief.
I believe you’ll find that a vote is required only by the house in which the contempt occurred. The Senate doesn’t vote on House of Representative contempt citations nor the House on Senate citations.
If I understand correctly 0 must give in writing his reason for using EP. There are only three or four legitimate reason to uses EP. Not only has he not given reason, but they do not apply to this case. WithHolder has forgotten 0 is not his client. He represents the AMerican People...and not just His People....so much for Just-US!
I assume that there is a procedure and mandatory 3/5/ whatever day delay after posting a vote to the calendar and that’s the nominal reason for the delay. Wondering whether there could have been a suspension of the rules for a quicker vote?
You are right. Forgot about that. I'm over 80 and memory is not too good.
Holder already agreed to release the documents, or something like them ... if they’d only cut him a deal and play kissy-face.
Issa wouldn’t budge. Cool!
Slapping a gag of “Presidential Executive Privilege” shouldn’t carry any weight because Holder ALREADY AGREED to release the documents. In a sense, the documents are now “out there” for review by the committee. If nothing else, there is a gentleman’s agreement to hand them over under certain conditions, which should be worth at least a raised eyebrow.
I don’t think “executive privilege” applies. Maybe to future documents ...
“To do it any sooner would have given the opposition an argument for the Grand Jury.”
And just what Grand Jury would that be? I don’t see any Grand Jury anywhere in these proceedings.
The House oversight committee voted today. Next week, the whole House votes on the matter.
“the Senate DNC has control and will never vote for contempt.”
The Senate is not involved in this! The House is the body for whom the AG has shown “contempt.” They will find him in contempt and that will be that! The Senate has no role in this process.
I’m assuming the assertion of the Privilege is just another attempt to stall the release of the emails, but it’s worse than a disaster, it’s a blunder. Obama’s put himself between Holder and the buzzsaw. He has to be personally involved to claim it, something both he and Holder have been steadfastly denying.
Until today.
Then Holder will go back to his normal stonewalling.
Haven't seen your ping (after a refresh) about info on how this proceeds, but I can comment on the above. This morning on Fox News, judge Napolitano addressed this. There are 4 areas credited by the SP that are covered by presidential executive privilege. The two that pertain are national security and privileged discussions/communications of the president that cover the other 3.
It may be that the administration will claim this falls within national security, but that would be difficult to defend. How would our purposely arming drug cartels in Mexico be a benefit to our national security? OTOH, the second defense draws in the president's knowledge of not only the program, but these emails which, to them, are the direct benefit of his claim?
What's still interesting to me is, I haven't heard yet that the committee has received any direct notice from the WH on the claim of EP. It's only come through Holder. That, to me,opens up a broad range of speculation...
All I know is what Wikipedia says.
If the full House votes for a Contempt of Congress citation, this either results in the Sgt. at Arms of the House arresting Holder on the spot (not done in over 80 years), or it goes to a Grand Jury (in which case Holder would have to allow himself to be put on trial).
Wikipedia doesn’t address: Is impeachment required to remove the head of the DOJ? Would a special prosecuter be required?
Which goes to show the importance of elections!
Contempt of Congress is technically a crime, so after the vote it will be referred to a federal prosecutor as a matter of procedure.
Normally if the prosecutor was going forward with the referral he would convene a grand jury and present evidence. The Holder apologists could argue that Holder was being treated unfairly for political reasons.
However, the prosecutor doesn’t have to prosecute.
And for political reasons, won’t.
Or if he did, the grand jury for political reasons would take a pass.
Oops. When I wrote “SP” in my post #63, I meant “SC” for Supreme Court. Sorry.
Or WithHolder is between BaROCK and a hard place....
Read SC correctly..Horrible at editing.
..FR has been doing weird things today...slow..multiple postings....Lots of people lurking here.
Saw just a blurb from the Judge today, would like to see it all.
Yes, it IS stange, not sure what they think they are doing!...what goes around does come back around.
House Republican Whip, Kevin McCarthy (California) needs to tell his troops to get in line. There is absolutely NO reason to side with Demwits on this vote! NONE! No excuses accepted!
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.