House holds Holder in contempt over ‘Fast and Furious’ documents

The Washington Times ^ | June 27,2012 | By Stephen Dinan

[Hojczyk]

The 256-67 vote amounted to a political spanking for Mr. Holder and President Obama, and 17 Democrats joined with Republicans in demanding the documents be released. Most Democrats, however, walked out in protest of the vote.

It marks the first time an attorney general has been held in contempt by a chamber.

But the White House dismissed the proceedings as a sideshow, and the vote does nothing to break the impasse, though it further poisoned feelings in an already bitterly divided chamber.

“No Justice Department is above the law, and no Justice Department is above the Constitution,” said House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

[philman_36]

So, what happens next?
It goes to the Senate and they get their turn to vote on the contempt charge.

[hoosiermama]

So why didn’t they vote before they walked.

By walking before they voted, they can say they didn’t vote to support the illegal actions of 0 and WithHolder.

They sertainly weren’t there supporting the scum.

[hoosiermama]

It doesn’t go to the Senate. Civil goes to a lawyer where the papers can be ordered given to the committee. The earlier vote simply sends it to a lawyer under Holder...a career ending case.

[spawn44]

Another nail in the political coffin for the obama led socialist democrats. We will be seeing a lot more of the democrat frauds walking out the door come November.

[hoosiermama]

It does NOT go to the Senate....Civil case goes directly to a lawyer and probably ends up at the SCOTUS. Easlier action is handled within the JustUS department.

[Chode]

that AND five bucks will get you a cup of coffee at $tarbuck$ too...

[philman_36]

Civil goes to a lawyer where the papers can be ordered given to the committee.

I stand corrected...thanks hoosiermama.

U.S. Attorney Could Ignore Holder Contempt Citation WSJournal
Under federal law, the House contempt citation goes next to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who would be responsible for bringing the matter to a grand jury and beginning possible criminal prosecution of his boss, Mr. Holder.

Well this looks like it is going to go nowhere.

[philman_36]

I should have remembered... The Justice Department’s chief precedent on the issue is a 1984 opinion issued by Office of Legal Counsel. The opinion by Ted Olson, highly regarded among conservatives, says a U.S. attorney “is not required to refer a congressional contempt citation to a grand jury or otherwise to prosecute an executive branch official who carries out the President’s instruction to invoke the President’s claim of executive privilege before a committee of Congress.”

People familiar with the matter said that precedent is expected to help form the Justice Department response.

The last time Mr. Olson’s opinion came into play was in February 2008, when the Democratic-controlled House voted to hold two senior aides to President George W. Bush, Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, in contempt of Congress over another documents dispute. On Feb. 29, 2008, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that Justice wouldn’t take any action against the two aides.

Nope, won't go far at all, IMO.

[doc]

‘Contempt means nothing unless he is actually taken into custody and his freedom restricted’

Exxactly!!! Unless Holder is kicked out of office and bought up on charges this contempt charge is but meaningless rhetoric to quiet down the few that are actually paying attention to what is going on.

[BfloGuy]

Really? How much would you like to bet they are not brave enough to right thing and impeach and arrest him like the filthy criminal thug he is? He is responsible for the murders of hundreds of individuals both Mexican and American.

The whole mess ends here. Nothing will happen because of this vote. It's a strong gesture, but nothing else.

[Logical me]

Won't mean a damn thing. King Obama will just slap the House wrist.

[MikeSteelBe]

“Case in point ... has Harry Reid said ANYTHING that sounds even remotely “American” in the last year or two?”

He called the TEA party terrorists, demonizing the innocent just like the piece of Nazi white trash that he is.

[ully2]

This is a day that will live in infamy, when the supreme court betrayed the whole nation, and democrats would not stand for justice.

[uncbob]

And voted against it except for the 17
Walking out voting against it same thing

[philman_36]

Walking out voting against it same thing
No, it's not the same thing. (I'm not trying to be obstinate here)
Votes are recorded. There are only three results. Yes, No and Not Voting.
Not voting is not the same thing as voting "No" as no vote is cast either way.

Not voting by walking out is simply not having to cast a vote so that there is no record of how you voted on that particular issue. It's a means of not being held accountable for inaction.

And when you think about it, they didn't even consider the man worthy of defending with their "No" vote and that is more telling than anything else they could have done!

[philman_36]

And as to comparisons to the Republican walkout in 2008...I defer to www.breitbart.com
@ Congressional Black Caucus Plans Walkout During Holder Contempt VoteThe Democrats are certain to mention the fact that House Republicans, then in the minority, walked out in 2008 when contempt charges were filed by the House Democrats against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, staffers in George W. Bush’s administration. Of course, they will neglect to mention that when the Republicans walked out, it wasn’t over the contempt charges per se, but the fact that the House Democrats used the contempt charges to avoid passing the FISA bill, which was about to expire and allowed the federal government to initiate new activities monitoring terrorists. House Republicans were furious that the Democrats were putting partisan politics before the nation’s security.

[uncbob]

Disagree
They by walking out said it was so absurd we aren’t voting on it
And do you really think they boobs that vote for those that walked out really care whether they voted no or walked out especially since they knew the contempt would be passed

[TigersEye]

Most Democrats, however, walked out in protest of the vote rule of law.

[Little Ray]

So who’s going to prosecute Holder, eh?

Symbolic gesture only. Nice as it would be to see Holder fined and stuffed in jail for a year, the folks responsible for prosecuting this are under the DoJ - Holder is their boss. So it is not happening.

[philman_36]

And do you really think they boobs that vote for those that walked out really care whether they voted no or walked out especially since they knew the contempt would be passed
You seem to care so I would say, yes.