General Discussion

babsbunny

(8,441 posts) Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:17 PM Aug 2012

So, they are gonna sue Holder over Fast and Furious

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/03/issa-house-republicans-will-sue-holder/

By Arturo Garcia
Friday, August 3, 2012 14:16 EDT

House Republicans will file a civil lawsuit this month against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder demanding the release of documents related to the “Fast and Furious” gun-tracking operation.

“We’ll be filing a civil case during the break,” Darrell Issa (R-CA) told NBC News Friday. “We will expect a day in court before a federal judge, which we have a 100 percent chance that the judge will hold that these documents should be delivered.”

AND, Darrell Issa: No evidence White House involved in ‘Fast and Furious’

By Ed O'Keefe

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/darrell-issa-no-evidence-white-house-involved-in-fast-and-furious/2012/06/24/gJQAhs1kzV_blog.html

There is no evidence that White House officials were involved in withholding information related to a congressional inquiry into the botched gun-trafficking operation known as Operation “Fast and Furious,” the Republican lawmaker leading the investigation said Sunday.

Several Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), charged last week that President Obama’s decision to invoke executive privilege over documents related to the probe suggested that top administration officials were involved in withholding information.

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So, they are gonna sue Holder over Fast and Furious (Original Post) babsbunny Aug 2012 OP

Holder was found in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena Lurks Often Aug 2012 #1

You can't force someone to break the law using a Congressional subpoena. nt nanabugg Aug 2012 #2

that is up to a judge to decide, not the Attorney General Lurks Often Aug 2012 #3

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)

1. Holder was found in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena

Reply to babsbunny (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 06:56 PM

Aug 2012

By the time this works its way through the courts and the appeals, I think the contempt will be upheld.

I posted the below on back on 6/20/12:

per Wikipedia (Yes, I know Wikipedia, but the link cites the relevant US law)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

Since 1975 there have been 12 cases, 7 involving Republicans, 5 involving Democrats.

Two are listed as ongoing: Holder and Miers & Bolten

One involved an impeachment of a Republican who was "Indicted for lying to Congress; convicted; sentenced to 6 months in prison, 5 years probation thereafter, and a fine of $10,000"

In the 8 of the other 9 cases, the person risking impeachment either released all of the required documents or "substantially" complied with the subpoena

The other case was resolved "After legal cases and a court dismissal of the executive Branch's suit, the parties reached an agreement to provide documents."

And the following on 6/21:
I question whether ALL 70,000 documents that DOJ is claiming executive privilege on, will hold up if it reaches a judge as it surely will if neither side blinks.

I did some research last night and my post on Executive Privilege here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002836000

my research suggests that claiming Executive Privilege on ALL of the 70,000 documents will NOT hold up and that the Executive branch will have narrow the amount they want covered.

nanabugg

(2,198 posts)

2. You can't force someone to break the law using a Congressional subpoena. nt

Reply to Lurks Often (Reply #1)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 08:07 PM

Aug 2012

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)

3. that is up to a judge to decide, not the Attorney General

Reply to nanabugg (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 09:48 PM

Aug 2012

If Holder felt the subpoena was invalid he should have taken it to court, not ignored it for over a year and only then claimed executive privilege.

I looked at the precedent, which was in my reply to the OP and based on the historical precedent, the Attorney General will probably lose in court and be forced to comply with the subpoena.

With the exception of Holder and Miers & Bolten, both of which remain unresolved, the person found in contempt was required to comply with the subpoena.

Reply to this discussion