Articles of Impeachment for Attorney General Eric Holder

H.RES.411 — Resolved, That Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited… (Introduced in House – IH)
HRES 411 IH 113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 411

Impeaching Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors . . .

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 14, 2013
Mr. OLSON (for himself, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. YOHO, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. FLORES, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, and Mr. MASSIE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Impeaching Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exe exhibited to the Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and all of the people of the United States of America, against Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE I

Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the United States, engaged in a pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him in that position by refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 12, 2011, in connection with a legitimate Congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that put thousands of illegally purchased weapons into the hands of cartel leaders, ultimately resulting in the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.

Wherefore, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office and disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

ARTICLE II

Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the United States, and responsible for enforcing the laws of the United States regardless of personal bias, failed to enforce multiple laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Wherefore, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office and disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

ARTICLE III

Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the United States, has failed his oath of office by refusing to prosecute individuals involved in the Internal Revenue Service scandal of unauthorized disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors.

Wherefore, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office and disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

ARTICLE IV

Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the United States, testified under oath before Congress on May 15, 2013, that he was neither involved in nor had heard of a potential prosecution of the press. However three days later, the Department of Justice released documents naming journalist James Rosen as a co-conspirator in an alleged violation of the Espionage Act. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, confirmed to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives in a letter dated June 19, 2013, that he approved of a search warrant on James Rosen.

Wherefore, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office and disqualified to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. [h/t scannedretina.com]

comments

  1. avatar Matt in FL says:

    I find this perfectly acceptable.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          +3

    1. avatar David PA/NJ says:

      +4

        1. avatar Cortney says:

          +6

  2. avatar ST says:

    About fracking time.

  3. avatar Mighty Mo says:

    It’s about time. If any of us were guilty of illegally trafficking guns we’d already be trying to hang onto the soap in the shower.

    1. avatar lolinski says:

      I learned to shower without soap.

      *Shifty eyes*

  4. avatar Robert Seddon says:

    It’s about time.

  5. avatar disthunder says:

    Get ’em. Run him out!

  6. avatar DrVino says:

    The DOMA charge should have been left out. He has too many legit defenses against it.

    1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

      It was a valid law at the time it went to SCOTUS. He was supposed to defend it. That’s his damned job. Instead he and Obozo decided not to. Impeachable offense for both of them.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Not doing one’s job is not grounds for impeachment. If it were we’d have no government left.

        1. avatar Hobbez says:

          The problem is, not doing your job in Government IS an impeachable offense. The problem is, that the only folks who can bring impeachment and the ones not doing their jobs……

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          No, you’re just wrong. Impeachment is not the same as ‘firing.’ Read the manual: “who may be impeached and removed only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”

        3. avatar William Burke says:

          There’s a term for it: NONFEASANCE. It most certainly IS a ground for impeachment.

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “No government left?”

          Come on, don’t be a tease.

      2. avatar DrVino says:

        Sure it was law, but it was controversial and it didn’t become so overnight. So, in all honesty, they have the “bad law, null law” argument they can make.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          And just like any and all other prosecutorial agencies, the AG has absolute discretion is deciding whether or not to bring charges, and is absolutely immune from criminal or civil liability in exercising that discretion. And I believe this it is very desirable that the prosecutor have such power. How many here condemned the Stat of Florida for deciding to prosecute Zimmerman? Many.. you wanted the prosecutor to exercise his/her discretion to NOT prosecute. The AG indisputably has the same power.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          And the House has the absolute right, and responsibility, to judge his illegal and immoral actions and to remove him from office and put him in prison when appropriate. Holder is a Felon.

    2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Laws are passed by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch, period. When the executive branch picks and chooses which laws to enforce and which laws not to enforce we are left with little more than an elected dictator ruling by fiat. Whether you (or the president or the attorney general) like a law or not is irrelevant. Your only recourse is to petition congress to repeal the law.

      1. avatar Akira says:

        Would you say the same thing about the New York sheriffs who are refusing to enforce the SAFE Act?

        I just want us to be consistent with our arguments.

        1. avatar AK says:

          The oath was to support and defend the Constitution. By enforcing an unconstitutional law, the sheriffs would be violating their oath and the Constitution.

          Holder disregarded his oath and the Constitution.

          See the difference?

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          yeah, the difference is you like one but not the other.

          (plenty of people would argue that DOMA was unconstitutional)

        3. avatar Steve says:

          Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t remember reading anything about homosexuals having the right to marry in the constitution. The word “right” gets tossed about far too freely these days.

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Steve says:
          “Correct me if I’m wrong, ”

          OK. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned at all?

        5. avatar Julian says:

          The constitution guarantees equal privileges and immunities (rights) to all people.

          Article. IV. Section. 2: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

          DOMA was very arguably unconstitutional, and when someone is in a position to enforce a law that they believe to be unconstitutional, they are duty bound to not enforce it.

        6. avatar Salty Bear says:

          Spot on, Rich. The government and marriage should have nothing to do with each other.

        7. avatar Matt in FL says:

          This is not an invalid question.

        8. avatar neiowa says:

          The queers are not discriminated against. They have the same right to marry just like anyone else. Man/woman. If they think they need to marry a goat, potted palm, or their buttbuddy then not in the US and our society of normal people. Antisocial deviants go away. Perhaps France. Or Iran.

        9. avatar Rambeast says:

          “Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t remember reading anything about homosexuals having the right to marry in the constitution. The word “right” gets tossed about far too freely these days.”

          Not all rights are in the BoR. The founders enumerated the most important to a free society’s well being. They knew the list was incomplete, so they left a system of amending it.

          Also, I would hazard a guess that marriage falls under “the pursuit of happiness” in the DoI, and could sway a court ruling under the right circumstances.

    3. avatar stitch1870 says:

      Agreed, throwing this in with everything is going to make some people who would otherwise like to see him fried not support this because then it puts homosexual rights back under scrutiny when there’s much bigger fish to fry. My gay cousin has just as much right to be miserably married to his partner as I do with my girlfriend, should I choose to take that step with her.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Good point. Why in the world would gays want to be the same as straight people? I remember it was originally an “alternative lifestyle”; what’s “alternative” about marriage?

        I remember well someone asking Gore Vidal, who lived with the same man for probably 40 years, his view of “gay marriage”, and he made a face like he’d bitten into a t*rd. His look said it all: “why in the world would I want to be part of THAT”?

        A good case can be made, using divorce rates, that marriage is a failed institution. In reality, probably, it’s the people who failed, not the institution, but one could still make the case.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Good point. Why in the world would gays want to be the same as straight people?”

          What “rights” do straight people have that gay people don’t? Can you be more specific? If you’re talking about marriage, there is no Constitutional authority to discriminate on the basis of marital status, or for that matter, to enforce religious rituals at all.

        2. avatar William Burke says:

          I never said one word about rights.

          And since I did say “marriage”, that would have been what I was referring to. Maybe you should put it aside and read it again tomorrow. Or not.

        3. avatar Rambeast says:

          The second you mix money with marriage, everyone wants in. Survivor and spouse benefits, tax breaks, etc. It’s not so much an argument for the “right”, but the benefits of the legal status of marriage.

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Exactly. What really needs to be done is to end the institutionalized discrimination against single people.

        5. avatar William Burke says:

          Thank you; I was going to add that point, but forgot.

        6. avatar William Burke says:

          Yeah, I have mixed feelings about rewarding marriage on the one hand, and punishing it on the other. I can’t help thinking things would be better and more equitable if there were no government-sanctioned financial concessions to marriage. There’s a war on the family – you can see it on TV series every day.

          But turning away from the institution of marriage would acknowledge the obvious fact that over half of all marriages fail, because people go into marriage FOR the financial advantage.

          I think maybe that’s a bad reason to get married, and thus the cause of many failed marriages.

    4. avatar mountocean says:

      huffpo already has an article making this point loud and proud.
      oh well

    5. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      I would agree that this DOMA charge should have been omitted. I saw on the “Being Liberal” FB page that they described this impeachment attempt using the “Republicans attempt to impeach Holder for not enforcing unconstitutional laws” meme. No mention of the other articles such as F&F. It gives them the opportunity to paint this as an extremist effort, not something reasonable given the history of the AG.

  7. avatar S_J says:

    Though it would be awesome to see Holder run out of DC on a rail, ain’t gonna happen. People forget that impeachment is a two step process. They still need two thirds of the Senate to convict the asshole and remove him from office. Good luck with that one.

    1. avatar Gene says:

      It was introduced. Let’s see where it is taken. Given how these cats have been acting, it probably will not go further. They are impotent and have no backbone. Holder is a criminal and a thug and has clearly demonstrated ift with his insolence to Congress. There needs to be follow through. They also need to do something about the fast and furious investigators and those witnesses who hampered the investigation because they didn’t answer their phones.

    2. avatar Ruddee says:

      @S_J…the dem controlled Senate might see this as a way to win back some favor after losing so much with ACA…

  8. avatar Mike Crognale says:

    Waste of time. 1: Bonehead will never allow this to come to a vote in the House. 2: if he did the dems will see to it that it’s killed by amending it to death; 3: if by some miracle it did get sent to the Senate Harry (the loathsome) Reid will shit can it upon arrival.

    Nice try though.

    1. avatar Keith in TX says:

      I hope you’re wrong.

      1. avatar Mike Crognale says:

        So do I but I have lost all hope in the RINO House.

    2. avatar Marc says:

      AFAIK, articles of impeachment aren’t amendable, its not a law being passed, think of it as a grand jury indictment.
      As for the senate, well, the house impeaches, the senate “tries” the case. Also, as far as I know, the senate has only refused to try a case once, and that was because the senator in question was expelled from the senate instead of a trial. Once articles of impeachment are passed by the house simple majority) I believe the senate must accept the impeachment and proceed. The whole point is that the power to bring the case is the house’s, if the senate could refuse, it wouldn’t be.
      That said, would the senate vote guilty based on the evidence presented and debated? No, even though they should.

      Please correct me if I am wrong.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        How was someone “expelled” without benefit of a trial? I use the word “benefit” advisedly.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      Look., people, just because the House votes such articles is in and of itself meaningless. The TRIAL on the charges is in the Senate which, as I am sure you are all aware, controlled by the Democrats.

      1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

        Yes but…
        By the time this gets to the Senate for trial, will there have been another election cycle? Would it be possible that enough senate seats get overturned by then?

    4. avatar Ruddee says:

      …as in earlier post, this might be a way the dems see to win back some favor lost over ACA…

  9. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Forty years ago men of conviction refused to obey the orders of the POTUS and resigned in the Saturday Night Massacre. Today after five years of Chicago rule not a single person of authority has stepped forward to object to these thugs. Not a one.

  10. avatar Bob says:

    I totally think he should be removed from office and put into a cage but not for failing to enforce some bad laws that create victimless “crimes”.

  11. avatar BillC says:

    Here’s HuffPo’s “unbiased” rebuttal. He was merely not upholding unconstitutional laws.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/eric-holder-impeachment_n_4276097.html

    1. avatar Keith in TX says:

      And here is absolute proof of HuffPo’s “unbiased” reporting.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-lynch-edd/12-reasons-why-obama-is-o_b_4280675.html

      /sarc

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Since when does HuffPo claim to have unbiased reporting?

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Since when did HuffPo begin reporting???

        2. avatar Keith in TX says:

          Thus the /sarc tag.

  12. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well, it’s a step, not so much in removing this particular AG but in congress scratching back a little of the authority it’s let the executive usurp for 3-4 decades.

  13. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    I agree that including the DOMA is a mistake. That could be a sop to the social conservative faction (but I have trouble thinking of any in The Stupid Party as that politically clever.) Yet, it muddles the issue. The other three are clear authority and oversight issues.

  14. avatar Shawn says:

    It is funny if a democratic office does anything wrong it is “impeachment” time but when a republican gets good Americans killed over lies and the VP shoots someone in the face…nothing. Fracked up government we have.

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      yeah I seem to recall constant calls for impeachment of Bush during his time in office, and frankly I agreedw with them. both Bush and Obama should have been kicked out and imprisoned.

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      Neither party has a monopoly on lies, but the focus here is on Holder’s misdeeds, and they are outlined quite well. We could quite easily make a case for Obama’s incompetence, or those of a number of statist Republicans, but that is for a different time.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Incompetence is not an impeachable offense.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          No, but its a good start.

        2. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

          “Incompetence is not an impeachable offense.”

          Whether you attack our civil rights in a competent manner or an incompetent manner is of no concern. What matters is that you attacked our civil rights.

        3. avatar William Burke says:

          Wrong, I think. Incompetence involves “misfeasance”, while “malfeasance” is intentional wrongdoing; either (or both) is impeachable.

    3. avatar Hobbez says:

      There were constant calls for impeachment during Bush the younger’s years in office. From both sides at times. However, I find a big difference between Bush and Obama: Bush was just a dumb frat boy out to help his cronies and finish up Daddys legacy. What Obama is doing is (IMO) evil and (not opinion, fact) WILL destroy America as we know it.

    4. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Just like the sun rises in the east, so is the predictability of the “Bush did it first!” whenever Obama is criticized.

      1. avatar Shawn says:

        Matt, there is so much bashing of Obama, it is becoming lame. Obama has done some bad things and lied. Bush did some bad things and lied. Clinton did some bad things and lied. Bush Sr. same thing. Reagan same thing. The point is that it is not just Obama, it has been like this since the 80s. Some will say the 50s when they added “Under God” to the pledge. The whining needs to stop and be moved to a better voice which expresses ideas to improve things.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          I don’t disagree. My point was that quite often, “Bush did it first!” is some folk’s first and only contribution to the conversation. They have nothing else to offer.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          I really liked Michelle Malkin’s response to “Bush did it first!”. She said something to the effect that, yes, he did, and he was a bad president, and we reported on it at the time. But Bush isn’t the president any more. Obama is.

        3. avatar Accur81 says:

          Shawn,

          Bush gave us, amongst other things, The Patriot Act. Since the 4th Amendment was hamstrung, I would consider that an impeachable offense. That ship has sailed. Obama has continued the Patriot Act, continued Bush’s foreign wars, accelerated the accumulation of debt to unprecedented rates, presided over numerous scandals, and has burdened the US with possibly the worst and most expensive law (save from the budgets, which are laws unto themselves, and haven’t been balanced) ever known to the US: Obamacare. Aka the not so affordable health care act. If the actions of Obama and Holder ever actually do include defense of the constitution and the welfare of this nation, then we will recognize those facts. Until that time, the more I learn about Obama and Holder, the worse it gets.

  15. avatar Colby says:

    I could think of a few more to add to the list. . .

    “He . . . has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless [savage drug cartels, criminals, human traffickers, and evil men of all types] whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

    “He has [obstructed] Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”

    “He [obstructed these States from passing] Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”

    “He has [obstructed the passage of] other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.”

    “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by [obstructing] Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.”

    “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”

    “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

    “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:”

    “For quartering large bodies of armed [henchmen] among us:”

    “For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:”

    “For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:”

    “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:”

    etc.,etc.,etc., . . .

  16. avatar Wassim Absood says:

    Freakin’ ridiculous. Teabaggers seem more interested in showboating than anything else.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Does your village miss you?

    2. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Do you kiss your mother with that mouth after saying that vile, pornographically inspired insult?

    3. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Wassid, better to be a freakin Teabagger than a Teabagged Liberal.

  17. avatar Hannibal says:

    ARTICLE I:…engaged in a pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him in that position by refusing to comply with a subpoena…
    – Thanks to the decades-long principle of executive privilege, this is probably neither a high crime nor misdemeanors. Still one of the better ones on the list.

    ARTICLE II…failed to enforce multiple laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.
    – This is not at all a crime. You can’t impeach people for doing a shit job. How many representatives would we have left if you could?

    ARTICLE III
    …by refusing to prosecute individuals involved in the Internal Revenue Service scandal of unauthorized disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors.
    – Again, not a crime, and that’s what you need to impeach someone. Otherwise the ballot box is the answer.

    ARTICLE IV… Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the United States, testified under oath before Congress on May 15, 2013, that he was neither involved in nor had heard of a potential prosecution of the press. However three days later, the Department of Justice released documents naming journalist James Rosen as a co-conspirator in an alleged violation of the Espionage Act. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, confirmed to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives in a letter dated June 19, 2013, that he approved of a search warrant on James Rosen.
    -…okay… pretty weak case for perjury, but at least it’s a crime.

    The fact that half of the articles aren’t relevant to impeachment and the other two are weak at best makes it pretty clear to me it’s just a political move to get some votes in heavily conservative districts. DOA. Gotta vote em out…

    1. avatar Sam Spade says:

      I have a question. Do the people you work for pay you by the word or by the post?

      Well, two questions. Do you use a proxy server when posting under different names?

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        What world do you live in where everyone who doesn’t have a republigasm at a grandstanding piece of legislation that will go nowhere is some sort of plant using 7 proxies?

        1. avatar Julian says:

          LMFAO! Republigasm!!! Hilarious! And I’m, at least nominally, a Republican, if only by default.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          ZING!

  18. avatar JPD says:

    Smoke and mirrors. Nothing but politicians playing the “Con the American People Game” Does anyone truly believe A; That this effort is serious? B: That is has a chance in a million of succeeding? C: That even 10% of the American people give a sh$T (Or even know who he is)?? Okay, maybe 10%…..

    1. avatar OldBenTurninginGrave says:

      Unfortunately, point C is a huge contributor to Holder to getting away with crime after crime, and it will continue. In the end, though, Holder and Obama propping each other up is the issue. And it’s toxic to the Republic. Obama won’t fire Holder, Holder won’t prosecute the misdeeds of Obama’s administration, and around and around it goes. This AG-President lock is major loophole that the framers missed (well, not missed, since some commented that the whole system depends on our elected officials having a sense of honor).

      And fixing this situation? The Senate will never let articles of impeachment (of the POTUS) go through, most of the press keeps America in the dark as best they can, and most Americans only care about watching twerk videos on Youtube anyway.

      Damn, I was having a pretty good day, and now I’ve depressed myself.

  19. avatar IdahoPete says:

    About effin’ time.

    Predicted reaction from the Democrat party Propaganda Ministry [aka “the media”]:

    RACISM !!! RACISM !!!!

  20. avatar ChuckN says:

    Call me cynical, but unless Congress is willing to issue an
    arrest warrant for failure to comply with a lawful order
    (a la ignoring/stonewalling a subpoena) then I don’t see
    this going anywhere. On another note, look for the MSM
    to ratchet up the “all Republicans hate blacks” meme.

    1. avatar Geoff says:

      Congress cannot issue an arrest warrant. Mr. Holder was already found in contempt of Congress, His own administration refuses to arrest him on that charge to face trial. Shades of Hamilton telling Scotus “You have made your ruling, lets see you enforce it.”
      I know the House has filled a civil suit on the contempt charge, I have not seen where that has gone.

      1. avatar JoshuaS says:

        I believe that was Andrew Jackson, when the Indians won at SCOTUS, he forcibly marched them anyways. Trail of Tears…am I mistaken?

  21. avatar Rob.G says:

    I’m praying this will finally come to pass, but I’m not terribly optimistic.

  22. avatar TRUTHY says:

    what a joke

  23. avatar Blue says:

    I hope he at the bare minimum come out with getting disbarred. I would like to see him busting rock in Leavenworth 12 hours a day getting off only for Christmas Day and Thanksgiving.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Unfortunately it seems that lawyers serving presidents are immune from taking responsibility for their actions

      1. avatar Blue says:

        He isn’t a lawyer, he is in a cabinet position, The Attorney General which heads up the Dept of Justice. It is rare that it would get this far for a Cabinet member because the POTUS would usually have asked for their resignation by this point. Holder may very well be the “Spiro Agnew” of the Barry Administration.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          Next you’re gonna try and convince us that the Surgeon General doesn’t work out of an OR, but some of us are wise to your tricks! 🙂

  24. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    It’s about time and good to see them finally getting around to it. That said, if it does get as far as a trial, which is highly unlikely, Holder is going to skate.

  25. avatar benny says:

    Hold the %&#- up!! Is this for real?! Like, no bull legitimately coming for his ass impeachment?

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Well, lessee…
      https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=holder+impeachment&oq=holder+impeachment&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i22i30l4.4413.8329.0.9384.18.18.0.0.0.0.156.1890.4j14.18.0….0…1c.1.31.hp..2.16.1632.jxCqSH6luR4

      But it got reported by Fox, so obviously it’s a lie. </sarc>

  26. avatar Puyallup Devil_Doc says:

    I wonder why this didn’t mention the AG instructing agents not to assist Az with enforcing immigration laws?

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      (I intended to respond to benny.)

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    Holder is one of the most inept and ineffectual AGs of all time. Considering the harm that an effective AG in this Administration could do to America, why would anybody on our side want to replace Holder?

    Leave him right where he is. Like POTUS, Holder is a lame duck, with the accent on lame.

  28. avatar Jacknine says:

    NOOOO!!

    Never interfere with an enemy in the process of destroying themselves.

    The entire liberal worldview is going up in flames in front of our eyes and will continue to burn all of next year.

    The last thing we should do is give the press any distraction to report on, especially since there is not a snow balls chance in hell it would ever get through congress.

    While it would feel good, control yourself and enjoy the spectacle, we are winning a much bigger game as long as we dont screw it up.

    First time in years I have used caps.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      We’re not interfering. We’re just helping them along. 😉

  29. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    It’s about (expletive) time! How the Attorney General has been able to remain in office this long is beyond me. Any “average” person would be in prison.

  30. avatar Excedrine says:

    I would be fine with leaving out Article II altogether. Though, I may be biased because I don’t think it’s the government’s business to regulate marriage and the War on Drugs is a miserable trillion dollar failure that is one of the primary contributors (legislatively speaking) to our current woes.

    Even so, this (to me) is Kosher as-is.

  31. avatar JoshuaS says:

    One thing is, while there is room for prosecutorial discretion, the executive branch is charged with faithfully executing the laws.

    Now the separation of powers doctrine holds very clearly that it is not for the executive to decide on jurisprudence, such as the unconstitutionality of a law. In fact, in some early drafts of the Constitution it was proposed to have a body that would review the constitutionality of the laws, and this body was (in part) made up by the president and chief justice of SCOTUS. But this was rejected for several reasons, one being which the president has his veto, to give him judicial review is giving him too much power.

    It is the AG’s job, like the Solicitor General (often AG) on the state level, to argue on the behalf of a law passed. This isn’t a “but it is unconstitutional, so I can ignore it” matter. It may well be. But your part to play, in the system we have, is adversarial. For that matter, it was decided that rather than have a pre-review of laws, it was best to require there to be a party bringing suit in order to challenge a law (as Tocqueville says, so that by a general consensus, and repeated cases, an unconstitutional law is eaten away). Granting prelimnary review was seen as giving the judiciary too much power, to encroach on the legislature. Requiring only an indirect (through suits) way, helps temper possible partisan acts of the judiciary.

    By refusing to defend a law passed by the legislature, the executive takes on the mantle of the judiciary. That is what is unacceptable

  32. avatar Jus Bill says:

    Aye.

  33. avatar Rich Grise says:

    I finally got around to reading the whole thing, and that Article II made me shudder. Failure to enforce unconstitutional laws is kind of his job.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      He enforces plenty of unconstitutional laws.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        I’m talking about the insane war on drugs and that gay marriage thing.

        1. avatar Blue says:

          When this drug war comes up, it is often people talking about the petty stuff like a person with a joint. However, the heroine, cocaine cartels etc. are a serious threat and should be taken down. I think the approach was wrong much of the time. Part of the problem is that the C I A has been in bed with them a lot of the time. Look at the current situation in Juarez.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Actually, heroin and cocaine used to be sold over-the-counter and there were no problems with them until the Reefer Madness struck. And there is no Constitutional authorization to “control” them either.

          Like Ron Paul asked, how many people do you know of who would suddenly start taking heroin if it were legalized tomorrow?

          Ever heard the stories about alcohol prohibition? They even amended the Constitution so they could get away with prohibition, and the war on alcohol was such a disaster that they bothered to amend the Constitution again! And when it ended, all the Al Capones went out of business, so there’s precedent, just like with the Free Market. But the control freaks refuse to see that because faith trumps facts, just like with the hoplophobes and global warmingists.

        3. avatar Blue says:

          Nice side step. Ron Paul has a bad habit of showing political turrets. Smuggling to avoid tarrifs have been illegal even under the Articles of Confederation. Prior to 1913 and the Constitutional Amendment to allow the income tax, tariffs were the main funding source for the Fed. government. Plus, you brought into it the small purchaser when I specifically pointed you to the cartel problem as well as other facets of organized crime. Are you o.k. with human trafficing as well?

        4. avatar Rich Grise says:

          I don’t know what “showing political turrets” means.

          Are you making apologia for criminalizing people who have a medical problem?

          And what’s with your introduction of the “human trafficking” red herring?

        5. avatar Blue says:

          Keep ignoring the cartels and the whole sale movement and you ignored the tariffs comment. Turrets should have been tourettes, the auto correct on my smart phone got me. It was the phenomenon where Ron Paul reflexively repeated nonsense following giving a good answer to something. Heroine was most certainly “regulated” prior to 1913 via tariffs but smuggling was a problem. Banning it made the smuggling even more lucrative.

          First Part of Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provided for tariffs on imports:

          Some opium smuggling history (smuggling to avoid tariff):

          1805
          A smuggler from Boston, Massachusetts, Charles Cabot, attempts to purchase opium from the British, then smuggle it into China under the auspices of British smugglers.

          1812
          American John Cushing, under the employ of his uncles’ business, James and Thomas H. Perkins Company of Boston, acquires his wealth from smuggling Turkish opium to Canton.

          1816
          John Jacob Astor of New York City joins the opium smuggling trade. His American Fur Company purchases ten tons of Turkish opium then ships the contraband item to Canton on the Macedonian. Astor would later leave the China opium trade and sell solely to England.

          1840
          New Englanders bring 24,000 pounds of opium into the United States. This catches the attention of U.S. Customs which promptly puts a duty fee on the import.

          1874
          In San Francisco, smoking opium in the city limits is banned and is confined to neighboring Chinatowns and their opium dens.

          1890
          U.S. Congress, in its earliest law-enforcement legislation on narcotics, imposes a tax on opium and morphine.
          Tabloids owned by William Randolph Hearst publish stories of white women being seduced by Chinese men and their opium to invoke fear of the ‘Yellow Peril’, disguised as an “anti-drug” campaign.

          1905
          U.S. Congress bans opium

          1909
          The first federal drug prohibition passes in the U.S. outlawing the imporation of opium. It was passed in preparation for the Shanghai Conference, at which the US presses for legislation aimed at suppressing the sale of opium to China.

          1923
          The U.S. Treasury Department’s Narcotics Division (the first federal drug agency) bans all legal narcotics sales. With the prohibition of legal venues to purchase heroin, addicts are forced to buy from illegal street dealers.

          1925
          In the wake of the first federal ban on opium, a thriving black market opens up in New York’s Chinatown.

          Historical time line extracted from the larger one at
          http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/etc/history.html

        6. avatar Rich Grise says:

          That didn’t take long. Ad hominem and more apologia.

        7. avatar Blue says:

          More side step and passive aggressive b.s. I demonstrated to you that it was in fact was taxed by customs before the outright import ban. Smuggling occurred before as well.

        8. avatar William Burke says:

          DIG YOURSELF, baby. You just proved my point, jive hummer.

        9. avatar William Burke says:

          I’m calling your ass out. You are NOT what you are representing yourself to be. Homie’s got a pretty keen sense for hidden agendas.

          You’re talking around a subject, without saying one thing clearly.

          It’s known as spewing facts and statistics that don’t support a particular position. Either you’re so caught up in your own convolutions, or you’re a jive hummer.

          Which is it? (Prediction: your response will be a lie.)

        10. avatar William Burke says:

          Thanks, Rich. This was a very suspicious post, and it caught my eye. I meant to ask much the same questions, but a family dinner derailed me, and then I forgot about it, which has a way of happening.

          Some red flags in that post, for certain.

        11. avatar Rich Grise says:

          And then he blamed his spell checker for the misspelling that would have clued me that he actually opened with the ad hominem. Usually they try to at least give the appearance of rationality.

        12. avatar William Burke says:

          It really stood out, like it was some sort of badly-implemented robo-troll.

  34. avatar John Dennis says:

    He and his boss deserve a jail term.

    1. avatar Blue says:

      I am hoping that Holder turns out to be the Barry Administration’s Spiro Agnew. Remember that the V.P. got busted and convicted during the unraveling of Tricky Dicky.

  35. avatar phil says:

    What about failing to secure the boarder and not enforcing immigration laws?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email