Hat tip to Daily Caller
Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) is understandably angry about the refusal of Eric Holder to allow 11 Justice Department witnesses to be interviewed by Congress. Daily Caller has the story.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/10/grassley-holder-refusing-to-provide-11-witnesses-for-fast-and-furious-interviews/
It is obvious to anyone why Holder doesn't want these people interviewed. They are the ones closest to him, with whom he obviously has discussed-or plotted- if you will, the Fast and Furious operation and subsequent cover-up.
Of particular interst is that February 4th DOJ letter that assured Congress that ATF was not allowing guns to "walk" into Mexico-clearly a false statement. Congress wants to know who specifically crafted that statement. As yet, DOJ's position is simply.......
"Mistakes were made."
Not good enough, Mr Holder. On February 4, 2011, everybody in DOJ knew that guns were being allowed to "walk" into Mexico. In my view, it will eventually be shown that they knew this on February 4, 2010. This is a scandal and cover-up in the Watergate mold and worse. (Nobody died in Watergate, but in both scandals we have lawlessness, cover-ups, and lies coming out of our government.)
Meanwhile, Democrats like Pat Leahy and Al Franken sit on the Judiciary Committee and use diversionary tactics like talking about some Bush-era operation, schoolyard bullying of gays, and 16-dollar muffins.
This has the makings of a Constitutional crises ... the Legislative against the Executive branch and it will be up to the Judiciary to determine the outcome.
ReplyDeleteAs Findalis has already pointed out, this records production issue has already been decided in the Nixon case and the executive branch's defenses are at least as weak in this case.
This administration is rotten with corruption, incompetent, and on the wrong course even if they had been honest and competent.
The election can't come soon enough.
.
"Have you no shame, Mr. Grassley?"
ReplyDeleteMiggie, in case you haven't noticed, there are TWO houses to the legislative branch. Since this is a simple tactic to find anything, ANYTHING, for one party to embarrass the other party with, a majority of one house simply will not do.
As Findalis conveniently overlooked, the court struggled to reach unanimity in the Nixon case, but overruled the notion that a president could refuse any subpoenas at all in all cases whatsoever. Those subpoenas, incidentally, were filed in court, as part of a criminal prosecution, not by congressional committees indulging in a fishing expedition.
Now I now, poor boy, you are SO ANXIOUS to provoke some constitutional crisis, partly because you really CAN'T WAIT for the next election, and partly because you really are beginning to realize that voters are going to return President Obama for another term.
But you can't have anything you want whenever you want it.
Anyway, they have a word for this mis-use of constitutional process in Latin America.