Boehner takes hard line on Holder contempt vote
Thursday, June 21, 2012
WASHINGTON (AP) — Speaker John Boehner demanded Thursday the Obama administration give in and turn over documents related to a botched gun-tracking operation, insisting that’s the only way to stop a House vote to hold the attorney general in contempt.
Boehner took a hard line against the Obama administration and Attorney General Eric Holder despite a willingness by House Republicans and Holder to negotiate a settlement before the matter becomes a constitutional crisis. The president has invoked executive privilege, a legal principle used to avoid disclosure of internal presidential documents.
While a confrontation between the legislative and executive branches of government would be an academic dispute to most voters, Boehner on Thursday injected a human element into the dispute over documents related to Operation Fast and Furious. He said the family of slain border agent Brian Terry deserved answers about the guns that killed him.
Two guns that were allowed to “walk” from Arizona to Mexico in the failed effort to track weapons were found near Terry after he was killed.
“The Terry family deserves answers about why their son was killed as a result of an operation run by the United States government,” Boehner told his weekly news conference.
During the year and a half investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the Justice Department turned over 7,600 documents about details of Operation Fast and Furious. But because the department initially denied and then admitted it used a risky investigative technique known as “gun-walking,” the committee has turned its attention to how the Justice Department responded to the investigation. The additional documents it seeks are about that topic.
Agents of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Arizona abandoned the agency’s usual practice of intercepting all weapons they believed to be illicitly purchased. Instead, the goal of gun-walking was to track such weapons to high-level arms traffickers who had long eluded prosecution and to dismantle their networks.
Gun-walking has long been barred by Justice Department policy, but federal agents in Arizona experimented with it in at least two investigations during the George W. Bush administration before Fast and Furious. These experiments came as the department was under widespread criticism that the old policy of arresting every suspected low-level “straw purchaser” was still allowing tens of thousands of guns to reach Mexico. A straw purchaser is an illicit buyer of guns for others.
The agents in Arizona lost track of several hundred weapons in Operation Fast and Furious.
Boehner renewed his allegation that President Barack Obama’s decision to assert executive privilege to withhold the documents “is an admission the White House officials were involved in the decision that misled the Congress and covered up the truth.” In fact, historically, several presidents have invoked executive privilege over Cabinet department documents that did not directly involve White House officials.
House Democrats gave no ground. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California accused Republicans of pursuing Holder to retaliate against his effort to stop suppression of voters in the upcoming elections. “I’m telling you, this is connected,” she told reporters.
Holder, in Copenhagen, Denmark, for meetings with European Union officials, said the administration had given the committee a proposal to negotiate an end to the conflict.
“I think the possibility still exists that it can happen in that way,” Holder said. “The proposal that we have made is still there. The House, I think, the House leadership, has to consider now what they will do, so we’ll see how it works out.”
But he called the contempt vote “unwarranted, unnecessary and unprecedented.”
White House press secretary Jay Carney said there was “absolutely” no cover-up on the Fast and Furious controversy. He said executive privilege was asserted only on internal deliberations and “that is separate from trying to find out the truth about this operation.”
House Oversight Committee officials who would conduct any negotiations on behalf of Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said they are looking for at least some additional documents — plus some “signs of good faith.”
The latter could include substantive responses to future committee requests for documents; reforming the approval process for wiretap applications; acknowledging mistakes in misleading Congress about Fast and Furious; taking whistle-blowers seriously; and producing a log of documents to be turned over, according to the officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the issue by name. Committee officials said the department only gave cursory scrutiny to wiretap applications against Fast and Furious targets.
Democrats contended that the 23-17 party-line contempt vote in committee Wednesday was just political theater. The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, called the vote “an extreme, virtually unprecedented action based on election-year politics rather than fact.”
Holder offered to give lawmakers a briefing on the withheld documents but insisted that this action satisfy Issa’s subpoena for the records and negate the need for a contempt vote. Issa rejected the offer, saying it was an attempt to force an end to the committee’s investigation.
Boehner on Thursday rejected Holder’s approach.
“The negotiation that was proposed by the attorney general is, we should accept some documents of his choosing and, as a result of him turning over some documents of his choosing, that we would never ever pursue contempt,” Boehner said. “Now this is not hardly a rational basis for a negotiation, nor is it a reasonable attempt at turning over the documents we’ve been asking for.”

Comments
wow 11 months ago
Contempt...so Bone head doesn't like Holder...what's that gonna resolve? Nothing in my book. If Bonhead was really interested in what went on..he'd t start asking questions about operation Wide Reciever, which is what this program was named by it's originator ole George Bush (Yeah Old J-Dub). If Bonehead was really interested in what happened he'd be asking the former Attorney General and a few other Dems/Reps who were in the know when this thing began. Sure Holder is the man now, but his involvment is after the fact....cause the Obama folks shut this thing down. yes it was after the tragic death of a few good cops, but at least the thing got shut down. Old Bonehead isn't interested in anything but showing off his fake bake tan and trying to grandstand. Th entire mess makes me sick.......some good cops were killed because and all these dings are doing is treing to one up each other.
Oh while I'm at it...why isn't J-Dub and his crew speaking in front of Congress for lieing about the WMD's and Iraq. Roger Clemmons get's dragged in front of the goon squad for lieing about cheating in base ball games, Marion Jones is in prison for lieing about cheating in a foot race, Barry Bonds lied about cheating in baseball and he get's probation, A few of the New Orleans Saints player's get's suspended from the league with no pay for a year for betting on who could get the hardest tackel...yet J-Dub, Darth Vader and the crew get away with the sitautional murder's of American Servicemen and women and those of our allies who are still fighting these wars. The banker's who literally stole money from investors is offered a job by the very Congress who is doing nothing about these war crimes which the entire world knows was committed by our American elected officials.
If old Bonehead wanted to really do something right he'd be getting knee deep into that.
online_editor 11 months ago
UPDATE: The author of the post I addressed below graciously requested that I remove his/her post, which I have done. I'll leave my post here as a general plea for everyone's future cooperation. You'll get the general idea but please understand the original post that I was addressing is gone now. (It wasn't the one above.)
Here's what's problematic with this type of post. (And sorry for zeroing in on this as an example; there are others around.) It's not exactly a direct insult, but it sure does prompt a personal reaction. "YOU have been reading your talking points." "YOU have not looked into..." "YOU have no regard for...." Yet none of the original post addressed or accused you. Do you see how those statements can easily be read as inflammatory and baiting? And thus, those statements can trigger posts that attack more directly back. And then we're off to the races over and over again. Same bickering on all the pages, crowding out the number of insights into the topic at hand. Minus those accusatory statements, however, the rest of the post tells me what its author believes, which is where the value of it seems to rest. Focusing the message on the author's perception without making it personally accusatory would be more likely to keep the focus on the underlying issues and make the conversation less adversarial.
This is the dilemma I dislike about moderating. Although my intent is to encourage civil discussion and sharing ideas, my suggestion borders on regulating how one expresses one's political opinion. So at this stage, I'm asking for help. Under the premise that it will raise the quality of discussion, I'm asking for everyone to place more emphasis on your personal views about topics and less emphasis on your personal views about the forum participant you're responding to. Thanks. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune
centerguy56 11 months ago
Amen Rick. Thanks!
JCLifer 11 months ago
Again I say AMEN!
JCLifer 11 months ago
There are plenty of posters here who rather attack other posters and call them names instead of focussing and comment on the content of the posting. Now I know the poster who triggered the editor's comment surely is not a persistent offender. There are other posters here who are way more guilty.
tonto_goldberg 11 months ago
Persistent, you asked? Who is to say?
I won't mince words on this issue. I agree there are other posters who do this. I offered the poster who triggered the editor's comment as an example, and I would not offer any type of ranking for offenders or offenses. Still, it is intriguing that the poster I picked out immediately posted something offensive. Was that a test, or did Graceful just get lucky, so to speak? Withdrawing that post was a good move but it could confuse someone unfamiliar with the situation.
Many of us have fallen short of proper etiquette around here, and the editor could have probably picked on someone else.
connor 11 months ago
The real insight into the differences between "Wide Receiver" and "Fast and Furious" lies in the intent.
WR - Used weapons marked, documented, electronically tagged and followed so those weapons could be zeroed in on and the criminals apprehended. Information was directly shared across the border to Mexican LEO and as far as I know the weapons were never able to be used at least until the electronic devices were discovered and removed at which point the operation was discontinued.
FF- On the other hand was hidden from the start. No cooperation between agencies and governments, no tagging and the legal dealers in the U.S. were ordered to comply and left hanging. The weapons were simply let go and then supposedly tracked although when they reappeared they were publicly proclaimed as being "smuggled" illegally.
Very suspicious also was the timing of FF when it began at the same time as the Lib gun control freaks began a massive finger pointing campaign claiming (wrongly I might add) that so many X amount of guns were being run across the border to arm Mexican gangs. Even the Golfer in Chief was using it openly as a talking point.
Funny how that rhetoric dried up when the ATF agents began leaking information about "Fast and Furious" to the public and a few select bloggers.
Say what you want but this was not an attempt at reducing criminal behavior or catching bad guys. It was a direct attack on the second amendment and a political opinion maneuver misusing government agencies and funding with one objective in mind and that was to swing popular opinion towards gun control. Specifically the so called assault weapons.
A typical liberal/progressive scheme that this time cost lives.
asb 11 months ago
The conspiracy against the 2nd amendment foolishness ruins the whole argument. FF was clearly a screwup, and the details will be years in the finding, but it was a management mistake, not an attack on the 2nd. There's something we need to remember; the drug lords can get weapons whenever they want. Weapons are a major international industry and anybody who wants them can get them, so the death of an american agent can no more be lain at the feet of FF than Ford or the DOT can be blamed for a drunk driver. Let's remember the gun nut mantra; "guns don't kill people . . . "
connor 11 months ago
Heh it sure can if Ford or some DoT smuggles in alcohol for a drunk to consume on purpose. All the while pointing a finger at the liquor stores.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID