If it's that bad, why haven't they hauled Janet Reno into these Congressional hearings? Fast & Furious was started on HER watch?!
They may bring here in yet.
Don't they have members of Congress with security clearances, who can be told classified information? A change of venue for this discussion might be in order. Instead of any more public hearings, there needs to be a closed-door debriefing. Then maybe one of Issa's Republican colleagues can tell him he's interfering with something important and to lay off. I certainly hope so. We need to move past partisanship and come together to clean this up.
Assured, let's take a step back for a minute, okay? Let's look at this impartially.
Holder, in 2010, was informed of F&F. He may have known about it sooner, perhaps, but we do not know that for certain.
F&F comes under investigation by a congressional committee. At this point, they are the BBiC's. As part of their congressional duty, they are to investigate potential mishandling of executive power. Thus, all called before them in hearing answer to them and no one else.
The committee, by way of legally binding subpoena, demand all documents and information pertaining to F&F.
AG Holder delivers to them the documents- But not all of them.
The committee calls him before them to answer questions under oath, as binding as in a court of law, during which he asserts that they have "all the documents" and that he has known about F&F for "maybe the last few weeks."
It comes out that not all the documents have been turned over. AG Holder has broken the law by not turning the documents over- Under normal circumstances, a subpoena can be challenged by the AG on grounds of ongoing investigation, sensitive information which cannot be disclosed to the public, etc. AG Holder did not challenge the subpoena. He has also broken the law by lying under oath.
It then comes out that AG Holder also was aware of F&F since at least 2010, which is extensively longer than "the last few weeks." AG Holder has broken the law again, and once more by lying under oath.
At this point, AG Holder is guilty of disregarding a lawful subpoena; and even if the subpoena wasn't lawful, as you seem to suggest, there is still the matter of two counts of lying under oath.
In any other court of law, in any other trial, and with any other person, these offenses would immediately result in a finding of contempt.
So, with it laid out like this, regardless of what he is
TRYING to do; regardless of what
GOOD HE'S DONE;
do you, Assured, put forth the notion that AG Holder is above the law?
