Fast & Furious

[Assuredcw]

If he didn't want to be brought up on contempt charges, he would comply with the subpoena

Now we are full circle, because you cannot subpoena classified law enforcement information from the Justice Dept. It isn't subpoena-able, but Issa doesn't appear to be interested in those pesky little precedents. Then again, he isn't an attorney, but most members of Congress are.

I read the Wikipedia page on Darrell Issa just now. I think he might be very used to getting his own way. Take a look, if you don't believe me.

Darrell Issa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let the "Little People" worry about precedents...

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

If he didn't want to be brought up on contempt charges, he would comply with the subpoena

OR...he just thinks he can weasel his way out of it.

Really though, WHY would he want to be brought up on contempt charges?

 

[Assuredcw]

They have the Attorney General between a rock and a hard place, because he REALLY cannot release those documents. That much is clear to me. AG Holder does NOT have time for this, so there obviously is a problem. No he isn't covering up - he continues to investigate the whole situation, so these are open files. He needs to just talk to them, unless he can get them to eat copies of the documents like on Get Smart - LOL!

A Smart way to Eat Paper - YouTube

 

[MachZer0]

Now we are full circle, because you cannot subpoena classified law enforcement information from the Justice Dept. It isn't subpoena-able, but Issa doesn't appear to be interested in those pesky little precedents. Then again, he isn't an attorney, but most members of Congress are.

I read the Wikipedia page on Darrell Issa just now. I think he might be very used to getting his own way. Take a look, if you don't believe me.

Darrell Issa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let the "Little People" worry about precedents...

You can't classify information to cover up a crime

 

[MachZer0]

OR...he just thinks he can weasel his way out of it.

Really though, WHY would he want to be brought up on contempt charges?

Why would he not comply with the subpoena?

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Why would he not comply with the subpoena?

Politics.

 

[MachZer0]

They have the Attorney General between a rock and a hard place, because he REALLY cannot release those documents. That much is clear to me. AG Holder does NOT have time for this, so there obviously is a problem. No he isn't covering up - he continues to investigate the whole situation, so these are open files. He needs to just talk to them, unless he can get them to eat copies of the documents like on Get Smart - LOL!

If Holder is between a rock and a hard place he plce himself there firmly without any help

 

[MachZer0]

Politics.

More likely a coverup

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Well, duh. The whole point is that this was a big cover-up. That doesn't answer why he would want to be brought up on contempt.

 

[RETS]

....you cannot subpoena classified law enforcement information from the Justice Dept. It isn't subpoena-able...

Not true. Under Touhy regulations, that information can, in fact, be subpoenaed from any government agency. Moreover, the US AG, or any AG for that matter, is not immune from subpoena, per case law. Additionally, should the DOJ decline the requested material, (and there is hard evidence they did just that), the request can then again be made citing reciprocal discovery, per United States v. Bahamonde. (445 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2006))


Argument busted. Next?

 

[Assuredcw]

Not true. Under Touhy regulations, that information can, in fact, be subpoenaed from any government agency. Moreover, the US AG, or any AG for that matter, is not immune from subpoena, per case law. Additionally, should the DOJ decline the requested material, (and there is hard evidence they did just that), the request can then again be made citing reciprocal discovery, per United States v. Bahamonde. (445 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2006))


Argument busted. Next?

Interesting that once again, precedent is being ignored. Here is a dissenting opinion on United States v Bahamonde:

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis Joseph Bahamonde, Defendant-Appellant., 445 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2006) - Federal Circuits - Docket Number: 04-50618 - April 26, 2006 - April 25, 2006 - vLex

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. My primary disagreement with my colleagues' resolution of this case is their characterization of the pivotal issue as one of reciprocal discovery, because I see this case as involving the agency's right to control the disclosure of information within its custody.

As the majority opinion relates, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has promulgated a regulation that requires one seeking official information from the agency to describe, in writing, "the nature and relevance of the information sought." 6 C.F.R. § 5.45(a). The regulation was promulgated, not as a discovery device, but as a means to control the flow of information from the agency and ensure that no information was disclosed that should have remained secreted. The regulation cites United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462, 71 S.Ct. 416, 95 L.Ed. 417 (1951), as supporting authority. The majority opinion acknowledges, as it must, that Ragen upheld a Department of Justice regulation prohibiting its employees from responding to a subpoena absent permission. See Majority Opinion, p. 1230, n. 6. The majority opinion then converts the issue into one involving a discovery request, although neither the parties nor the district court viewed it as such.

Discovery in criminal cases is governed by a detailed, well-defined, specific set of rules. See Fed. R. Cr. P. 16. The evolvement of discovery in criminal cases is reflected in the Advisory Committee Notes explaining the various amendments to Rule 16. See id., Advisory Committee Notes. I would not blithely transpose a regulation governing release of documents into a non-sanctioned amendment of Rule 16. See United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1207 n. 8 (9th Cir.2004) (confirming that Rule 16 governs discovery in criminal cases and expressly excludes discovery of "statements made by prospective government witnesses") (citation omitted).

This is not a case where Bahamonde made a discovery request to the government which was improperly refused. Had such been the case, the federal rules provide the district court with an array of options to compel compliance. See, e.g. Fed. R. Cr. P. 16(d). Rather, in this case, counsel for Bahamonde disregarded a regulation, of which he was well aware, to call a witness, not to conduct pre-trial discovery.

In my view, because this is not a discovery case, Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 93 S.Ct. 2208, 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973), does not control the outcome. Rather, this case is more akin to United States v. Allen, 554 F.2d 398 (10th Cir.1977). In Allen, as in this case, the defendant made no effort to comply with the regulation requiring similar advance notice and summary of the desired testimony. In upholding the trial court's decision declining to compel the testimony, the Tenth Circuit held:

Our record shows no effort by defendant to submit the affidavit or statement summarizing the testimony desired so that the Department could consider the request and determine whether to grant permission for the testimony. In view of this, we feel that defendant is in no position to claim error in the court's refusal to require testimony by the prosecutor. We feel that the regulation controlling such disclosures by Department of Justice employees is valid.

Id. at 407 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

A similar result is warranted in this case. Bahamonde was not requesting pretrial discovery. He was seeking to call a witness without meeting the requirements of a regulation of which he was indisputably aware. I would follow the ruling of the Tenth Circuit in Allen and hold that the district court acted well within its discretion in excluding the testimony. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Ignoring the Dept of Justice's right to retain information, does not make this right disappear. AG Holder has an even stronger claim for retaining information. He probably has more secrets to keep than even the President.

 

[Rion]

Holder: "I Stuck by My Guns" | CNSNews.com

...probably the worst possible use of that phrase.

 

[MachZer0]

Holder: "I Stuck by My Guns" | CNSNews.com

...probably the worst possible use of that phrase.

Remember, there are no coincidences

 

[Rion]

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was back on Capitol Hill Tuesday in part to discuss the potential contempt charges threatened against him, which lawmakers say stem from the Justice Department’s lack of cooperation in the investigation of the failed federal gun-walking operation, Fast and Furious.

However, Holder now says he is willing to work with Republican lawmakers in order to avoid the charges – or as he called it, the “impending constitutional crisis.”

During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Holder for the DOJ’s (Department of Justice) stance on the recently leaked wiretap applications relating to Fast and Furious and whether his department was willing to provide additional documents. Surprisingly, the attorney general seemingly extended his hand to the GOP saying, he is prepared to make “compromises with regard to the documents that can be made available.”

Attorney General Eric Holder Warns Senate Judiciary Committee of Constitutional Crisis | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[MachZer0]

Attorney General Eric Holder Warns Senate Judiciary Committee of Constitutional Crisis | Video | TheBlaze.com

Since Holder is not exempt from the Constittion, I fail to see the crisis.

 

[RETS]

Interesting that once again, precedent is being ignored. Here is a dissenting opinion on United States v Bahamonde...

You realize what dissenting means, right?

 

[Assuredcw]

RETS:

You realize what dissenting means, right?

Yes, of course. But there is no particular precedent here. The only reason why the Supreme Court ruled the way they did in United States v. Bahamonde, was because they saw the case as being about discovery and due process rights. This is not going to be about that, and Holder has a strong claim to "control the disclosure of information within [his] custody." I really don't think Issa's need to see those documents is very compelling at all, because he should be willing to settle for a confidential debriefing from the Justice Dept, and two full Inspector General reports. There has to be that separation! However, I am not an attorney let alone a Constitutional Law specialist, so we will see.

 

[RETS]

Yes, of course. But there is no particular precedent here. The only reason why the Supreme Court ruled the way they did in United States v. Bahamonde, was because they saw the case as being about discovery and due process rights. This is not going to be about that, and Holder has a strong claim to "control the disclosure of information within [his] custody." I really don't think Issa's need to see those documents is very compelling at all, because he should be willing to settle for a confidential debriefing from the Justice Dept, and two full Inspector General reports. There has to be that separation! However, I am not an attorney let alone a Constitutional Law specialist, so we will see.

There is also not a very strong precedent for Holder withholding information, either. He's basing his decision off of past decisions made under Bush 45, Clinton and Johnson. Those decisions have never been opposed until now, so to say there is a legitimate precedent is tentative and misleading at best.

As for a Constitutional Law specialist, I am not either. I am, however, someone who has studied Constitutional Law cases, the Constitution, and nearly every bill to go through Congress for the last ten years- In addition to going to law school, though I was not able to graduate. (Unfortunately, money was tight and I had to drop.)

 

[Assuredcw]

Holder is in law enforcement and has an obligation to keep the identities of Federal witnesses confidential. Telling Issa isn't a valid option, and Issa's motives in insisting on seeing those documents rather than having sufficient curiosity to even consider a debriefing as an option, are open to question IMO. It's hard to say, "Holder won't tell us anything" if you refuse to hear a debriefing while you wait for those documents - LOL!

 

[Rion]

Senator: 'I Have Not Been Impressed with [Holder's] Intelligence' | The Weekly Standard

Texas senator John Cornyn called into question the intelligence of Attorney General Eric Holder earlier today in a radio interview. "Do you think Holder is smart?," radio host Laura Ingraham asked Cornyn. "I have not been impressed with his intelligence," Cornyn responded.

...

When asked whether Holder is guilty of "corruption or incompetence," the Texas senator said, "It’s corruption, in the sense that he’s pursuing a political agenda and not being loyal to his oath to defend and uphold the laws of the United States."