Bill of impeachment introduced against Eric Holder

November 15, 2013
"I am not a crook!"

“Go away”

It’s not likely to go anywhere, but… Dang, it feels good!

Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) introduced his articles of impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder today with more than twice the number of original co-sponsors anticipated.

In fact, there are 30 co-sponsors. These are the four articles:

  1. Refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 12, 2011, seeking information and documents regarding Operation Fast and Furious. This is a violation of 2 U.S.C. 192.
  2. Failure to enforce multiple laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. This is a violation of the oath Mr. Holder swore to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office” of Attorney General.
  3. Refusal to prosecute the IRS officials involved in the targeting and disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors. This is a violation of the oath Mr. Holder swore to “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office” of Attorney General.
  4. False testimony under oath before Congress on May 15, 2013, about the Justice Department investigation of journalist James Rosen. This is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621.

But there could be so many more: the failure to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for obvious voter intimidation in Philadelphia in 2008; the failure to guarantee the integrity of our elections by refusing to enforce the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act when the defendants in an action would be African-American, a clear racialist agenda that violates every standard by which the DoJ should operate; and a hiring agenda that indicates a deep politicization of the Department of Justice to pursue a hard-left programme, rather than the neutral, impartial enforcement of the laws.

I’m sure we could think of others with little effort.

It’s no secret that I hold Eric Holder in utter contempt and that I think he’s the worst attorney-general in 100 years, since Wilson’s A. Mitchell Palmer; he is turning his department into a political arm of the administration and setting it up long-term to pursue a progressive agenda through the courts, rather than through the constitutional law-making bodies. He richly deserves removal from office and I would thrill to see Congress assert its ancient right of oversight to do just that. Even if he has violated no laws, per se, he should be removed from office for gross abuse of power.

But, realistically and rationally, it’s not likely to happen. The article cited in the first link reports doubts among the House leadership, because it would distract from the assault on Obamacare just as the administration is on the defensive and congressional Democrats are near panic. Call me RINO, but I have to agree. It would be a fruitless dispersal of our efforts just as we have the other side on the run and should be concentrating our fire. An impeachment would also likely give Democrats a rallying point: progressives could play the race card for all it’s worth, while Senate Democrats jumping ship on Obamacare could renew their loyalty by voting to acquit in a trial, and they’d be under tremendous pressure from their leadership to do just that, to avoid humiliating Obama even more. Nor would the public punish them for it; Holder just isn’t that big a deal to Joe American. Obamacare is.

So, my guess is these articles of impeachment will go nowhere, instead being quietly tabled.

But it sure would feel good.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#Benghazi: attackers knew where the “secret” safe room was

November 15, 2013
American Blood, US Consulate, Benghazi

Inside job

As if we needed more proof that there was no way this was the product of some “spontaneous” demonstration in protest against a video hardly anyone saw, one of the survivors has testified that the jihadis knew their way around the compound, including where the ambassador’s “safe room” was:

The terrorists who attacked the Benghazi consulate last year knew the location of the safe room where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security team sought shelter, according to a congressman who spoke for 90 minutes with the diplomatic security agent severely injured in the assault.

“He confirmed this – that it was a very well orchestrated, and well organized, almost a military operation, using military weapons and using military signals,” the late Florida Rep. Bill Young said after meeting diplomatic security agent David Ubben at Walter Reed Medical Center last summer, when both were patients there.

After Young’s death in mid-October, his widow, Beverly Young, gave Fox permission to use her husband’s comments about the Sep. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the record. The congressman had originally spoken to Fox on background last summer.

“He (Ubben) emphasized the fact that it was a very, very military type of operation they had knowledge of almost everything in the compound,” Young explained. “They knew where the gasoline was, they knew where the generators were, they knew where the safe room was, they knew more than they should have about that compound.”

Now, how could they have known that?

An August 16 classified cable, reviewed and reported on by Fox News last fall, showed there was an emergency meeting in Benghazi less than a month before the attack due to rapidly deteriorating security. The cable warned the office of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (1), and other State Department leaders in Washington, that the consulate could not sustain a coordinated assault.

The cable also reflected a grave concern among officials on the ground that the Libyan militia charged with protecting the consulate had been compromised, perhaps even infiltrated by extremists.

Don’t forget, that unit, the 17 February Brigade, melted away when the attack started. Wouldn’t want to get in their friends’ way, after all.

Ubben’s testimony supports the contention of LtC. Wood in the controversial “60 Minutes” interview that this was a well-planned, coordinated, professional assault.

Barack Obama’s largely avoided the consequences of Benghazi; barring compelling evidence of collaboration with the enemy, he won’t be impeached for it, though I suspect his dereliction that night warrants it.

However, Hillary Clinton is just as culpable, if not more so. The moronic “go softly” policy we undertook in Libya, to the extent of hiring local militias for security in a known al Qaeda recruiting zone, was hers. The failure to correct the security flaws were hers. The failure to press for sufficient forces pre-placed to launch a rescue mission in the event of attack was hers. And many of the lies told in the aftermath, including to the families of the fallen, were hers.

She was an incompetent, blundering, dishonest and dishonorable failure as Secretary of State and should never, ever come anywhere near the presidency. We can only hope that those investigating the events of September 11, 2012, in Benghazi keep digging and find enough to ruin whatever political future she has left.

That would at least be a measure of justice for the four Americans who died there.

via JWF.

Footnote:
(1) Who therefore lied about never having seen cables about security risks in Benghazi. Yet another example of the Sgt. Schultz administration in action.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)