Contempt for Holder

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 255 to 67 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. 17 Democrats voted yes on the resolution, while 108 walked out without voting.

This entry was posted in Eric Holder, Fast and Furious and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to Contempt for Holder

  1. votermom says:

  2. Oswald says:

    I have contempt for Holder too

  3. catarina says:

    Cheer, up, Atty. Holder-you still have ‘your people.”

  4. HELENK says:

    lets see the democrats ran away in Wisconsin when the going got tough. Now they run away when the going gets tough in DC.
    If you ever get in a bar fight make sure you are not with a bunch of democrats or you will be on your own when the fight breaks out

  5. catarina says:

    The Repubs actually followed through-didn’t think they’d have the balls.

  6. yttik says:

    “..while 108 walked out without voting….”

    This is what drives me nuts about Democrats. They always vote present! Seriously, put your money where your mouth is. If you think Holder should not be held in contempt, then vote against it!

    I’m serious, Dems are acting like such drama queens. They’d rather protest for publicity and complain about how racist things are then actually stand up for what they believe in. I used to call them spineless, but in the past few years, I’ve started to wonder if they even have issues they care about. Everything is always about the drama and the photo ops.

  7. Lola-at-Large says:

    What are the rules on a quorum for the House?

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Nevermind. Simple majority, so the contempt citation will stand.

      Elections have consequences. Bitches. / snark

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        Interesting scene from that wiki entry:

        In the United States Senate, the procedure was used in the early morning hours of February 25, 1988. Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, then the Senate Majority Leader, moved a call of the house after the minority Republicans walked out in an attempt to deny the Senate a quorum after Senate aides began bring cots into the Senate cloakrooms in preparation for an all-night session over campaign finance reform for congressional elections. Byrd’s motion was approved 45-3 and arrest warrants were signed for all 46 Republicans. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Henry K. Giugni and his staff searched the Capitol’s corridor and Senate office buildings for absent Senators, and after checking several empty offices, spotted Senator Steve Symms of Idaho, who fled down a hallway and escaped arrest. After a cleaning woman gave a tip that Senator Robert Packwood of Oregon was in his office, Giugni opened the door with a skeleton key. Packwood attempted to shove the door closed, but Giugni and two assistants pushed it open. Packwood was “carried feet-first into the Senate chamber by three plainclothes officers” and sustained bruised knuckles.[10]

        So not only are Democrats across this land infuriating, they are also hypocrites. This is why it’s important to know your history.

        • Oswald says:

          The same maneuver was used by one of the state legislatures when the Constitution was adopted. They dragged a guy out of a bar to make a quorum.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Wait. A drunk guy voted on the CONSTITUTION? Then why can’t I drink on election day? Hypocrites. Voting drunk is the only way to go these days.

  8. Lola-at-Large says:

    Go ahead and retweet. You know you want to.

  9. cj says:

    What’s going on here? Did they just vote for criminal contempt and will vote for civil contempt next?

  10. votermom says:


  11. Lola-at-Large says:

    Twitter is so fun, even if it is so loaded today it’s a little wonky.

  12. votermom says:

    The line-crossers:

    * 17 Democrats voted ‘yes’ for contempt

    They were Reps. Jason Altmire (D-PA), John Barrow (D-GA), Dan Boren (D-OK), Leonard Boswell (D-IA), Ben Chandler (D-KY), Mark Critz (D-PA), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Kathy Hochul (D-NY), Ron Kind (D-WI) Larry Kissell (D-NC), Jim Matheson (D-UT), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Bill Owens (D-NY), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Mike Ross (D-AR) and Tim Walz (D-MN).

    * 2 Republicans voted ‘no’ for contempt

    (Rep Scott Rigell (Va) and Rep Steven LaTourette (Ohio)

    I understand the Dems voting Aye (NRA is a powerful lobby) but I wonder at the 2 GOPers voting No.

    • cj says:

      Looks like 20 dems are voting with the repubs on the civil contempt charge.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Rep Rigell: 2nd District is VA. Beach area; the New York City of the south. (Way more so than Atlanta, ftr)

      LaTourett’s district is 14, right outside of Cleveland, includes bedroom communities of.

      These guys are the opposite of Blue Dog Dems. They are Red Dog Reps. And long-standing incumbents. We’ll see if they survive Electoral Revenge 2012.

      • DeniseVB says:

        Yep, Rigell’s my Rep and awaiting anxiously for his statement. It’s his first term, winning from a Dem in ’10. Have a feeling it was politics and he was released to vote “no” to look more bipartisan-y. He’s going to have a tough fight this fall. He’s already fallen out of favor with the local tea party for some other votes.

        I’m stunned. This wasn’t the vote to play politics with, I want to know what’s in those docs and would be nice if my Rep was on my side, grrrr.

        Va Beach, the NYC of the South ? I wish 😀

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          I meant the larger area of Hampton Roads. I used to live there. It is the closest thing in terms of land division, and has similar demographics, though it’s much smaller populationwise. It’s also a pretty liberal area. Not as liberal as NYC, but more so than Atlanta, which is billed as the NYC of the south.

          I was also wrong about Riggell’s incumbency. LaTourette’s been around since ’95.

        • DeniseVB says:

          We retired here in ’92, furthest south you can get and still have the season changes. After 7 years in SoCal, it’s paradise 😀

    • A Dem from WI voted for contempt, Ron Kind. He actually shows some common sense.

    • SWPAnnA says:

      Altmire is a Blue Dog, was redistricted out of his seat. Has nothing to lose. I wish he would have challenged Casey for Senate

  13. cj says:

    Josh Lederman‏@joshledermanAP

    Romney spokeswoman –> RT @andreamsaul: Just crossed $2 million in donations & 20,000+ donors for #FullRepeal of Obamacare.

    • catarina says:

      Wonder how much would they have raked in if the site hadn’t crashed?

    • angienc says:

      Update as of 30 minutes ago:

      • cj says:

        He’s raking it in today. He may be raking in the votes too. Heard Judge Neapolitano say that the ruling sent his libertarian friends’ into a panic & they’re all solidly behind Romney now.

      • angienc says:

        How’s Obama doing money-wise you say?

  14. votermom says:

    OT, btw, my conspiracy theory nose is tingling about Chief Justice Roberts. I am getting a gut feeling based on the passive-aggressive cleverness of his decision that obamadmin is somehow leaning on him. It just has the flavor of “fine, I’ll do what you want – MY way.” Like a hostage sitch.

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Or a well-placed bribe from the Health Insurance Industry. Or maybe his youth has left him super-susceptible to peer pressure.

    • yttik says:

      LOL, passive aggressive or just aggressive? The media is spouting all sorts of nonsense about how Roberts has sided with liberals. Uh, I know you guys didn’t read the Obamacare bill, did you also fail to read the SC ruling? After basically implying that congress didn’t know WTF they were doing when they passed this thing, he suggests we vote them all out. This part made me laugh:

      “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

    • DeniseVB says:

      Roberts certainly threw Romney a 2+ million dollar bone today and something to campaign against. On the other hand, had he sided with the conservatives and threw it out, Team Obama would start pushing granny over the cliff again.

      Oh, and am loving twitterville “Joe Wilson was Right” !

      • angienc says:

        Anyone who believes Roberts thinks “it’s constitutional, bitches!” needs their heads examined. Roberts just gave Obama the finger & the progs are too stupid to realize it. Not only does Obama have to defend the largest middle class tax hike & the fact that he lied repeatedly to us saying it wasn’t a tax, he also cut off Obama playing “victim” to those “racist meanies” on the Supreme Court who “played politics” because they don’t like the Lightbringer. Sure, Obama & the Obamacrats will gloat & preen for a few day & he’ll get a little bump in the polls, but people are still without jobs & now the know what is actually in the bill — it’s a tax. In the long run, this was kind of better than overruling it.

    • votermom says:

      Krauthammer gives an explanation for Robert’s decision that makes sense to me: avoiding a repeat of Bush v Gore:

  15. cj says:

    21 dems voted yea

  16. cj says:

    Jonathan Turley’s now at Fox? Anyway, he wasn’t too impressed with the “win” & thinks Obama will live to regret Robert’s ruling.

    Timeline of changes (unless it gets repealed)

  17. HELENK says:

    Romney campaign raises $2m in 6 ½ hours since Supreme Court Health Care decision: Source

    this was an hour ago. people are still at work and many will wait until they get home to donate. As the ruling sinks in the donations will go up

  18. Lola-at-Large says:

    Grrr. Pissed! My paycheck was $175 less than it was supposed to be, so I could only donate $15. But I still managed to donate. Got an e-mail in to HR about why my gross doesn’t match my contract.

  19. DeniseVB says:

    Just got this from Rigell …..

    Rigell Statement on House Action to Find Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt

    Washington – Today Congressman Scott Rigell voted to find Attorney General Eric Holder in “civil contempt” for withholding documents from Congress in relation to the Fast and Furious program that resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. The Congressman voted against finding Mr. Holder in “criminal contempt.” Rigell released the following statement on Thursday afternoon:

    “In the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, there is built-in tension among the three branches of our federal government. This tension was reflected in two votes that came to the House floor this afternoon.

    “I believe in progressive discipline. Accordingly, and after a careful review of the facts, I voted against a bill to hold the Attorney General in criminal contempt of Congress. Later, I voted for a bill that authorizes the Oversight Committee to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings and force the Attorney General to comply with what are very reasonable oversight requests from this Congress.

    “In my view, the Attorney General has not served the President or the American people well. I believe he should resign. I am intent on pursuing the facts and gaining a full understanding of the Administration’s handling of the events leading to the Fast and Furious program, and as importantly, the conduct of the Administration in the months that followed.”

  20. JohnSmart says:

    Oh my…I am so very amused by the Dem walkout. They be very good at walking out. It’s what they do best these past few years.

  21. angienc says:

  22. DandyTiger says:

    I’m sure wikileaks is going to get and leak those DOJ documents any minute now.

  23. threewickets says:

    Does anyone think the volume and character of tea party rhetoric could actually help the Obamafraud in November. Yes, no? Or another way to ask the question: who is to the right of the tea party policywise. Maybe the wrong day to ask..

    • angienc says:

      Did it help him in November 2010?

    • Lola-at-Large says:

      Compared to progressives and their aggression? I doubt it.

      • threewickets says:

        Agree that it has to be compared to progs and their aggression, but a contest to see who alienates less in November would be bit strange. Base turnout will matter as always, but self-identifying independents have never been bigger as a group.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          Well, if you think about it, you can answer your own question. Obama maxed out his base in 2008 and gained tons of new recruits. Will they turn out in the same numbers? Are that base and those new recruits as excited as they were in 2008? Hardly. A majority of the new recruits have already abandoned him or are too caught up in surviving to care about voting. The broader base is depressed. On;y progressives are excited, and for them it’s defensive posturing, still.

          On the other hand, is the TP still united? Yes. Is their work done enough to quell their base? Hardly. Especially after today.

          Here’s what it comes down to: It’s a white thang. They (progressives) wouldn’t understand. He is not going to get 45%+ of white voters and that’s what he needs, minimum, to win.

        • DandyTiger says:

          I don’t think there’s any contest between the alienation and aggression between the two groups (tea party and obot/obamacare progressives). See for example the reaction to Palin’s tweet mentioned below. The tea party types I’ve seen and heard about are amateurs at the hate mongering and crazy compared to obots. I think 2012 will be a lot like 2010.

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          I agree with Dandy. The aggression of progressives is self-fueled and projected FROM them. The aggression surrounding the tea party fueled by outside sources and is a mirror of the progressive aggression projected ONTO them. It’s obvious where the blame goes, and people are intuitive. They still sympathize with the TPs goals, even if they also have questions about their methods.

        • threewickets says:

          That sounds pretty accurate. What I have noticed though is that proggers (at least the ones campaigning for Obama) have been getting better at the passive-aggressive game just in the past few months. They are jumping fewer sharks and playing the “we are the reasonable ones…they are the crazy ones” game more.

        • angienc says:

          I don’t know that the progs have gotten better at anything. In an earlier thread Lolo posted the Tweet from DNC executive director”It’s constitutional bitches” (which he later deleted). But he also sent out “TAKE THAT MOTHERF*CKERS!” (also deleted) which you can see here:

          Besides the fact that the progs are only doing a happy dance because they actually, truly, do not understand what happened today (and, given Pelosi’s “Call it whatever you will” they are incapable of understanding it), while they are breathing a sigh of relief, the TeaParty is breathing fire. It’s 2010 deja vu all over again.

    • angienc says:

      BTW — Romney has officially raised more than $3 million in on-line donations since ObamaTAX ruling (roughly 12 hours). Had more new donors today than for entire month of May.

  24. HELENK says:

    On Tuesday backtrack was crying how he needed money because the Romney camp had more money then his camp.
    After the court ruling today Romney got over 3 million dollars in campaign donations. The ruling has not really sunk in to a lot of people yet, wait until it does. Many will make it a priority to donate to Romney

    • Mary says:

      As of Friday morning, Romney raised $4.2 million.

      No word on how many Obama T-shirts sold (snark).

Comments are closed.