**Posted by Phineas
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 Public Secrets)