Eric Holder’s relationship with Congress, and the truth
posted at 11:01 am on June 2, 2013 by Jazz Shaw
Some days it gets kind of hard to keep up with all the Eric Holder news. It seems that not a day goes by without some new story involving Obama’s top cop, and rarely is it a report of him doing his job brilliantly. (I’m sorry… did I say “rarely” there?) A number of these news reports involve the multiple times that Holder has been called to testify before Congress and the frequently baffling comments which follow. But how has he handled himself when providing testimony under oath? Investors Business Daily provides a useful stroll down memory lane this weekend which should keep you up to date on Holder’s “complicated” relationship with the truth when it comes to Congress, and it goes back quite a ways before the Journalists / Fox News debacle.
They kick things off with the New Black Panther Party, with all due apologies to Forrest Gump.
That the House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on Department of Justice (DOJ) surveillance of reporters comes as no surprise. People have forgotten about the New Black Panther case, perhaps the most clear-cut case of voter suppression and intimidation ever. On Election Day 2008, New Black Panther Party members in military garb were videotaped intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia polling place.
The slam-dunk prosecution of these thugs was dropped by Holder’s Justice Department. When asked why, Holder, on March 1, 2011, testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies that the “decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department.”
Holder lied, for the decisions were made by political appointees. J. Christian Adams, a former career DOJ attorney in the Voting Rights Section, testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that it was Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, an Obama political appointee, who overruled a unanimous recommendation for prosecution by Adams and his associates.
How about the Fast and Furious disaster?
“When did you first know about the program officially I believe called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?” House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa asked Holder in sworn testimony on May 3, 2011. “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks,” was Holder’s response.
Holder lied: A July 2010 memo shows Michael Walther, head of the National Drug Intelligence Center, told Holder that straw buyers in Fast and Furious “are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels.”
There’s more, so you’ll want to study the entire thing to have the full list of mendacity laden appearances on his record. But what does this mean for Holder? He was already found in contempt once, and it certainly didn’t seem to slow him down. But if this turns out to be a verifiable case of perjury, then all bets are off. It makes staying on the job out of the question, and jail time suddenly shows up on the table. But… you’d have to get a conviction. Is that even possible in the current climate?