Republican Congressman from Texas seeks to impeach Attorney General Eric Holder

640_050912_greta_holder

Below is from FNC CHAD PERGRAM:

Urgent: Rep Olson efforts impeachment effort of AG Holder

Per Pergram-Capitol Hill

Fox has obtained a white paper outlining a point by point impeachment resolution targeting Attorney General Eric Holder authored by Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX).

The impeachment effort is not sanctioned by the House GOP leadership and the House Judiciary Committee (which would craft articles of impeachment). Remember, impeachment of the president and other officials serves as a kind of “indictment,” originating in the House. If successfully “impeached” by the House, it is up to the Senate to convict and remove that official via a trial (ala impeachment in 1998 involving President Clinton).

In fact, one senior House GOP aide questioned the impeachment effort at this time.

“Why would we want to go after Holder when we have so much to do with health care?” asked the aide.

The House successfually voted to find Holder in contempt of Congress over his handling of the gun running scheme known as Fast and Furious last year. Legal wrangling continues between Congress and the Justice Department.

This impeachment attempt specifically goes after Holder over Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal and significantly, his efforts to target Fox’s James Rosen for his reporting on North Korea.

Co-sponsoring the resolution alongside Olson are Reps. Phil Roe (R-TN), Ted Yoho (R-FL), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), Larry Buschon (R-IN), Blake Farenthold (R-TX), Randy Weber (R-TX) and Roger Williams (R-TX).

Only one cabinet member has ever faced impeachment proceedings. That was President Ulysses Grant’s War Secretary, William Belknap in 1876. Belknap resigned before the House was set to vote on his impeachment after he was accused of “basely prostituting his high office to his lust for private gain.”

The following is a section-by-section break down of the Articles of Impeachment against Attorney General Eric Holder introduced by Rep. Pete Olson.
Article I
Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the United States, engaged in a pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him in that position by refusing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 12, 2011 in connection with a legitimate congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that put thousands of illegally-purchased weapons into the hands of cartel leaders, ultimately resulting in the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.
On October 12, 2011, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (the Committee) issued a subpoena to Attorney General Holder, requesting documents related to the Justice Department’s involvement with Operation Fast and Furious.[1] The Committee issued the subpoena after six months of continued refusals by the Justice Department to cooperate with the congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious. Further, the Justice Department submitted a letter to the Committee on February 4, 2011, denying that gun walking had taken place as part of Operation Fast and Furious. This assertion was found to be false and the Justice Department later withdrew the letter.
The Committee sent seven letters to the Justice Department (and ATF, FBI, DEA) in a good faith effort to obtain information about Operation Fast and Furious, as well as information surrounding the false February 4th letter and the decision to withdraw it, before finally issuing the subpoena to Attorney General Holder.
Justice Department Response to Holder Subpoena
Despite the Justice Department’s acknowledgement that it understood what the Committee was seeking, it refused to provide a single document for 11 out of the 22 categories contained in the subpoena.[2] The Justice Department deliberately withheld documents, preventing the Committee from performing its constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the Executive Branch.
Assertion of Executive Privilege and Lawsuit
On June 20, 2012, the Committee received a letter from Deputy Attorney General James Cole claiming that the President asserted executive privilege over certain documents covered by the subpoena. This letter arrived only minutes before the Committee met to consider a resolution holding the Attorney General in contempt. Despite the President’s dubious claim of executive privilege, Attorney General Holder violated federal law by failing to turn over lawfully subpoenaed documents requested by Congress.

Shortly after holding Attorney General Holder in contempt of Congress, the Committee filed a lawsuit demanding that Attorney General Holder deliver the documents requested in the subpoena. On September 30, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman rejected the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the Committee’s lawsuit.[3]
Why is this offense impeachable?
The failure by Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department to produce documents pursuant to a congressional subpoena is a violation of federal law (2 U.S.C. 192).
2 U.S.C. 192 states, in part:
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before . . . any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.[4]
Article II
Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the United States, and responsible for enforcing the laws of the United States regardless of personal bias, failed to enforce multiple laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.
Defense of Marriage Act
On February 23, 2011, Attorney General Holder released a statement saying that President Obama had concluded that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as applied to legally married same-sex couples, is unconstitutional. Consequently, President Obama instructed the Justice Department not to defend the statute. Attorney General Holder said that he agreed with President Obama and that the Justice Department would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA.[5]
Controlled Substances Act
On August 29, 2013, Attorney General Holder announced that the Justice Department would not enforce the Controlled Substances Act against entities that produce and distribute marijuana as a recreational drug as long as those entities operate within a “strong and effective” state regulatory system.[6]
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986
On August 12, 2013, Attorney General Holder announced that the Justice Department would no longer pursue mandatory minimum sentences for certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders. These mandatory minimum sentences are explicitly stated in statute and were passed by Congress in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986.
Failure to enforce the law
As the chief law enforcement officer for the Federal Government, Attorney General Holder is tasked with carrying out the laws of the land as passed by Congress. States are challenging federal law, and Attorney General Holder does not have the authority to unilaterally decide that certain laws will not be enforced. If the Administration wants to change the law, it should ask Congress to amend it. Only the Supreme Court can deem laws unconstitutional.
Why is this offense impeachable?
Attorney General Holder has failed to carry out the mission of Justice Department, which is “to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law….and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”[7] By refusing to enforce laws passed by Congress, Attorney General Holder has violated the oath he took when he was sworn in as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States on February 3, 2009. This oath, sworn by every elected or appointed official in the US civil or uniformed services, reads:
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”[8]
Article III
Eric H. Holder, Jr. while Attorney General of the United States, has failed in his oath of office by refusing to prosecute individuals involved in the Internal Revenue Service scandal of unauthorized disclosure of tax records belonging to political donors.
Failure to Prosecute IRS Officials
According to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) J. Russell George, his office identified one case of “willful unauthorized access” to tax records belonging to political donors or candidates. TIGTA referred this case to the Justice Department, but “the case was declined for prosecution.”[9]

Why is this offense impeachable?
Attorney General Holder has failed to carry out the mission of Justice Department, which is “to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law…to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”[10] By refusing to prosecute IRS officials who had committed crimes, Attorney General Holder violated the oath he took when he was sworn in as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States on February 3, 2009. This oath, sworn by every elected or appointed official in the US civil or uniformed services, reads:
“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”[11]
Article IV
Eric H. Holder, Jr., while Attorney General of the United States, testified under oath before Congress on May 15, 2013, that he was neither involved in nor had heard of a potential prosecution of the press. However, three days later, the Department of Justice released documents that included a search warrant that named journalist James Rosen as a co-conspirator in an alleged violation of the Espionage Act. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, confirmed to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives in a letter dated June 19, 2013 that he, indeed, approved of the search warrant on James Rosen.
Misleading Testimony to Congress
On May 15, 2013, Attorney General Holder appeared before the House Judiciary Committee for its annual Justice Department oversight hearing. In response to a question from Rep. Hank Johnson regarding the use of the Espionage Act to prosecute members of the media, Mr. Holder testified, under oath: “Well, I would say this. With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I have ever been involved, heard of, or would think would be a wise policy [emphasis added].”[12]
The following week it was revealed that, in 2010, the Justice Department obtained a search warrant for the emails of FOX News Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen, alleging that he was a possible co-conspirator to State Department employee Stephen Kim in violation of the Espionage Act.[13] In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee dated June 13, 2013, Attorney General Holder wrote:
“As you know, in the course of the ongoing investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified information that appeared in a news article in June 2009, the Department, with my approval, sought a search warrant for a reporter’s emails from an internet service provider.”[14]
In admitting that he approved the search warrant, Attorney General Holder directly contradicts his testimony on May 15, 2013. Clearly, Attorney General Holder knew that the Justice Department was investigating James Rosen as a co-conspirator in alleged violations of the Espionage Act as early as June 2009. Under the Privacy Protection Act, journalists cannot be investigated in order to obtain information about a third party. The fact that there was a search warrant carried out on James Rosen means that the Justice Department either intended to prosecute him, or the Justice Department clearly violated the Privacy Protection Act.
Why is this offense impeachable?
In United States v. Dunnigan, the Supreme Court used the following definition that has gained general acceptance and common understanding under the federal criminal statue to describe the crime of perjury, as defined in 18 U.S.C.1621: “A witness testifying under oath or affirmation violates this section if she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.”[15]
Attorney General Holder provided false testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on May 15, 2013, when he said that he has never been involved with or heard of a potential prosecution of the press. This is a clear violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621.

Chad Pergram
FOX News
Senior Producer for Capitol Hill

Leave a Comment ()