Holder shouldn’t be asked to resign

The evidence is sketchy in places and testimony is changing in the Fast and Furious scandal so we don’t yet know for certain what happened. But many people, including 52 members of the House and two senators, are calling for the resignation or firing of Holder and even indictment ATF officials.

There is one nagging piece of evidence that I haven’t been hearing requests for that should, and I think must, be demanded by the investigating committees. Was operation Fast and Furious what President Obama was referring to when he said, “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”? If it wasn’t then what was he referring to?

Based upon the “guns in Mexico” mantra the ATF implemented a regulation requiring some firearms dealers to report multiple sales of some rifles in direct violation of U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A)):

…dealers shall not be required to submit to the Attorney General reports and information with respect to such records and the contents thereof, except as expressly required by this section.

The following hypothesis is thus fully supported by all the evidence I have seen:

The administration deliberately enabled and in some cases delivered firearms to Mexican drug cartels in an effort to justify subversion of U.S. law with illegal regulations imposed upon U.S. gun dealers and owners.

If this was the intent of Fast and Furious then it would appear the entire chain of command from President Obama on down knew and were responsible for the results. This isn’t resignation material.

18 USC 242:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

If Fast and Furious was “under the radar” gun control and resulted in the deaths of not just a Border Patrol agent but hundreds of Mexicans then it would appear to me that the administration doesn’t just have the shame of resignation hanging over them. They have the specter of a death sentence starting at them. The investigating committee should use that as a bargaining chip to get their full cooperation. Once all the facts have surfaced the culprits should be given a fair trial and appropriate sentences.

Violation of civil rights under the color of law must be taken very seriously. Inalienable civil rights of the individual are one of the key difference between our supposed form of government and that of a totalitarian government. If the U.S. Attorney General and/or the President of the United States were and/or are treating their positions as if this is a totalitarian society they need to be subject to extremely severe sanctions to not only to punish them for their crimes but as a deterrent for future aspiring tyrants at both the national and local level.

4 thoughts on “Holder shouldn’t be asked to resign

  1. Excellent points. Our problem of course is that the aspiring tyrants are the ones responsible for prosecuting this crime. This is gang verses gang, and when the interests of the American people (the interests of liberty) are at odds with the interests of the competing gangs, the gangs will come together and circle the wagons. They can always deal with us later, after they’ve settled their differences.

    We can hope that there are some actual defenders of liberty in Congress and that they will somehow sway the results. What are the chances of that? We could revolt, and what then would be the chances of success? We could bide our time, waiting for liberty to appear on the ballot at some stage in the future and see it through to a successful election followed by a successful administration. What are the chances of that?

    Here’s for hoping we have some defenders in Congress who will actually do something decisive in the pursuit of justice, ’cause the other options don’t look too good.

  2. And the Mexicans are rightfully furious about the whole matter. Once again, America shows itself to be just too big and too close to Mexico to be a good neighbor.
    And yet this is virtually invisible to the CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS viewing crowd.

  3. I don’t think statute of limitations is an issue in this case. After finding a willing prosecutor to take the case, the prosecutor would need evidence that the violation of firearms law was in furtherance of the homicide. The case must prove that the gov’t agents were in a crimial conspiracy or intended to facilitate murder. If there was no legal requirement to show intent then a negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter type charge could be brought against the original owner of a stolen firearm used in a homicide. I don’t know if this line of reasoning is valid in any particular state, but encouraging over inclusive flexibility in criminal law is bad for liberty.

    Charging them with treason for aiding an armed group that targets US agents is a much simpler legal argument that applies very well to this case. no need to add a civil rights charge.

Comments are closed.