In Contempt, Contemptible, and Highly Contemptible

Holder – In Contempt of Congress

The Noes – Contemptible

Baldwin

Barber

Berkley

Berman

Bishop (NY)

Blumenauer

Bonamici

Braley (IA)

Capps

Cohen

Connolly (VA)

Cooper

Costello

Courtney

Cuellar

DeFazio

DeLauro

Deutch

Dicks

Dingell

Doggett

Eshoo

Farr

Green, Gene

Heinrich

Higgins

Himes

Hirono

Holden

Holt

Langevin

Larsen (WA)

LaTourette

Loebsack

Lofgren, Zoe

Luján

Lynch

McDermott

McNerney

Michaud

Miller (NC)

Miller, George

Moran

Murphy (CT)

Nadler

Pastor (AZ)

Perlmutter

Quigley

Rigell

Rothman (NJ)

Ryan (OH)

Sanchez, Loretta

Schrader

Schwartz

Sherman

Shuler

Slaughter

Smith (WA)

Speier

Sutton

Thompson (CA)

Tierney

Tsongas

Visclosky

Wasserman Schultz

Waxman

Welch

The Walk-Outs – Highly Contemptible

Ackerman

Andrews

Baca

Bass (CA)

Becerra

Bishop (GA)

Brady (PA)

Brown (FL)

Butterfield

Capuano

Cardoza

Carnahan

Carney

Carson (IN)

Castor (FL)

Chu

Cicilline

Clarke (MI)

Clarke (NY)

Clay

Cleaver

Clyburn

Conyers

Costa

Crowley

Cummings

Davis (CA)

Davis (IL)

DeGette

Doyle

Edwards

Ellison

Engel

Fattah

Filner

Frank (MA)

Fudge

Garamendi

Gonzalez

Green, Al

Grijalva

Gutierrez

Hahn

Hanabusa

Hastings (FL)

Hinchey

Hinojosa

Honda

Hoyer

Israel

Jackson (IL)

Jackson Lee (TX)

Johnson (GA)

Johnson, E. B.

Kaptur

Keating

Kildee

Kucinich

Larson (CT)

Lee (CA)

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lowey

Maloney

Markey

Matsui

McCarthy (NY)

McCollum

McGovern

Meeks

Moore

Napolitano

Neal

Olver

Pallone

Pascrell

Pelosi

Peters

Pingree (ME)

Polis

Price (NC)

Rangel

Reyes

Richardson

Richmond

Roybal-Allard

Ruppersberger

Rush

Sánchez, Linda T.

Sarbanes

Schakowsky

Schiff

Scott (VA)

Scott, David

Serrano

Sewell

Sires

Stark

Thompson (MS)

Tonko

Towns

Van Hollen

Velázquez

Waters

Watt

Wilson (FL)

Woolsey

Yarmuth

Grassley Eviscerates Fortune Magazine Claims

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) doesn’t think much of the Fortune Magazine article by Katherine Eban. He released a memo to reporters and editors today that savages it. Given that Sen. Grassley was the first person in Congress to take Project Gunwalker seriously, he is more than a little pissed off at this 11th-hour “Empire Strikes Back” attempt to denigrate the investigation.

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Reporters and Editors
Re: Fortune magazine piece on Fast and Furious
Da: Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Fortune magazine piece on Operation Fast and Furious is problematic in several respects. Sen. Chuck Grassley began investigating the circumstances of the death of border patrol agent Brian Terry 18 months ago after whistleblowers came to him with concerns. The following statement is from Grassley’s office. Supporting documents are available here.

“The Fortune piece conspicuously ignores the most important fact in this case: ATF encouraged cooperating dealers to sell guns to known traffickers. That fact is key to understanding how ATF made a strategic choice to track the guns instead of stop them. The central claim of the article, that there was nothing ATF could have done to stop the illegal sales, is simply incompatible with the evidence. If it is true that ATF could not interdict and seize weapons due to legal hurdles beyond its control, then ATF had no business telling gun dealers to go ahead with the sales.

“The Fortune article asks the reader to believe that sworn statements by whistleblowers who put their careers on the line to expose the truth for Brian Terry’s family are merely conspiratorial fabrications for the sole purpose of getting back at their boss. It asks the reader to believe that the ATF Director, the Attorney General, the White House, and Congress all fell victim to the fabrication and completely misinterpreted or misunderstood the thousands of pages of documents that corroborate the whistleblower allegations. The Justice Department retracted its previous denials of those allegations last December 2. If the Fortune article is accurate, the Justice Department’s December 2 retraction would itself be a false capitulation under political pressure aimed at protecting senior DOJ officials at the expense of ATF field office personnel in Arizona.

“The Fortune article inexplicably credits the self-serving statements of the supervisors in Arizona responsible for overseeing Fast and Furious. There is no explanation as to why, given their obvious motive to claim there was no gun-walking to save themselves from criticism and punishment. That’s why the written records, the interviews on the record, and obtaining and weighing all evidence is so important. We can only draw fair, informed conclusions from the facts.”

Fortune is a business magazine and ought to concentrate on business issues. Any credibility they may have had on business issues is now suspect in my opinion. If they are willing to put their name and reputation on Eban’s piece of junk research, what does that say about anything else they publish?

From The Highly Reputable Al Gore Network

The Al Gore Network – or as it is more properly known, Current TV – ran with the 11th hour “Empire Strikes Back” article by Katherine Eban of Fortune Magazine which stated gunwalking never intentionally happened. It appeared on The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur.

I suggest just skimming through the video as it is enough to make one puke. However, the gun prohibitionists were Tweeting the link to this like crazy last night as if it were the gospel truth. I guess when you are grasping for straws….

Mike Vanderboegh had this to say about the Fortune Magazine story and its author Katherine Eban:

There was much excitement at MSNBC today about a CNN/Fortune magazine hit piece on John Dodson entitled: The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal. We’ve known this was coming for a while. The author, a long-time Clintonista contacted every body she thought she could milk for dirt on John starting sometime last October. She was given access to internal ATF documents, all selectively arranged to make the case which Katie Pavlich subjects to some deconstruction here: Fortune Magazine Tries to Tell The “Truth” About Fast and Furious, Fails Miserably

Of course you have to give the Evil Empire credit, they timed the release beautifully. I grew concerned earlier today when I was told that wavering Dems were having the article waved under their noses and were being warned that “it was all a lie so don’t vote for contempt.” However, my sources on and near the Hill dismissed the reports, saying no one believed that it would get any traction. Said one, “They waited too long. If they had done this six-months ago, they might have crafted an alternate storyline, but then the Committee could have had the time to debunk it as well.” Another said, “This won’t survive the publication of the contempt Report tomorrow.”

One thing I do wonder is whether Katherine Eban was given access to documents that have been withheld from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I wouldn’t put it past this DOJ to do something like that.

House Resolution 706

House Resolution 706, if passed, authorizes the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce its subpoenas in its investigation of Operation Fast and Furious.

 H. Res. 708 from the Rules Committee sets the ground rules for the debate on H. Res. 706 and will limit debate to 50 minutes equally divided, allows no points of order, and will only accept one motion to refer it back to committee. The last part also states that only Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) is allowed to make that motion. This resolution from the Rules Committee also allows for consideration of the report from the Oversight Committee, House Report 112-546, that would find Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress.

H. Res. 706 states:

H. RES. 706

Authorizing the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 26, 2012

Mr. ISSA submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

Authorizing the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.

Resolved, That the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is authorized to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings in any Federal court of competent jurisdiction, on behalf of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to seek declaratory judgments affirming the duty of Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, to comply with any subpoena that is a subject of the resolution accompanying House Report 112-546 issued to him by the Committee as part of its investigation into the United States Department of Justice operation known as `Fast and Furious’ and related matters, and to seek appropriate ancillary relief, including injunctive relief.

Sec. 2. The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall report as soon as practicable to the House with respect to any judicial proceedings which it initiates or in which it intervenes pursuant to this resolution.

Sec. 3. The Office of General Counsel of the House of Representatives shall, at the authorization of the Speaker, represent the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in any litigation pursuant to this resolution. In giving that authorization, the Speaker shall consult with the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group established pursuant to clause 8 of rule II.

House Report 112-546 is the 270 page report that outlines the case against Eric Holder and is the recommendation that he be found in Contempt of Congress. The Executive Summary of the report states:

The Department of Justice has refused to comply with congressional subpoenas related to Operation Fast and Furious, an Administration initiative that allowed around two thousand firearms to fall into the hands of drug cartels and may have led to the death of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent. The consequences of the lack of judgment that permitted such an operation to occur are tragic.

The Department’s refusal to work with Congress to ensure that it has fully complied with the Committee’s efforts to compel the production of documents and information related to this controversy is inexcusable and cannot stand. Those responsible for allowing Fast and Furious to proceed and those who are preventing the truth about the operation from coming out must be held accountable for their actions.

Having exhausted all available options in obtaining compliance, the Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee recommends that Congress find the Attorney General in contempt for his failure to comply with the subpoena issued to him.

Quote Of The Day

Today is the day that the House of Representatives will probably vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. It is also the day in which the Supreme Court will issue its ruling on the validity of ObamaCare. Jim Shepherd of The Outdoor Wire is calling this Big Thursday. With regard to Holder and the mainstream media’s play on his role in Project Gunwalker, he had this to say:

The “spinning” on that is already underway. Mainstream media is characterizing the fight between the Justice Department and the House committee charged with oversight of that agency as a test of the lobbying prowess of the “gun lobby” (that’s the NRA, Gun Owners of America, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and they myriad of other local and state organizations).

It decidedly is not. Sorry, it’s just not, and no amount of spinning will make that wish come true. It’s an investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing by officials who swore an oath to enforce our laws, not selectively ignore or violate them with impunity.

Mainstream media just refuses to accept that, and refuses to let their viewers, readers or listeners hear it reported as such. Instead, it’s been diminished and characterized as just another political cat fight.

It’s not about ideology. It’s not about guns. It is not a liberal/conservative, black/white or red/blue debate. It’s about justice – for all- including the people supposed to be equally enforcing the law.

Maybe that’s why some people are nervous at the thought of laws being equally enforced.

Jason Chaffetz On Contempt Vote Tomorrow

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) was interviewed today by Fox’s Megyn Kelly about the vote scheduled for Thursday on the contempt of Congress resolution for Attorney General Eric Holder. He said that he expects the vote to occur around 5 pm EDT tomorrow and that he sees there is no way of avoiding it.

He acknowledged what we have known or suspected for a long time that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee already has copies of documents, memos, and emails given them by whistleblowers that implicate the political leaders of the Department of Justice. The purpose of the subpoena is to confirm the authenticity of the documents and allow them to be entered into the record.

Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>

The accompanying article estimates that approximately 20 Democrats will also vote to hold Holder in contempt. Other estimates that I’ve read are as high as 35 so we really won’t know until the votes are tallied.

Jay Carney Takes The Press And Americans For Idiots

Jay Carney, President Obama’s Press Secretary, must think both the press and the public are idiots. Listen to his explanation of how Obama learned of Operation Fast and Furious.

The full text of what he said, courtesy of Breitbart, is below:

“I would only say broadly that the idea behind that thinking suggests that there was some grand plan behind the Fast and Furious program when, in fact, everyone knows the President did not know about this tactic until he heard about it through the media; the Attorney General did not know about it. The tactic itself was employed by the previous administration in a different operation. This was a field office tactic that was flawed. And when the Attorney General learned about it, he took action to ensure that it was no longer used, and he directed the Inspector General at the Department of Justice to investigate.”

How could Obama learn of Operation Fast and Furious from the media when they have avoided reporting it – Sharyl Attkisson and William LaJeunesse excepted – like the plague? It was only this past week that NBC even let the words “fast and furious” touch Brian William’s lips.

My message to Jay Carney is that we just are not as stupid as he thinks.

Contempt Vote On Holder Will Be Bi-Partisan

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has expressed his belief a number of times that the vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress will be bi-partisan. He is correct.

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), who represents parts of Salt Lake City and all of eastern Utah, confirmed to the Salt Lake Tribune yesterday that he will be voting to find Holder in contempt.

Matheson, D-Utah, announced his position Tuesday, joining House Republicans, such as Utah Reps. Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz, who have railed against Holder’s reaction to the congressional probe into the Justice Department’s “Fast and Furious” operation. One of the lost guns was later used in the murder of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

“It just compounds the tragedy when both sides play politics instead of releasing the facts. The Terry family, the public and Congress deserve answers,” Matheson said. “Sadly, it seems that it will take holding the attorney general in contempt to communicate that evasiveness is unacceptable.”

Matheson faces a strong challenge this fall from Saratoga Springs Mayor Mia Love in the newly formed 4th District. Love has attracted a lot of attention (and money) as she is conservative, Republican, and African-American. If Love is elected, she will become the first black Republican woman in Congress.

UPDATE: There is also this from House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) who says that there will be Democrats voting to find Holder in contempt because the NRA is scoring the vote. Thanks to Mike Vanderboegh for this link.

Even In New Jersey The Second Amendment Applies

On Friday, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court in New Jersey overturned the trial court in a case involving the denial of a firearms permit and ordered the return of Justin Blasko’s firearms absent any new disqualifying events. They made their decision on Second Amendment grounds.

Mr Blasko’s troubles started when his apartment’s building superintendent entered to fix his air conditioner and saw “assault weapons” along with other stuff including a four foot alligator. The super called police and they entered the apartment, seized his firearms, and issued him a summons for the alligator, a snake, and a leg-hold trap. They also filed a complaint that he had an illegal assault weapon.

Blasko entered a Pre-Trial Intervention program and the charges were eventually all dismissed. Moreover, the state later acknowledged that the alleged “assault weapons” were not in fact assault weapons as covered by NJ law. Following the dismissal of the charges, Blasko requested his firearms back.

The Superior Court in Passaic County denied Blasko’s request and ordered him to surrender his Firearms Purchaser Identification Card. They also permitted the State of New Jersey to sell his seized firearms and ammunition. The trial judge said that because Blasko’s firearms were “in plain view, accessible to a third party” his conduct was contrary to the public health, safety, and welfare which is a disqualifying factor for gun ownership in NJ. It should be noted that Mr. Blasko’s apartment was in a building that had locked access and that only the super had a key with which to enter his apartment (with prior notice and permission).

[T]he police report shows that Blasko kept his firearms in an extremely negligent and unsafe manner because he kept dozens of unsecured firearms and abundant ammunition in plain view in his apartment. . . . [He] chose to store these items in this manner knowing that his apartment was never truly “locked” since the building superintendent had a master key that he was permitted to use (or give to a maintenance worker to use) at any time even if [he] was not home. [He] in fact signed an agreement which permitted such access.

The Appellate Division examined all the instances that allowed for the forfeiture of firearms in NJ based upon negligent conduct. They found that Mr. Blasko’s past behavior and conduct did not rise to the level of negligence as needed by the law to seize his firearms.

The facts at hand present none of the circumstances found in the prior authorities to result in disqualification under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(5). No weapon was discharged as found in Cunningham; no possession of narcotics occurred as cited in Sbitani; no domestic violence, drunkenness, or criminal conduct while intoxicated (assault, hit and run, and DWI) existed as relied upon in Freysinger, or a disregard of the gun laws as found in Osworth. Here, after eliminating the erroneous finding that Blasko possessed an assault rifle, the remaining facts 13 A-3848-10T2 underpinning the trial judge’s conclusion Blasko was disqualified under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(5) were that he owned a significant arsenal of weapons, which were strewn haphazardly in his small studio apartment.

The court then examined whether New Jersey law required Mr. Blasko to keep his firearms locked up in a safe or with other devices such as a trigger lock. More importantly, they examined this in the context of the US Supreme Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald. They concluded safe storage laws did not apply to Mr. Blasko as he was neither a commercial enterprise nor did he have minor children. They also concluded that based upon the Heller decision he was allowed to have his firearms accessible.

Despite a preference for the safe storage of weapons with safety locks, we conclude a law abiding adult, living alone without children, who openly leaves weapons in a locked apartment, insufficiently supports a finding of conduct contrary to the interest of the public health, safety or welfare pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(5). See Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at 635, 128 S. Ct. at 2822, 171 L. Ed. 2d at 683 (holding “the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment.

Mr. Blasko’s attorney was well-known gun law attorney Evan Nappen. More on the case can be found here. Nappen notes that this is the first time a higher court in New Jersey expressely applied the Second Amendment to a gun seizure case. This is definitely a win for gun rights in New Jersey and it was made possible by the careful building of Second Amendment case law by Alan Gura and others.

Another Second Amendment Lawsuit Filed In California

The Second Amendment Foundation, the CalGuns Foundation, and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees have filed suit in US District Court against Alameda County, California due to the county’s use of a zoning law to present a gun shop from opening. They are joined in the suit by John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza who had attempted to open a gun shop there.

The County of Alameda requires that all gun shops be 500 feet away from the nearest residence, liquor store, or school. The location chosen by the businessmen above had met that standard until the county changed how it measured the distance. Alameda County Board of Supervisors made this change after the gun shop had been given a condition use permit and a variable by the local Board of Adjustment. In doing so, the supervisors negated the variance that had been issued by the Board of Adjustment.

I have served on my local Board of Adjustment for over 18 years and am the current vice-chair of the Board. The actions by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to change the ordinance after the fact and nullify the variance is most unusual. As boards of adjustment are quasi-judicial bodies, appeals of their decisions are usually made in the local Superior Court.

Below is the joint press release on Teixeira et al v. County of Alameda et al.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – The County of Alameda’s zoning law requiring that gun stores be located 500 feet away from residential properties is not rational and cannot withstand any form of constitutional scrutiny, argues a new federal civil rights lawsuit filed yesterday in San Francisco, California. Businessmen John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza are joined by the Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees as plaintiffs in the case. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of San Jose and Jason Davis of Rancho Santa Margarita.

The complaint describes how plaintiffs Teixeira, Nobriga, and Gamza had actually been granted a Conditional Use Permit and variance for the property on which they intended to open a gun store until the variance was revoked by the Alameda Board of Supervisors. “John, Steve, and Gary did everything right. They had their paperwork in order,” said attorney Donald Kilmer. “Their store was moving forward, things were going great, and then they were blindsided by the County long after putting money, labor, and time into opening their store. That’s a serious due process problem for the County.”

“The facts in this case are outrageous,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “In the fall of 2010, Gamaza, Nobriga, and Teixeira formed a business partnership with the intention of opening a gun store in Alameda County. When they began the process of getting permits to open their shop, they were advised of a requirement that gun stores not be located within 500 feet of any school, liquor store or residence.

“After carefully measuring distances between the shop’s front door and the front door of the nearest property,” he continued, “they found that they were well beyond the 500-foot limit. But then the county changed the measurement requirements.”

The City of Sunnyvale recently conducted a study that showed gun stores had no correlation with area crime. “The right to buy firearms is just as much a protected part of the Second Amendment as the right to buy books is protected under the First Amendment,” said Calguns Foundation chairman Gene Hoffman. “Just like we saw in the Nordyke case, Alameda County continues it’s long-running effort to undermine the fundamental civil rights of it’s citizens to purchase firearms that they have a right to buy.”

According to the lawsuit, the county allowed an objection to the businessmen’s permit to be filed even though the deadline had passed for such objections and the West County Board of Zoning Adjustments had voted to approve a conditional use permit and allow the gun store to operate. “The outcome of this lawsuit may very well have far-reaching implications for firearms dealers not just in California, but across the United States,” noted co-counsel Jason Davis. “Hopefully we can address these issues for dealers once and for all.”

“Alameda County has a long track record of denying Second Amendment Rights to its residents, even those enumerated in our Constitution,” explained Cal-FFL president Brandon Combs. “We’ve seen over and over again how local rules like those Alameda County adopted are sold to municipalities by anti-gun extremist groups like New York Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence, Brady Campaign, and other Joyce Foundation-funded spinoffs.”

“They want to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution, but that’s simply not going to happen on our watch. We will make sure Americans have a neighborhood gun dealer to sell them the tools they need to defend themselves from violent attackers.”

The case is captioned as Teixeira, et al. v. County of Alameda, et al. The docket and filings as they become available can be viewed at http://ia600408.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256462/gov.uscourts.cand.256462.docket.html.