What I don't care about is the non-issue you raised about a purported DOJ policy not to "prosecute Executive Branch employees for contempt of Congress charges when the charges are the result of the employees failure to produce documents over which the President has asserted Executive Privilege." Who the heck cares about that? Other than you?
You should care - ask yourself why that rule is in place. As for it being a non-issue, I wonder if you'd be saying the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.
The
REAL issue - the one you haven't given any thought to because you're whining about how Holder was shielded - is whether Obama's assertion of Executive Privilege is legitimate in this instance, and that is what the House should have challenged, instead of pursuing Holder, who they knew wouldn't be subjected to a prosecution.
It's all part of the delicate political dance between the Democrats and the Republicans - two frenemies whose interests only align when it comes to pulling the wool over all of our eyes.
And how many times has an executive branch employee been found in criminal contempt of Congress under these precise circumstances "going all the way back" to the 80s?
I don't have exact numbers, but I recall a similar case in 2008, when the DOJ under A.G. Mukasey refused to prosecute contempt of Congress referrals against two executive branch employees (Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten) when President Bush asserted executive privilege. I believe similar situations came up during the Clinton and Reagan administrations, but I don't have the details handy.
The fact I could care less about your non-issue says nothing about voting competency.
The voting competency of anyone who isn't willing to educate himself and understand the underlying issues that are political in nature and one claims to be interested in is suspect.
You should not lose any sleep over anything said on a message board.
How can I not? There's so many important questions - like should Nasser have won the Olympia?
Yes, they shielded their boss by not pursuing criminal contempt charges. He shouldn't be treated any differently than any other person who is found in criminal contempt of Congress. But that's not reality.
I don't know what you think the word
reality means, but the reality is that Holder was treated no differently than other Executive Branch officials who were referred by the House to DOJ with contempt of Congress charges over the withholding of documents over which the President asserted Executive Privilege.