Fast and Furious is NOT the only reason to put the corrupt Eric Holder in an Orange jumpsuit…
Video: Holder on Elian Gonzalez
Back on April 23rd, 2000 Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano had a few questions for (then Deputy) Attorney General Eric Holder. Here they are thanks to The Media Research Center :
Napolitano : Tell me, Mr. Holder, why did you not get a court order authorizing you to go in and get the boy (Elian Gonzalez)?
Holder : Because we didn’t need a court order. INS can do this on its own.
Napolitano : You know that a court order would have given you the cloak of respectability to have seized the boy.
Holder : We didn’t need an order.
Napolitano : Then why did you ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for such an order if you didn’t need one?
Holder : [Silence]
Napolitano : The fact is, for the first time in history you have taken a child from his residence at gunpoint to enforce your custody position, even though you did not have an order authorizing it. When is the last time a boy, a child, was taken at the point of a gun without an order of a judge…Unprecedented in American history.”
Holder : “He was not taken at the point of a gun.”
Napolitano : “We have a photograph showing he was taken at the point of a gun.”
Holder : “They were armed agents who went in there who acted very sensitively…”
This “sensitivity” consisted of the INS macing, kicking, and gun-butt their way into Lazaro Gonzalez's house on the morning of April 22, 2000, wrenching a bawling 6-year-old child from his family at machine-gun point and bundling him off to Castro’s Stalinist fiefdom, leaving 102 people injured, some seriously.
Thanks to the ritual MSM-Castroite collusion most people forget (or missed) the crucial legal and ethical details of this circus/tragedy — which were mostly established during the first week after Elian’s rescue at sea, after his heroic mother’s drowning. The “son-belongs-with-his-father” crowd, for instance, “missed” (with the help of the MSM-Democratic complex) that Elian’s father was initially delighted that his motherless son was in the U.S. and in the loving arms of his uncles and cousins.
The evidence — frantically buried by the MSM-Democratic complex — was overwhelming. Mauricio Vicent, a reporter for Madrid newspaper El Pais, wrote that during that first week he’d visited Elian’s home town of Cardenas and talked with Elian’s father, Juan Miguel, along with other family members and friends. All confirmed that Juan Miguel had always longed for his son Elian to flee to the United States . Shortly after Elian’s rescue, his father had even applied for a U.S. visa!
Elian’s Miami uncle, Lazaro, explained it repeatedly and best: “I always said I would turn over Elian to his father, when Juan Miguel would come here and claim him. But I (along with practically everyone with experience under communism from Cambodians to Hungarians and from Lithuanians to Cubans) knew such a thing was impossible. He couldn’t do that. I knew it wasn’t Juan Miguel requesting Elian– it was Fidel .”
The legal-weasels forgot (or missed) that on Dec, 1st 1999 the INS asserted that Miami-based uncle Lazaro was indeed Elian’s legal custodian and Florida’s family court indeed the place to arbitrate further issues .
Then on Dec 5th, 1999, Castro clapped his hands and his MSM minions snapped to attention.
Within weeks Clinton’s INS had turned its initial decision on its head. Within months this same INS was kicking down Lazaro’s door, pummeling camera men and elderly ladies to the ground with jackboots and wrenching a screaming Elian from his legal custodians in a blaze of pepper gas and machine guns. When asked for the legal authority for this, they brandished either a search warrant to seize evidence that didn’t exist (and would not have been hidden anyway) or an arrest warrant to seize someone who no one claimed was a criminal or even a lawbreaker.
“They never made it clear just what kind of warrant” it was. And neither would it have been legal,” patiently explained Alan Dershowitz (no less)
So why did Elian’s father change his tune?
Remember Godfather II? Remember the Senate hearings where Frankie Pentangeli, under FBI protection, was prepared to testify against Michael Corleone? The stage was set. Looked like a done-deal for the Feds. Then Frankie looks up and sees his bewildered brother Vincenzo from Sicily, sitting next to Mikey.
Whoops! Frankie sure changed his tune, didn’t he?
Think of Juan Miguel as Frankie Pentangeli. The gun Fidel Castro held to Juan Miguel’s head was as invisible (to those without experience with Communism) as the one Mikey held to Pentangeli’s head was to most spectators at those hearings.
Recently Uncle Lazaro Gonzalez, who suffered ten years in Castro’s dungeons and torture-chambers provided an update: “The Castro regime won’t allow us to contact the boy “and the entire family is forbidden to speak to us. Every time they detect a call from us in Miami, the line drops. I’d love to go and see Elián, talk to him. But they’ll never let us.”
Fast and Furious is NOT the only reason to put the corrupt Eric Holder in an Orange jumpsuit
Holder: What Was His Part in Oklahoma City?
By Kevin “Coach” Collins
Eric Holder’s part in Fast and Furious and its cover up constitute serious felonious conduct. Any street cop in America can look at what his man did and recognize the numerous felonies he committed in this very ugly display of treachery. Nevertheless, Eric Holder was involved in a much greater crime, one that official Washington of both Parties has yet to find enough courage to even mention, let alone investigate it. There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that Holder was involved in covering up the Clinton Administration’s part in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
The Clinton Administration’s “story” actually started to unravel even before the sunset on April 19, 1995, the day a homemade bomb brought down the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City murdering 168 women men and children. But it is hard to find that fact in the mainstream media.
An investigation into the jailhouse death of a man named Kenny Trentadue by his brother Jesse an attorney led to Jesse bringing a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
All Jesse Trentadue wanted was answers about how his brother died and nothing more. Trentadue was not on a political crusade. He had no idea the strange pieces of information he was able to pry out of the Federal Government using Freedom of Information requests would take him from Oklahoma City to the office of Assistant United States Attorney Eric Holder in Washington. In the “discovery” phase of his successful wrongful death suit against the Clinton Federal Bureau of Prisons, Trentadue came upon the fact that Eric Holder had been sent from Washington to Oklahoma City to “manage” the investigation surrounding Trantadue’s death. That is clear and not contradicted by any available evidence, but why did Eric Holder assume that responsibility?
Jesse Trentadue’s lawsuit proved the Clinton FBI, Department of Justice and CIA were behind (NOT involved in or mixed up in, but BEHIND) the Oklahoma City bombing and that Bill Clinton KNEW he needed his most reliable “cleaner” to smother the story a supine media was only too happy to ignore.
The conspirators needed to eliminate “loose ends” so they murdered Kenny Trentadue. They didn’t realize Kenny Trentadue an innocent man who looked like the man they were looking for and was NOT part of the conspiracy. The same FBI that botched Ruby Ridge and Waco murdered the wrong man. When investigating his brother’s death Jesse Trentadue discovered that the puppet master of the cover up of his brother’s death was Eric Holder Barack Obama’s Attorney General. He also discovered much more about the Oklahoma City bombing and who planned it.
Keep this in mind as this week’s events unfold in the House investigation of Eric Holder’s part in Fast and Furious continues. See the many attached links and decide for yourself about Holder. Is Fast and Furious or Oklahoma City Eric Holder’s worst crime?
Video: Rush Breaks Down The Difference Between Operation Wide Receiver And Fast & Furious
Rediscovered information on Project Gunrunner leading to misconceptions
Breaking… Fast and Furious Scandal Videos Go Viral Making Obama & Holder Panic!!
U.S. family jailed for Holder's gun crimes
Are Obama & Holder Shredding Documents? It's Fiction, Or Is It?
WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: Obama Owns Fast and Furious Now - (UPDATED)
Facebook: Fast and Furious Protest
Holder prosecutes mom and pop, fat cats walk
Serial Killers: The House Thinks Obama and Crew are Hiding Something
Mark Levin Holds Nancy Pelosi In Contempt
JUST SO YOU KNOW WHY ERIC HOLDER WILL LOSE THE EP FIGHT
By Ken Klukowski
20 June 2012 - breitbart.com/
President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege to prevent Attorney General Eric Holder from complying with congressional subpoenas on the Operation Fast and Furious fiasco will blow up in the White House’s face. But not for the reasons you’ve heard on the first day of this legal fight.
Some Republicans are saying and some media commentators are reporting that executive privilege only applies when the president himself is involved. That’s incorrect as a matter of law.
It’s important to get this right, because some are suggesting that today’s invoking of the privilege means Obama himself is involved, a smoking gun that could make this the next Watergate. Not true. The White House might be involved, but we don’t know one way or another… yet.
As I’ve written before, there are two types of executive privilege. One is a strong form rooted in the Constitution, called the presidential communication privilege. But there is another type, much weaker and rooted in common law instead of the Constitution, called the deliberative process privilege. That second, weaker variety is what President Obama invoked today regarding Holder.
It’s still the White House asserting the privilege, because only the president can assert executive privilege for his entire administration. (Except that the vice president can also assert it, but only for matters directly involving the VP.) So Obama has invoked it on Holder’s behalf.
Others are also incorrect in saying executive privilege only applies to military matters, diplomatic secrets, or national security situations. The courts have repeatedly held that executive privilege covers much more than that, most recently in 2004 in Cheney v. U.S. District Court, where the Supreme Court considered whether the VP’s conversations with energy industry leaders was protected by the privilege. Executive privilege is strongest when those three issues are on the table, but it’s broader than that.
There are several factors courts look to. The most important is whether the president was involved, since that determines which privilege (presidential communications versus deliberative process) is in play. Beyond that, several factors weigh in favor of Congress and against Holder here. This was domestic policy (not foreign), in an operation out of an agency (not the White House), where crimes may have been committed, and none of the president’s constitutional prerogatives are implicated by the case. Factors favoring Obama are that this is not legislative policymaking, and it does have a diplomatic angle because of relations with Mexico. But surveying 200 years of court precedent shows that Congress has the better claim here.
The only way to beat an executive privilege claim is by court order. To take this issue to court, the full House must vote to hold Holder in contempt of Congress, then when federal prosecutors predictably inform the House that they will not prosecute their boss the full House must pass a second resolution authorizing Rep. Darrell Issa to file suit in the U.S. District Court for D.C. on behalf of the entire U.S. House.
Holder will lose the court fight. He’ll appeal, of course, but eventually the appeals will be over, and we’ll all learn the truth of what really happened in Fast and Furious.
And whom to hold accountable.
***********************************************
By Breitbart News legal contributor Ken Klukowski is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law, and author of Making Executive Privilege Work, published by Cleveland State Law Review.
No comments:
Post a Comment