“it is, to be polite, agenda-driven.”

And NYT isn’t?

“But, to have a coverup, don’t you have to have a crime to cover up about?”

Due to the obfuscation of Holder, DOJ and the Ayrab, that’s what we don’t know. And that’s why Congress wants ALL the documents, not just whatever the executive branch CHOOSES to provide.

We’ll agree to disagree on CNS. From what little I’ve seen, it is, to be polite, agenda-driven.

You say, “This ceased being about Fast and Furious long ago.” Well, we apparently agree on that point. But we definitely don’t agree on what it IS about.

You say, “It wasn’t the crime, so much as it was the cover up.” Okaaay! But, to have a coverup, don’t you have to have a crime to cover up about?

For the record, I learned that DOJ refused to provide the log on that notorious right wing source CBS radio.

Also, CNS covers the stories that the liberal main stream media either thinks are unimportant or doesn’t want to touch with a ten foot pole. Instead of attacking the messenger, why don’t you refute the substance?

This ceased being about Fast and Furious long ago. First it became a constitutional question concerning equality among the branches of government. Now it’s become something else entirely. Let me tell you a story:

Once we had a cat that crapped in the bath tub. That was bad enough, but then it dragged the bath mat in on top of it. It wasn’t the crime, so much as it was the cover up.

Well, you may be correct that the House would have had the votes for contempt even without the NRA pressure. After all, we have an election in four months.

As often occurs with members of first-term presidential cabinets, Holder let it be known before all this got into high gear that he would leave his AG post at the end of Obama’s first term, even if Obama is re-elected. So, with the end of Obama’s first term just a few months away, all these calls for resignation are moot and a bunch of political theater.

I don’t know that DOJ refused to provide a log as you stated. Please, no links to the right-wing CNS as a source! There were negotiations of some sort up until the last minute. Supposedly, there were offers to permit examination of the documents in question (or some of them) along with explanations of why this or that document wouldn’t be turned over to the committee. I’m still trying to figure out how a matter like this results in 180,000 documents. If I were in government and up to no good, most communications would be face-to-face in a parking garage in Maryland.

Since neither of us participated in those negotiations, Elwood, I don’t think either of us is in a position to measure good faith or lack thereof on either side. All I know is that, if you’re going to go down that road of holding a sitting cabinet member in contempt for the first time in history, the issues at stake should also rise to historical levels — such as high crimes and misdemeanors on a par with Watergate. That goes double when an IG investigation is underway. The IG need not be the final word but should be given at least some deference before going nuclear.

There was an ill-advised and bungled but perfectly legal and well-intentioned sting operation. Let’s remember that the people who planned and authorized the operation were trying to track and capture some really horrible people.

Two guns connected to that operation showed up in the aftermath of a border patrol raid on some armed bandits engaged in attacks on smugglers. That raid resulted in an agent being fatally shot. To connect the sting operation and the deadly raid, you would have to conclude that, if not for Fast and Furious, the bandits would not have been armed and out doing their thing on that day, and that the border patrol raid would not have occurred. I surmise that, with the exception of the two guns found at the scene, the events of that day would have transpired exactly as they did whether or not there had ever been a Fast and Furious. I have not heard anybody say otherwise.

Holder would have been found in contempt by the Republican majority regardless of any lobbying or non-lobbying by the NRA.

I’m sure there were forces lobbying for “no” votes as well. I’m also sure that Nancy “General Custer” Pelosi rallied her troops to the best of her ability which is becoming more and more limited every day and will probably be non-existent after November.

Haven’t read full opinion yet. Too hard on the eyes to read online, so am printing it in steps. So, far just the summary and Roberts’ 59 page opinion but not the concurring and dissenting. 193 pages total. Maybe Roberts’ seizure medicine gives him insight into what a pre-existing condition means in today’s insurance world.

I’m puzzled what makes my reasoning tortured, other than the fact that you say it is thus. Let’s walk through it again.

Leadership wants to embarrass Holder but not take it to the ultimate.
But Raucous Caucus and NRA insist on pulling the contempt trigger – pun not intended.
Leadership caves. Schedules vote.
NRA makes sure any potential holdouts get with the program.
Bingo! Holder is in contempt by Act of Congress.

Ergo, there is direct “relates to” connection between NRA and the outcome.

Others might say the direct “relate to” is Holder not releasing requested documents. Of course, that assumes Issa, Burton, Chaffetz and the like really wanted that outcome and avoiding the contempt confrontation. I suspect they would have been very disappointed had he backed up a U-Haul full of documents to the House loading doc. These guys couldn’t even wait for a report from the ongoing IG investigation and then make a determination as to completeness. That wouldn’t fit with the coverup narrative or the NRA spin about Obama actually wanting the Fast and Furious mess to justify more gun control.

Please clarify how reasoning is “tortured.”

Conratulations!

That is the most tortured bit of “reasoning” I’ve seen since I read Roberts’ majority opinion. Perhaps the anti-seizure medication HAS damaged his thinking.

I thought I answered the question of how the NRA relates to Holder being in contempt of Congress. It’s like this. He is in contempt of Congress, because the House voted to make it so. According to news reports, the House voted to make it so due to pressure on leadership from the Raucous Caucus and heavy-handed pressure from the NRA on anybody who was hesitant to vote for the unprecedented action of holding a sitting cabinet member in contempt.

I gave the second half of your inquiry the dignity it deserves by ignoring it.

Thank you very much for the non sequitur.

In case you missed it the first time, here is the question again:

“And the evil NRA relates to Holder being in contempt of Congress and the Ayrab covering up for him how?”

As reported in a number of newspapers, including our very own Contra Costa Times, the NRA targeted, er, I mean contacted a number of House members and informed them that the contempt vote would be “scored” and reported in the districts. Loosely translated, that is NRA-ese for, “vote the wrong way and we will move heaven and earth to wreck your political career.” In any other line of work, that would be called blackmail. As a result, 17 Dems joined the contempt vote, which I’m sure was nothing more than an expression of conscience on their part . Yes, I know the NRA is hardly the only interest group that engages in such tactics, but nobody has the power they have to deliver a fatal blow to somebody’s re-election prospects.