Fox News is currently reporting a story about a disciplinary complaint being filed against Attorney General Eric Holder and the possibility Holder could be disbarred.
Could Holder really be disbarred?
From Fox News:
Fallout from the Operation Fast and Furious scandal continues to spread, as Attorney General Eric Holder faces a new call to be disbarred or penalized after he was found in contempt of Congress.
A formal complaint was filed last week with the Washington, D.C., Office of Bar Counsel -- of which Holder is a member. The letter was submitted by gun-rights advocates and bloggers David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh, who have reported extensively on Operation Fast and Furious.
The complaint says it appears Holder has violated the rules of professional conduct after he was found in contempt of Congress last month for not complying with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena seeking documents pertaining to the administration's handling of Fast and Furious.
That operation, run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, was launched in 2009 with the hope of catching Mexican drug cartel kingpins by allowing the sale and transfer of some 2,000 weapons. Two of those weapons later turned up at the murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in 2010.
The filing makes reference to D.C. Bar Counsel rules and claims the attorney general violated the ethics code by "engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" and "conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice."
Could this really end up in Holder being disbarred?
In theory yes, but this is the District of Columbia we are talking about.
Attorneys are subject to discipline for their violations. If an attorney is held in contempt by a judge, in most jurisdictions they are required to report this to the Bar Disciplinary Committee. These committees have different names in different states.
For political reasons, Holder is very unlikely to suffer any disciplinary consequences to his actions. If for some reason he does, it will be less than a disbarment.
Disbarment means different things in different states. Remember, the regulation of lawyers has always been left to the states. In some states if you are disbarred you may never again practice law. In some other states, after a certain period you are allowed to take the bar exam again and in yet others you can simply reapply after so many years.
If Holder were a Republican, you can bet the DC Bar Disciplinary Committee would be pursuing his disbarment.
Unfortunately the worst Holder will receive, if he receives anything is a slap on the wrist.
It will be a slap on somone elses wrist.
How do you disbar an idiot from a group of idiots.
Never heard of a .50 caliber idiot. Are they a little more idiot than a .40 which is more than a .380?
Well, more or less, I guess. Actually, according to the definitions just below, .50 caliber would be the dividing line between imbeciles and morons. It appears that idiots fit in from .25 caliber on down.
And then there are the idiot savants which is where Obama fits. They don't necessarily have a specific caliber--they just fire off while poorly aimed or maybe without being aimed at all.
"Those with IQs between 51 and 70 were called morons. Morons had adequate learning skills to complete menial tasks and communicate. Imbeciles, with IQs between 26 and 50, never progressed past a mental age of about six. And the lowest of all were the idiots, with IQ between 0 and 25."
It's a start
When Obama loses the election in November, not only will Holder be disbarred, but he, Obama, Pelosi, Biden, and all others who participated in their treason, will be prosecuted and locked up.
Jean, Don't hold your breath waiting fot this to come true.
I can only hope and pray that O is tossed out on his arse, I am afraid though that Romney is getting his marching orders from a bunch of wimps that want to play by the Marquise de Queensbury rules instead of the streetfighting, fight to win and use what you have to use do what you have to do to win rules. His team has missed so many chances to beat up the other side that I wonder if the fix isnt in.??? And where do they come up with the number of jobs that have been created?? Even I can pull numbers out of the air and pretend.
Perhaps Judson or one of our other many attorneys can shine some light into this but I don't think so and relatively recent history kind of backs me up in this.
When he was in office, President Bush dealt with calls for his impeachment and removal from office. I don't really want to get into the merits, or lack thereof, in that effort. There were those who called for his arrest and trial after his second term was over. Well, he left office in January, 2009, and we heard nary a word about it afterward. I believe that's because the Democrats knew it would be impossible to secure a conviction after he was no longer the President.
Our Constitution, arguably the greatest set of words ever set to paper, is flawed in certain respects and one of those is that the electorate, we, cannot remove a sitting President from office unless we convince Congress to act on our behalf.
This is so true. We also need to modify the constitution so that the Power to Tax as Roberts has slammed us with is absolutely controlled by the People and the House. No more Dictators ! No more POTUS that circumvent the Constitution and defy it.
Doesn't the Constitution already plainly and clearly control it Jerold?
Art. 1:8:1 POWER The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, ......PURPOSE to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
There you have it Jerold. They can only 'tax' you to provide for DEFENCE ( not attacking every Muslim country in the middle east) and the 'general welfare' OF the United States. IT doesn't say the general welfare of the PEOPLE.
There is the 'lawful' debt they may incur and tax you for. On a side note the 14th amendment says: "
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Is it logical to presume that authorized by law means by ANY law Congress might decide to 'pass'? Of course it doesn't. The term 'Constitution' means 'law of the People for the Government'. It means what is 'authorized' by the Constitution, not by Congress. http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,constitution Peace.