Holder on Contempt Charges: “Impending Constitutional Crisis”

Katie Pavlich | June 12, 2012 12:29 PM

“I’ve stuck by my guns,” Attorney General Eric Holder said describing his tenure as the top law enforcement officer in the country when he testified before the Senate Judicary Committee today on Capitol Hill. (Was Holder referring to the 2500 guns his Assistant Attorney General approved to be walked across the Mexican border? Resulting in the murders of at least 300 Mexicans, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and I.C.E. Agent Jaime Zapata?)

Holder, who is facing a contempt vote from the House Oversight Committee next week over his stonewalling of the Fast and Furious investigation, made it clear this was the ninth time he has discussed the scandal before Congress, despite appearing those nine times and refusing to give substantive answers.

“Fast and Furious has been an embarrassment to this Administration,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said as he grilled Holder on a variety of topics ranging from Fast and Furious to appointing a special prosecutor to investigate national security leaks most likely coming from President Obama’s inner circle.

Texas Senator John Cornyn called for Holder to resign saying he won’t tell the truth about what he knew and when he knew it, he won’t take responsibility for his inner circle of high level DOJ officials who were aware of gunwalking tactics and did nothing to stop them and said Holder won’t hold himself accountable, either.

“It is my sincere hope President Obama will replace you,” Cornyn said.

Resignation calls did not sit well with Holder and he brought the "full confidence" backing of President Obama into the record while making the same argument he has used for months to distract away from giving real answers about his role in the lethal Fast and Furious program.

“The desire here is not for [cooperation], but to score political points,” Holder said. “I have no intention of resigning.”

When asked about the contempt charges looming against him, Holder described the situation as an “impending constitutional crisis” and later changed his terminology to “constitutional conflict.”