Holder, Fast and Furious and the GOP double standard

Photo of Lanny Davis
Lanny Davis
Former Special Counsel to President Clinton
  • See All Articles
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Bio

      Lanny Davis

      Lanny J. Davis counsels individuals, corporations and government contractors, and those under congressional scrutiny, on crisis management and legal issues by developing legal, media and legislative strategies that are designed to best produce a successful result for the client. He has experience in securities fraud and SEC investigations as well, and has found that utilizing such an integrated legal/media/lobbying approach can lead to quicker and less expensive settlements or even successfully litigated outcomes. Senior officials of public companies have also hired Lanny and his crisis group to defend themselves successfully against "short and distort" attacks and other market manipulations. For 25 years prior to 1996, before his tenure as special counsel to President Clinton, Lanny was a commercial, antitrust, government contracts and False Claims Act litigator (both in defense as well as plaintiff). He has argued numerous appellate cases in the U.S. courts of appeals.

      In June 2005, President Bush appointed Lanny to serve on the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 2005 Intelligence Reform Act. In that capacity, he received the highest level security clearances so that he could be fully briefed and "read in" to the various anti-terrorist surveillance and financial tracking programs at the highest classified level. From 1996 to 1998, Lanny served as special counsel to the president in the White House and was a spokesperson for the president and the White House on matters concerning campaign finance investigations and other legal issues. Lanny has participated in national, state and local politics for almost 30 years. He has served three terms (1980 to 1992) on the Democratic National Committee representing the state of Maryland, and during that period he served on the DNC Executive Committee and as chairman of the Eastern Region Caucus. In Montgomery County, Maryland, he served as chairman of the Washington Suburban Transit Commission.

      Lanny has authored several books and lectured throughout the United States and Europe on various political issues. Between 1990 and 1996, Lanny was a bimonthly commentator on Maryland politics for WAMU-88.5/FM, a Washington, D.C. local affiliate of National Public Radio. He has been a regular television commentator and has been a political and legal analyst for MSNBC, CNN, Fox Cable, CNBC and network TV news programs. He has published numerous op-ed/analysis pieces in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, he Washington Post and other national publications.

      Lanny graduated from Yale Law School, where he won the prestigious Thurman Arnold Moot Court prize and served on the Yale Law Journal. A graduate of Yale University, Lanny served as chairman of the Yale Daily News.

      Lanny is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and Connecticut and before the Supreme Court of the United States and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Attorney General Eric Holder has been the subject of vicious partisan personal attacks on his integrity over the failed “gun walking” operation, “Fast and Furious.” The hypocrisy of the double standard by congressional Republicans is obvious.

The chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), has abandoned a legitimate bipartisan critique of the misguided and dangerous Fast and Furious law-enforcement technique — which allowed illegal guns to be sold to dangerous people and to “walk” across the Mexican border untraced and dangerous. Instead, he is apparently trying to send a resolution to the House floor to hold Holder in contempt of Congress for doing what Republican administrations have done over the years — resisting encroachments by Congress in document demands that violate the separation of powers and might compromise ongoing criminal investigations. So far the GOP House leadership hasn’t agreed.

Let’s start with three facts that are not in dispute:

First: Holder and most everyone else agree that the Fast and Furious operation was a tragic mistake. Because of sloppy, perhaps criminally negligent supervision by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), guns “walked” across the border in the hands of illegal “straw” purchasers were lost, untracked and left in the hands of murderous thugs, with many found at various crime scenes in Mexico. Two of those guns allegedly purchased by illegal “straws” apparently without interdiction or even close supervision by ATF agents were found where U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot to death south of Tucson, Ariz., in December 2010.

Second: Attorney General Holder, as soon as he learned about apparent violations of Justice Department and law enforcement rules and policies by the ATF, ordered an inspector general investigation. That investigation is independent, ongoing and could result in the prosecution of officials who violated the law. Moreover, the AG has clearly repudiated this ill-founded and badly supervised “gun walking” program.

Third, the use — and misuse — of the “gun walking” technique didn’t begin with Holder. The first two instances occurred in the latter years of the Bush Justice Department: in 2006, with an operation called “Operation Wide Receiver”; and in 2007, with then-Republican Attorney General Michael Mukasey being informed about “gun-walking” in a November 2007 memo during a trip to Mexico — said to be the first time an attorney general was informed of the technique. Yet Issa refuses to call Mukasey as a witness to discuss this issue, while attacking Holder.

So the double standard seems hard to deny. But both parties over the years have exhibited this type of political hypocrisy. We know that conservative Republicans say they believe in strict construction of the Constitution, particularly the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches that is a core premise of the Framers.

So when Democrats in Congress sought to subpoena memos and documents between the White House and the Bush Justice Department over the alleged political firings of U.S. attorneys, the Bush White House resisted on the grounds of separation of powers, and Republicans in Congress defended that resistance. And what did Democrats do? The Democratic House voted to hold two top administration officials in “contempt” of Congress — which could lead to criminal convictions and imprisonment for following White House instructions on honoring that important constitutional principle.