tv Special Report With Bret Baier FOX News June 28, 2012 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
>> bret: i'm bret baier. this is a fox news alert. two mon ten tall stories from congress and the u.s. supreme court rocked the nation's capital today with shock effects that could be felt across the country. historic vote has just finished. the house voted to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress for refusal to produce requested documents in the "fast and furious" gunwalking operation. the first sitting cabinet member to be held in contempt. we'll get to that in a minute. but we want to start with the bigger story of the day. the supreme court ruling on obamacare. president obama's signature legislative achievement, his healthcare law, survived toe. the heart of the law requiring
americans to have health insurance was upheld after a 5-4 ruling. the chief justice john roberts leading the majority. 200-plus page ruling is dense and legal scholars and reporters have been trying to digest it all day long. correspondent shannon bream has the lead story. >> in a 5-4 decision in where john roberts joined the liberal wing, they upheld the individual mandate. but not in the way the law supporters thought the justices would. roberts wrote, "it is reasonable to construe what congress has done as increasing taxes, but legislation is within congress' power to tax." in the majority opinion roberts made clear that the mandate was not permissible under the commerce clause, but rather through congress' power to tax." supporters call it a momentum win for the administration. >> it affirmed that president obama signature legislative achievement is constitutional
and can go in effect as congress and the president intended. >> dissenters which included a man who many thought would be the swing vote, justice kennedy, along with justices saffir-simpson scale scale, clarence thomas and samuel alito struck back. "to say that the individual mandate merely impose attack is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. judicial tax writing is troubling." leaders of the group construed the administration over the long saying they are disappointed and concerned about the precedent the high court has set. >> according to the supreme court, congress can pass something as a tax and not call it that. that is non-transparent and disturbing to the small business owners with taxes as a big issue and have for decades. >> it's important to note what the majority opinion did not say, the justices designing to say what the court thinks of the law, itself.
under the constitution, the judgment is reserved to the people. 26 states sued saying they couldn't afford the expansion, and the law could be unconstitutionally coercive language, threatening the states with the loss of all federal medicaid funding if they refuse to take on the influx of millions. roberts wrote, "what congress is not free to do is to penalize states that choose not to participate in the new program taking away the existing medicaid funding." leave manage to question what motivation states will have to cooperate with the expansion if they no longer sustain substantial penalty for noncompliance. i put the question to the court attorney panel bondi and she said they will look at what to do about the medicaid expansion. i also asked representative from the state at the court and he said there is intense
jilts in the law but enough states may be go along with the measure to know they are happy about doing it. bret? >> bret: shannon bream live at the supreme court. thank you. moments after the ruling, complex steps in gear, affecting the states, businesses, hospitals and individuals. chief national correspondent jim angle looks at the question of what now? >> reporter: so republicans hoped for a different outcome from the court. many of them expressed the same rule about the ruling they got. >> the court makes a decision about whether this law is constitutional. it doesn't mean that the law is wise. it doesn't mean that the law is good for the country. americans want us to start over. today's decision does nothing to change that. >> in fact, majority leader cantor scheduled a fresh vote on july 11 to repeal the law. they also noted the healthcare law is only constitutional because it's a tax. >> it is the largest tax in america's history. we also know that cbo estimated that up 20 million
americans will lose their employer health insurance. >> democrats took the decision as vindication and touted it as a victory for american families. >> children can no longer be denied coverage due to preexisting condition. young people can stay on their parent's policy until the 26 years old. >> the senate majority leader hailed the decision even as he suggested some changes are needed. >> we know that when we come back here after the election there may be things we need to do to improve the law. we'll do that working together. >> small business was particularly concerned and called the added cost of the new law enormous wet blanket for small employers. >> the added cost, the added uncertainty, new taxes, new regulations is going to cost small businesses to stand on the sidelines. be less likely to hire, less likely to grow. >> the court did not accept one part of the law. and obama planned force the states to expand medicaid by some 15 million people. >> the supreme court said you
can't coerce the states in cooperating with the medicaid expansion. maybe they don't actually move forward with the expansion. >> without the ability to force the states they can push their core in the taxpayer subsidize exchanges. >> if they expand medicaid they have to pay 10% of the cost. if they don't, cost them nothing and every one of those people is eligible for the exchanges. so they don't remain uninsured. the federal taxpayer picks up the cost. >> hospitals on the other hand come out better. >> very, very interesting in the uninsured. some of our hospitals have 20 to 30% uninsured. this is going to remedy the situation. >> some doctors and analysts fear increasing government control over healthcare. >> at the end of the day, yes, we are not, we are in a socialized medicine system now. it's just going to be more controlled. >> republicans are more determined than ever to repeal the original law, the unpopular mandate and replace the more popular reforms such
as coverage of preexisting conditions. many are hoping the issue will galvanize republican voters the way it did in 2010. bret? >> bret: jim, thank you. after an early triple-digit selloff after ruling, the markets bounced back today. finishing slightly down. the dow last 25. s&p 500 dropped 3. the nasdaq fell 26. more on the politics and the white house reaction in a bit. the supreme court issued other findings before it adjourned today. it struck down the stolen valor act, a law that made at it crime to lie about receiving a military medal. the judges determined by 6-3 vote it violated the constitutional free speech rights. the high court dismissed a case centering on whether home buyers can sue banks and title companies for kick-backs even if they weren't harmed. justices essentially said the issue needs to be hashed out more in lower courts. as we told you moments ago, attorney general eric holder has been held in contempt of congress. chief congressional
correspondent mike emanuel has the latest. good evening. >> reporter: there was drama, emotion and a fierce argue in the the house of representatives. in the end, house republicans and 17 democrats in one vote, 21 democrats in the other, provided more than enough votes to take a huge step. >> the yeas 258, nays are 95, with five voting present. the resolution is agreed to. >> historic day as attorney general eric holde first sitting cabinet member to be held in contempt of congress. there were two resolutions, one criminal, one civil. holder responded strongly after the vote, suggesting his republican critics focused on politics other than public safety. >> it's political theater for the mind of some but in base it's a crass effort and grave disservice to the american people. >> republicans said the time has come. >> i'm proud of the fact we are bringing up the contempt. it's sad we got to the day. we have no other choice.
we as a body and institution, separate branch of government have a duty and obligation and we're fulfilling it today. >> the oversight chairman sounded optimistic there would be broad support. >> we expect all republicans to vote with us. we expect significant democrats and bipartisan. it's narrow. we are only asking in contemp contempt, only asking the attorney general to turn over documents related to the false statement made to congress and coverup. >> justice officials denied a coverup. today it's revealed of allegation of gunwalking come to life last year, holder wrote an e-mail, "we need answers on. this not defensive b.s. real answers." today, they displayed this show of support by holder by walking out. some democrats said it didn't need to reach this point. >> we did not want to participate in something that we believe to have some kind of smell to it. we are declaring by walking out we're not participating in
this activity. >> the republicans investigating the case noted fallen border agent brian terry and his family need for answers from justice department documents. >> have f you have ever sat on the other side of the table from parents who lost a loved one, is 50% enough? is that enough of the documents? 57%? a third? >> soon i am told that there will be a meeting between house oversight republicans, and the house counsel to discuss future steps. sourcsources tell me there wille more subpoenas issued of officials and plenty more investigation of the fast and furious to be done. >> bret: we'll follow it. mike, thank you. two law professors drill down on what it means. up next, president obama and governor romney react. to being a different kind of communications company by continuing to help you do more
and focus on the things that matter to you. [ engine turns over ] [ male announcer ] we created the luxury crossover and kept turning the page, this is the next chapter for the rx and lexus. this is the pursuit of perfection. an accident doesn't have to slow you down. with better car replacement, if your car is totaled,
>> bret: checking america's election headquarters now, reaction to the healthcare ruling was immediate. and divisive; particularly, on the campaign trail. carl cameron has romney's reaction to the decision. but first, chief white house correspondent ed henry is live there with a look at how president obama responded. good evening. >> good evening. there was fear inside the white house that the law was going down. so they are breathing a huge sigh of relief tonight. >> officials say president obama got the news like the rest of us, anxiously watching tv screens in the outer oval office that initially suggested the health law crashed and burned only to have his top lawyer rush in with two thumbs up. after checking blogs and getting new information from an administration official on the ground at the court, leading to hugs and celebration. >> the highest court in the land has now spoken. >> the president strategy is to show presumptive republican nominee mitt romney's health plan was a mirror image. romney is now running from it, the president stuck to his guns.
>> i didn't do this because it was good politics. i did it because i believed it was good for the country. >> the problem is the court blessed the plan by declaring the government can use its taxation powers to press people to buy insurance. even though in the health debate, president said skipping the insurance is not a tax. >> it's not a tax increase. >> he vowed in 2008 he would never raise any taxes on middle class families. pledge repeated the first 1050 days in office. >> if your family earns less than there are 250,000 a year, quarter million dollars a year, you will not see your taxes increase a single dime. i repeat, not one dime. >> fuel for conservatives to say it has 21 new taxes. >> the real outcome of today's
decision is to strengthen our resol tov make sure that the law -- resolve to make sure the law is repealed. >> white house believes it's overreach. >> what the country can't afford to do is refight political battles of two years ago. >> top officials insist it's not a tax because people have a choice whether or not to get insurance or pay penalty. dispute not settled by the court but could be settled by voters in november. >> bret: henry live on the north lawn. thank you. it doesn't seem like governor romney will put healthcare in his rear-view mirror anytime soon. the strategy is already paying dividends. carl cameron has that side of the story. >> obamacare was bad policy yesterday. it's bad policy today. obamacare was bad law yesterday. it's bad law today. >> he seized the opportunity to rally the right. >> i disagree with the supreme court decision and i agree
with the dissent. what the court did not do the last day in session i'll do on my first day if elected president of the united states. that is i will act to repeal obamacare. >> he portrayed it as a job killer that raises taxes and slashes medicare and explodes the national debt by trillions with a massive government overreach in to people's personal lives. >> you can choose if you want a larger government, more intrusive in your life, separating you and your doctor, comfortable with the higher deficit, higher debt under passing generations. >> romney collected more than $2 million in online donations following the decision and pumped out a new ad. >> do we continue with massive tax indegrees fund a new $2 trillion program? >> but obama reminded voters romney passed healthcare as
governor of massachusetts. on cue, a pro-obama super pac had video of romney promoting the mandate six years ago. >> with regard to the pan dat date, individual responsibility program, i was pleased to see that the compromise from the two houses includes the personal responsibility principle. >> his healthcare past has not done a great deal to mute criticism of the president. he has argued for three years that obamacare amounts to massive tax hike. now president obama and every democrat running for office this year will have to answer that charge. and romney can argue he has the supreme court backing him up. >> bret: more on this with the panel. thank you. wildfires in colorado destroyed hundreds of homes and driven 30,000 people away. the blaze is burning out of control in the mountains and within colorado second largest city. it's one of many fires burning across the parched west that destroyed structures and prompted evacuation in montana
and utah as well. the u.s. gave china is six-month reprieve from iran sanctions. thereby avoiding a domestic spat with that country. china buys a fifth of iran's oil eck por exports. singapore was also exempt. obama administration spared 20 of iran major oil buyers from the unilateral sanctions that were designed to curb iran's nuclear program. charles krauthammer and the expanded fox news all-star panel weighs in on the big news of the day a little later. and they will be sticking around for a special edition of "special report" online tonight. 7:00 p.m. you may want to check that out. first, we check in with a couple of america's top legal minds for a breakdown of what the ruling really means for you going forward.
dad, i think he's dead. probably just playin' possum. sfx: possum hisses there he is. there's an easier way to save. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. see life in the best light. [music] transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it's meant to be seen. experience life well lit, ask for transitions adaptive lenses.
>> bret: for a legal perspective, bring in two law professors. paul rothstein from the jorntown university law center. and jonathan turley. thank you for being here. i want your thoughts on the ruling overall. >> extraordinary line-up. most predicted 5-4. but not that 5-4. what is astonishing to me is damage done to federalism. roberts builds up federalism and then proceeds to destroy it. he says this is not something you can do under the commerce clause. >> bret: semantic decision. for insurance. >> right. for people like myself who believes in federalism, that is excellent thing to say. but then he show house the taxing authority can result in vir come vention of federalism. it's hard to see what is left. it's hard to see the limiting
principles. roberts is the one saying what is the limiting principals to do it under the commerce clause? you were left reading the agreement what is the limiting principle? it's a tax. now with oral arguments can i have a law to require people to buy cell phones? he clearly thought that was no. but you are left reading the opinion saying can i have a tax if you don't buy a cell phone? >> bret: you don't see the wording that doesn't set the precedent it could be, that the federal government could say you have to buy this, otherwise you're taxed. >> right. it reduces federalism to a imaginative line. it's impressive unless you go around it. which is what he did. >> bret: paul? >> i think roberts believes putting it on the taxing basis, rather than the commerce clause basis limits the government for what it makes us do.
secretly, he thinks if future case comes up he can slap the government down, he felt would not be to easy if he okayed the commerce power here. no one expected the shift from tax power to commerce power. it's kind of ingenious and what enabled roberts to go with the liberals. here i have a principle that is going to limit the federal government. >> bret: rewrote the majority. in that, he linked the tax issue, as you are talking about. he also wrote, "the court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the affordable care act. under the constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people." some conservatives are looking at that saying well, this is his way to say it's all about the election. >> i think so. did have an eye on the election, but robert was intent not having it break down on the traditional partisan 5-4 lines.
he knows the court is getting reputation for being party san. he wanted to lay that thought to rest. he did to some extent because he joined the liberals. >> bret: this is the second big court case in a row. immigration and now this case where john robert sides with the liberal court. >> what is strange to me, he semily amends the statute. he puts in an opt-out option for states, which is something that a lot of member rejected and didn't make it to law. he grafted it on. ith this. i'm not sure this is a success, unless it's a success like crash landing is still a landing. obama may regret the victory. if the states opt out, how is it sustainable? this is based on two premises. getting young people to help make it substantially viable and have it uniform.
>> bret: justice ginsberg said she thought the law was unscathed as she was leaving the courtroom. you are saying possibly not. paul? >> i think it's a big victory for obama. states cannot opt out of the mandatory buying of insurance. they can opt out of the expan expanded medicaid, but they are not going to because they get huge money if they opt in to it. unless they are foolishly and extremely political, they are going to take the money. i think this is a victory for obama. >> bret: last ten, ten seconds. what does this mean for john roberts as the chief justice? are people going to look at him saying as a conservative appointed by george w. bush, is he someone like suitor was for george h.w. bush? >> he is not a george suitor. but federalism, this is a moment he came off as brutus.
this was a long-standing friend who came out of nowhere. i'm not sure what is left of federalism as a result. >> bret: last thing. >> he makes himself look like he is open-minded. not dock trinary and not political and not partisan. he makes the court look like to, too, to the extent he could. >> bret: thank you for coming in today. we'll talk about politics and the winners and lewders of the healthcare decision -- winners and losers of the healthcare decision. the fox all-stars, expanded panel weighs in next. teachers get the training... ...and support they need?
schools flourish and students blossom. that's why programs like... ...the mickelson exxonmobil teachers academy... ...and astronaut sally ride's science academy are helping our educators improve student success in math and science. let's shoot for the stars. let's invest in our teachers and inspire our students. let's solve this. great! tyler here will show you everything. check out our new mobile app. now you can use your phone to scan your car's vin or take a picture of your license. it's an easy way to start a quote. watch this -- flo, can i see your license? no. well, all right. thanks. okay, here we go. whoa! no one said "cheese." progressive mobile -- insurance has never been easier. get a free quote today.
[ male announcer ] aggressive styling. a more fuel-efficient turbocharged engine. and a completely redesigned interior. ♪ the 2012 c-class with over 2,000 refinements. it's amazing...inside and out. see your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for exceptional offers through mercedes-benz financial services.
whatever the politic, today's decision was a victory for people all over the country, whose lives will be secure because of the law and the supreme court decision to uphold it. >> what the court did today is say that obama care does not violate the constitution. what they did not do is say that obamacare is good law or that it's good policy. obamacare was bad policy yesterday and it's bad policy today. >> bret: supreme court in a ruling that shocked many today upheld president obama's healthcare law, the center piece of that law, the individual mandate upheld as a tax. chief justice roberts wrote the majority opinion and wrote the affordable care act requirement that certain individuals pay penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax, because the constitution permits such a tax. it's not our role to forbid it
or pass opinion wisdom or fairness. in dissent read by justice kennedy believed to be the swing vote and here he sided with the dissent in a joint dissent. to say that the individual mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but rewrite it. he says the judicial tax writing is particularly troubling. let's bring in the expanded panel tonight. judge andrew napolitano, fox news senior judicial analyst. jeff zelney for "new york times." a.b. stoddard of the hill. and syndicated columnist charles krauthammer. okay, judge, your thoughts. >> this is the driving a camel through the eye of a needle. circuitous route for which the majority took the law to justify it. in the very phrase in which the majority calls it a tax, it refers to it as a penalty. the constitution start on the
house of representatives, this didn't. the constitution says this is used to generate revenue. this is used to punishment. this was result oriented, not profit driven. >> huge victory for the obama administration? >> huge victory for the obama administration. it takes away the ability for republicans and critics to sort of brand him as a failed leader. jimmy carter, if you will, that he spent time on. this it failed. it's not necessarily clean case. he cannot talk about healthcare from heretofore until election day. that is not a living strategy. this election is still about the economy. it's a tough month for the white house and the administration. it ends better than most anyone there would have assumed it would be, in the short-term to politics. it introduced a new argument here against him. new past argument. he has to respond to that. it's something that he is on record saying it's not.
he said this is not a tax. new line of attack. >> bret: a.b.? >> it's true. obama dodged a bullet. it would have been hard to overcome. he has an opportunity to resell the law. he didn't do it first time well. i don't know that he will do it second time well. there is a new line of attack. new campaign, republicans can open up against a new tax. it will be harder to win the war, but he won the battle today. >> bret: charles, why chief justice john roberts wrote the majority and signed 5-4 with the liberal wing of this court. you have some sense about why that happened. >> i think it was the judge says result-oriented. the result he wanted was this. roberts did not want to uphold the liberal argument in support of obamacare which was that you can impose the mandate, because it would be
okay under the commerce clause, as roberts wrote that clause allows a government to regulate commerce. but it surely doesn't allow you to impale or compel commerce, which is what it would do. compel you to buy health insurance. he didn't want to accept that. he didn't want to overturn the law. he feels custodian over the stature of the court. he feels the court suffered decision in 2004 as gore and bush. seen as partisan court. went 5-4 along ideological lines. he was afraid if that happened on obamacare it would diminish the standing of the court, he think he is is responsible keeping it up. he concocted that finesse, allows him to call a mandate a tax, which it's not.
and allow him to uphold a law and strike it down. >> bret: what about the expanded medicaid portion not upheld? >> that is a 7-2 vote. that is saying that the federal government cannot coerce the states in doing something they otherwise would do. it can invite them and intyce them and compensate them but it can't coerce them. coercion was severe. it said if you don't set up the insurance exchanges by expanding medicaid to those who can't overwise acquire health insurance you will lose all of your medicaid reimbursement. not just the medicaid reimbursement we will give you to assist in setting up exchange but all of it. >> bret: those are the stringstrings that congress tie. >> heavy burden that majority felt, 7, 2 it amount to
coercion. coerce by the state by the federal government has been outlawed for years. >> you read this a couple of times now. quick question, we talked about it with jonathan turley and paul rossstein. what about a precedent-setting aspect to this that the mandate is not constitutionable through the commerce clause but a tax so couldn't the federal government then say you have to buy something. and if you don't, tax them. >> that's why charles is right. i think that the chief justice wittingly or unwittingly have created for congress a fast new area of unlimited power. to regulate private individual behavior by talking the individual who doesn't do what the congress commands.
>> bret: the solicitor general breathing sigh of relief. it seems that the court watchers were wrong in how the presentation went. >> no question they were wrong. but the argument wasn't suggested by justices. he wasn't making the argument that was the final outcome. if you talk to the court watchers who were in the chambers for most of the hearing, they say it's totally common for the s.g. to be interrupted. common to stammer a little bit. wrong analysis coming out. it's a different case now. >> bret: a lot of digesting. the politics of a mandate as a tax next. ♪
every note sounds amazingly clear. ...making it easy to get lost in the music... and, well... rio vista?!! [ male announcer ] ...lost. introducing the musically enhanced htc one x from at&t. rethink possible. and how much the people in your life count on you. that's why we offer accident forgiveness... man: great job. where your price won't increase due to your first accident. we also offer a hassle-free lifetime repair guarantee, where the repairs made on your car are guaranteed for life or they're on us. these are just two of the valuable features you can expect from liberty mutual. plus, when you insure both your home and car with us, it could save you time and money. at liberty mutual, we help you move on with your life.
so get the insurance responsible drivers like you deserve. looks really good. call... or visit your local liberty mutual office, where an agent can help you find the policy at's right for you. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? [ chuckles ] ♪ [ honk! ] ♪ [ honk! ] ♪ [ honk! ] ♪ [ male announcer ] now you'll know when to stop. [ hk! ] the all-new nissan altima with easy fill tire alert. [ honk! ] it's our most innovative altima ever. nissan. innovation that excites. ♪
can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year, will see any form of tax increase. not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. >> can you still make that promise to people today? >> i can still keep that promise. because as i said, about two-third of what we proposed would be from money already in the healthcare system but just spent badly. >> if your family earns less than $250,000 a year. quarter million dollars a year. you will not see your taxes increase a single dime. i repeat. not one single dime. [ applause ] >> president obama repeated many times that the healthcare mandate, healthcare law was not a tax increase. absolutely rejecting that notion. many times. now the only reason that it is
upheld by the u.s. supreme court is because it has been listed as a tax increase. back with the panel. politics of this, how it plays, a.b.? >> well, republicans retain the grassroots energy from opponents of healthcare reform. this will be, this day will be engaged and this will be incredible political benefit from mitt romney. again, we are looking at a bunch of income taxes possibly being raised, december 31 of this year. republicans will certainly campaign against this as a tax increase. the one problem is for republicans is that if they spend too much time talking about healthcare, and the mandate, after the fast and furious investigation, and the fact that the court has ruled that mandate was constitutional, under the commerce clause -- i mean under the power attack. there is going to be a voter who maybe wasn't of a strong opinion on this who says when are they just going to shut up
and start talking about the economy again? there is a little bit of a risk of overreaching. and seeming once again like you have taken your focus off of jobs. >> bret: we hear that from democrats today. move on. we heard that repeatedly. >> that is, of course, absurd. the law hasn't even taken effect. how can you abandon an argument about a law that is about to impact everybody's life? it's a strong republican argument. i think yes, obama has a victory today. prestigious raise. he doesn't crash and burn. however, he now has an issue on his hands, extremely strong in defeating republicans in 2010. >> bret: the democrats. >> sorry. the democrats in 2010. yes, the intensity is less. yes, the effect is less. however, the republicans have a strong argument. it isn't only that it will raise your taxes. it's the bigger, the largeer arguen't about expanding government, expanding the debt, expanding spending in a
way unconscionable to a lot of americans. that is the central argument. that hasn't changed. yes, romney instituted something like it, in massachusetts. but elections are about the future, not the past. romney says i'll apolish it on day one. that is still a very strong argument. >> bret: what about the argument now, republicans, many of them have taken it to today, said if the president had said this is a tax from the beginning, or if democrats sold, that it would have gone down in flames. i would haven't had support. is it disingenuous, then, to pass a bill on something that it is not and then it really is? >> i guess it wasn't disingenuous at the time. you're right. senator ben nelson would not have been 60th vote had it been a tax. not joined by marylan mary mary landrieu or on and on and on. it was not presented at that. you probably have to take the
president at his word. it would have been politically risky to present it as a tax. this was just as we said in the earlier panel, chief justice roberts looking for an end game here. you know, who knows what he had on his mind. he knew that this ruling would be interpreted as it's being interpreted. so a short-term gain. we done know how it will play out between now and november. one challenge for governor romney is he is not probably the strongest messenger to make the argument of a tax here. he is in a similar situation in massachusetts. he did not use the argument that other republicans on the hill were using today. he just said simply elect me. repeal obamacare. if this becomes a full-on argument about is this a tax or not, he is going to again be tripped up by the massachusetts mandate. >> bret: judge? >> i think is a gift to governor romney. this will drive republicans toward -- conservatives toward him. many of whom had doubts about him. i have a few friends with whom i communicate on twitter and
facebook from time to time. these are very small got people. they are beside themselves over this. they may take a look at governor romney because they don't want president obama to be in office and to implement this. if he plays it right, he will draw a lot of votes he otherwise might not have gotten. >> bret: romney campaign is already citing millions that have come in since the vote came in. >> i think it does help him. i don't think people are interested in what he did in massachusetts. this is about intrusiveness of government, the best example of it. that is the arguments with which republicans will win if they win in november. >> bret: up next, the eric holder contempt vote. ♪
[ engine turns over ] [ male announcer ] we created the luxury crossover and kept turning the page, this is the next chapter for the rx and lexus. this is the pursuit of perfection. our cloud is made of bedrock. concrete. and steel. our cloud is the smartest brains combating the latest security threats. it spans oceans, stretches continents. and is scalable as far as the mind can see. our cloud is the cloud other clouds look up to. welcome to the uppernet. verizon.
this is something that makes a witch hunt look like a day at the beach. it is a railroading of a resolution unsubstantiated by the facts. >> the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. that is not too much for to us ask the attorney general of the united states of america to do. >> bret: historic day in the house of representatives as well. eric holder, attorney general held in contempt criminally and civilly by a vote, where 17 house democrats voted for contempt, 21 house democrats in a civil ress lution. now it could be headed to court. this, of course, all about "fast and furious," gunwalking operation, and the failure for attorney general to abide by
the request of dock meants. judge, significant of this? >> there is two processes. criminal process where he could be indicted. that is not going to happen. no patrol prosecutor -- they all work for him -- is not going to indict him. it is not going to go anywhere until after election day. this will become a footnote. >> bret: politics? >> i think the politics are that i mean, republicans even though they probably don't argue merits of this. speaker boehner does not want this to become a huge focus of what is going non-the house. it still has to be about the economy. it's fine to have a vote. if they want a lot of attention brought to this, they would haven't scheduled this, this afternoon when healthcare was still digested. the politic politics in the shom probably fire up the republican base but angers the democrats.
this will take a long time, it won't be resolved before the election. long-term politics hard to gauge. but this will be going non-courtroom and in between lawyers. at the end of the day, i think republicans would be happy if there was some cooperation from the justice department to get what they want, documents they are looking for. >> bret: the family of the killed federal agent at the hands of one of the guns tied to the operation "fast and furious," brian terry's famil family, obviously pleased with this vote. that is the bottom line of the case, it involves a murder as well. >> it is a serious case. it was seriously bizarre and wrong-headed operation. the law, many mexicans lost their lives as well. but as far as the political point, the republicans -- there won't be political
consequences long-term. they will vote now. and pursue this. i don't know that they will be happy with the offer that the attorney general gives them in the future about documents, because they haven't accepted any of his offers before. they said they are never serious offers. this will go to court. it doesn't affect obama. >> republicans are right on the substance of this. the administration, however, can stonewall all it wants and it will succeed in doing that. as a political issue. it all ends today. the republicans don't want to continue on this. it's not going to help them. the administration is going to run and hide until election day. >> bret: more on this, in the online show. special discussion with the panel. join me in a matter of minutes for special edition of "special report" online. yes, it's thursday! "special report" online. log on now. but first, stay tuned for more on how the campaigns are attracting small donor donations in the 2012 electio
election. to being a different kind of communications company by continuing to help you do more and focus on the things that matter to you. see life in the best light. [music] transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it's meant to be seen. experience life well lit, ask for transitions adaptive lenses. syou know, i've helped a lot off people save a lot of money. but today...( sfx: loud noise of large metal object hitting the ground) things have been a little strange. (sfx: sound of piano smashing) roadrunner: meep meep. meep meep? (sfx: loud thud sound) what a strange place. geico®. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
>> bret: amid all the contempt news. both parties full steam ahead with fundraising. we mentioned before obama's campaign $5 donations for a chance to go to dinner with quote, dinner with barack. how much time does the president spending there. one show apparently had a camera inside the most recent dinner. ♪ >> everyone was waiting for his arrival and then -- >> hey, guys. [ laughter ] >> thank you. >> see you. >> bye bye. [ laughter ] not even an