And, if the documents initially produced compared with other information obtained by the Congressional oversight committee show contradictory information, what in that do you not think the committee should explore further? And if the AG told Congress one thing, or claimed no knowledge of something he clearly had knowledge of, how is that not worthy of being held in contempt of Congress?
You are probably too young to remember the Iran Contra hearings. But I don't think I missed a single syllable of that entire process that was fully televised for the world to see. And only after being given Congressional immunity for his testimony, did Oliver North admit that he had absolutely lied to Congress about many components of Iran Contra and he gave his full reasons for doing so. But had he not been given immunity, he would surely have been in contempt of Congress. And no manner of justification by any of us, no matter how much we admired Col. North, would have changed the fact that he was guilty of contempt of Congress. They just couldn't hold it against him because they promised they would not.
They did go on to dig for something and they did find a couple of minor infractions that they convicted him on. That conviction and the fine and community service ordered were subsequently thrown out by a federal court who ruled that North 'incriminated himself' only on the strength of the immunity he had been given and Congress could not convict him on something they had promised immunity.
I am not in fact too young to remember Iran Contra.
I remember that in Iran Contra, there were in fact arms sold
illegally through an intermediary to Iran, and there was funding given
illegally to a Central-American
terrorist organization.
I also remember that there was clear evidence of both
before Oliver North's testimony even took place.
And finally, I remember right-wingers defending said illegal action to this day.
Ollie North works for FoxNews for God's sake.