How Come AG Holder Isn't Under indictment?

I was just watching the Congressional Hearings-Holder refused to answer questions, and told Rep. Issa (Utah) to basically shove it.
Holder says that “Fast and Furious” (referenced in his email) doesn’t refer to 'Operation Fast and Furious"…so what MIGHT is refer to?
ast any rate, this surely must rank with Bill Clinton’s “it depends what is is” monologue.
Any idea why AG Holder is so reluctant to talk?:rolleyes:

Because Issa has made it his personal mission to get a “big score” against the administration with his numerous investigations? I wouldn’t talk to the guy either.

Perhaps because Chairman Issa interrupts after every five words?

As a factual answer, he would probably have to be impeached & convicted first.

Because Congress isn’t a prosecutors office and can’t indict people for crimes? Because it’s not illegal to ‘basically tell Darrell Issa to shove it’ Indictments are accusations you’ve committed a crime. That has little to do with how responsive Holder is to Issa- and I say that as someone who’s inclined to think Holder should’ve been fired.

No, I don’t agree. That’s probably true of the President, but I know of no reason that the Attorney General needs to be impeached and convicted before being indicted.

Congress has inherent contempt power. Congress can order a recalcitrant witness arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms, held for trial, conduct the trial, and order the defendant imprisoned as a result. See Jurney v. MacCracken.

If the OP is asking what they can do if they think Holder is in contempt, that sounds like a very thorough answer.

Looking at the case of Sec. Belknap, the DC Court waited until after his Senate trial before the indictment. That’s the precedent I was going off of.