Why would Holder stonewall if docs would clear him and Obama?

Like mysteries, detective stories? Then consider two alternative hypotheses re attorney-general Eric Holder's "Justice" department and his refusal to turn over specific documents about the gun-running operation "Fast and Furious" as requested by a house committee:

1. "Fast and Furious" was a rogue op not approved by any high officer of the DOJ; Holder knows this and has emails and other communications to prove it; OR

2. The operation was approved by Holder or his boss, and the documents show that.

Now: If the first hypothesis is correct, do you think Holder would refuse to turn over the exculpatory documents and instead get into an argument with congress about what docs he was willing to give them, or would he instead promptly turn over every single piece of paper he had that would exonerate him and DOJ higherups in the matter?

Sure. It's obvious that Holder's actions in refusing to comply with the legitimate request by Issa's committee suggest he's trying to hide something--most likely that he knew about F&F early on, and more likely approved it.

The only thing that doesn't fit with this is, Why would Holder take the risk of lying about his knowledge or involvement with a stupidly-executed operation that resulted in the deaths of one U.S. border agent and more than 300 Mexican citizens? After all, dumb government programs are *everywhere.* You'd think it would be far better to admit knowledge or approval and say "Hey, sometimes things don't go the way you plan them."

The fact that Holder didn't take that tack suggests there's some other factor in the mix that made that admission unacceptable.

There's another, more disturbing alternative: It may be that Holder and company chose to stonewall because they're simply contemptuous of the law and the investigative function of congress.

Man, that doesn't sound promising.