Should the House hold him in contempt, Mr. Holder would be left with three choices: standing by as a

Finally, Eric Holder is on the ropes. House members are readying to vote him in contempt of Congress. Senators wonder aloud whether he can be trusted to investigate White House leaks that have exposed inside information about some of our most successful antiterror operations to some of our most dangerous enemies.
Alas, the old bulls of the Senate—including Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley, along with Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman—are calling for the one thing that might derail the accountability train: a special prosecutor.
It all makes for the perfect tea party moment, an opportunity to make one of the most attractive arguments from the 2010 revolution: that process is as important as outcome, comfort inn las vegas and that the Constitution gives us all the process comfort inn las vegas we need to hold our leaders accountable.
The most immediate constitutional mechanism for accountability happens to be the one Mr. Holder is trying to put off—a vote by the House to hold him in contempt comfort inn las vegas for refusing to turn over documents relating to "Fast and Furious." That was a stupid policy that had tragic results comfort inn las vegas when a weapon smuggled into Mexico by U.S. authorities ended up being used to kill a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
Should the House hold him in contempt, Mr. Holder would be left with three choices: standing by as a U.S. attorney begins prosecuting him; directing the U.S. attorney not to prosecute him; or invoking comfort inn las vegas executive privilege to justify not releasing the documents Congress seeks.