The act of impeachment has been in recent discussion. The clever move would be to focus the discussion on the attorney general rather than the president. The attorney general has provided incident after incident of his politicization of the Department of Justice. The case is clearer, stronger, and nearly as damaging to this administration. It would be a distinct response to the peculiar treatment of the law propagated by this administration. It would be a crisp, clean and specific blowback against the antics we have been subject to for the past 6 years.

Let us review:

“…the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government…. the Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. “

We received our first litmus of this attorney general in the New Black Panthers poll incident. Six years past, we still receive the same reading. The disdain for the law, the propensity to pick and choose what to enforce and when, are the hallmarks of the past 6 years. 

When enforcement is dropped, such as illegal immigration, State authorities who have attempted to fill the void left by selective federal non enforcement of duly codified law have been sued in court. The message seems to be that this administration has chosen not to enforce certain laws and beware to any State that attempts to fill the void. We will see you in court and we will systematically delay and bog down your efforts.

It is yet to be discovered who had knowledge of or authorized the gun running operation known as Fast and Furious. Requested documents were withheld, those provided heavily redacted. The Attorney General was held in contempt of Congress. Unresolved but not unforgotten.

The Fort Hood massacre was curiously termed a work place violence event rather than what it actually was, a motivated Muslim execution of American soldiers. The perpetrator enjoys the limbo now provided. The execution date is put to bed with the Khalid Sheik Muhammad date. After all, we don’t want to create more terrorists. (The newly formed 30,000 ISIS Army excepted).

Finally, regarding the IRS scandal, the attorney general’s office has been implicated in selecting certain groups for special treatment and coordinating with Democrats to massage the media coverage of the scandal, what little there is.

“We also know from previous reporting that during the targeting between 2010 and 2012, the IRS's Lois Lerner was in contact with Director of the DOJ Election Crime Branch Richard Pilger about bringing criminal cases against tea party groups”

From the Washington Examiner, we get a call for a special prosecutor. “Both the IRS itself and the Department of Justice have been compromised in this investigation. To keep this matter “in house” is to let bureaucrats continue giving evasive answers and to cover their tracks.”

Recently, duly-elected Senators from Arizona ask the attorney general why the immigration laws are not being enforced.  There is no response to this inquiry. The obligation to report to the people seems lost with this attorney general, the obligation to enforce the law as well.

“Reports that federal prosecutors have stopped some prosecutions under Operation Streamline surfaced nearly two weeks ago when Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder seeking information on the status of the zero-tolerance program that circumvents the civil immigration system and lumps together months' worth of criminal proceedings into one day for immigrants caught crossing the border illegally.”

How many straws on the camel’s back does this attorney general get?

Impeaching the attorney general would send a strong message to the president, who has cleverly stayed far away from the workings of this Department of Justice. Importantly, such an impeachment would not allow the press to conjure up a firestorm of protest as they might with an impeachment of the president. The average Democrat voter would first have to be told who the attorney general is and what his responsibilities are before any groundswell of protest could form.  The attention span of those low-information Democrat voters would not hold.