PDA

View Full Version : A.G. Holder CLEARED!



Gayle in MD
09-20-2012, 11:08 AM
Now, do you think the car thief, arsenist crook Daryl Issa will apologize for his political witch hunt. Ya think? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Did the Repiglicans apologize for launching a multi-million dollar witch hunt against Bill Clinton, impeaching him, on charges which did NOT rise to the level of impeachment?



What Holder told him was Issa was the truth. As usual, it was the corrupt Bush Administration's doings. will Issa do the right thing and apologize for making Eric Holder the first USAG to be found in contempt?

Gee, Was John Mitchell, or the AG Nixon appointed to follow him, found in contempt?

Between Republians launching over over thirty votes to overturn the ACA, and the Republican's multi-million dollars in witch hunts, ad Vagina chronicles, does anyone think they really give a damn about spending?

I wonder if Issa will write a book called 'No Apologies' like the Mitt the twit?


Do Republicans ever apologize for anything, ever? Like running our country into a debt ditch?






http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57516081/ag-holder-cleared-in-justice-gunwalking-probe/


Repulsive pigs they are!

eg8r
09-20-2012, 11:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did the Repiglicans apologize for launching a multi-million dollar witch hunt against Bill Clinton, impeaching him, on charges which did NOT rise to the level of impeachment?</div></div>Lying to the grand jury under oath is not an impeachable offense? Thank goodness sane minds prevailed and he got what he deserved.

As far as Holder being cleared, well that is our justice system. Good for him. OJ Simpson was cleared also so Holder is in good company.

eg8r

llotter
09-20-2012, 11:24 AM
Big surprise. Holder appoints a couple people to investigate him and lo-and-behold, they find him not responsible. Conservatives predicted this a long time ago.

Was it Holder that plead for the release of that Gitmo resident that ended up involved in the Benghazi massacre?

Gayle in MD
09-20-2012, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Big surprise. Holder appoints a couple people to investigate him and lo-and-behold, they find him not responsible. Conservatives predicted this a long time ago.


<span style="color: #660000">
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>As usual, you're wrong! </span> </span>

Was it Holder that plead for the release of that Gitmo resident that ended up involved in the Benghazi massacre?
</div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">NO it was not. He was released by Bush. </span>




Just keep on proving to everyone here how completely uninformed you are.

We're all used to it. You trolling righties don't even read links, or news reports, just tuning into the "Limpballs" and the "Hammities" in the world, is enough AMMO for you to continue to skew reality.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Justice Department's <span style='font-size: 14pt'>inspector general </span>cleared Attorney General Eric Holder Wednesday of knowing about the gun-walking operation known as Fast and Furious that allowed thousands of weapons to cross into Mexico.</span>




]"We found no evidence" that staff at the department or at ATF informed the attorney general about Operation Fast and Furious before 2011, the report says. The operation began in Phoenix in late 2009.[/b]


But <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Inspector General </span>Michael Horowitz concluded that there were "serious failures" at both the Justice Department and its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives <span style='font-size: 14pt'>going back more than six years,</span> CBS Radio News reporter Stephanie Lambidakis reports.

The inspector general referred 14 people for possible department disciplinary action in Operation Fast and Furious and a separate, earlier probe known as Wide Receiver, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>undertaken during the George W. Bush administration </span> Grindler, Breuer and two other people from the Justice Department, four from ATF headquarters, four at ATF in Phoenix and two from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Phoenix.


A former head of the ATF, Kenneth Melson, and a deputy assistant attorney general in Justice's criminal division in Washington, Jason Weinstein, left the department upon the report's release Wednesday the first by retirement, the second by resignation.



<span style='font-size: 14pt'>In other words, Issa was wrong, and the findings of the INDEPENDENT INSPECTOR GENERAL supported what AG HOLDER had been telling him all along! That it had been a Bush Administration policy, and that he was perfectly capable of running his own investigation. AND THAT HE (HOLDER) HAD KNOWN NOTHING ABOUT IT AT ALL, IT WAS ALL BEING DONE BY IN SECRET BY ATF AGENTS IN ARIZONA!

You are sooooooooooooooooo ignorant!</span>

llotter
09-20-2012, 11:40 AM
Would you ever admit that this administration lies and anything?

Gayle in MD
09-20-2012, 11:44 AM
Changing the subject again, because you have been proven wrong, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>AGAIN</span>?

Would you ever admit that YOU LIE ON THIS FORUM REGULARLY?

I know on no intentional lies told by the president.

If you have any PROOF of it, then post it.

Until then, you can forget posting RUMORS, and calling them the truth.

When will you admit that you have posted lies about the President on here for years? THAT is the question!

G.

Soflasnapper
09-20-2012, 11:46 AM
Lying to the grand jury under oath is not an impeachable offense?

Actually, no, probably it isn't.

Thank goodness sane minds prevailed and he got what he deserved.

So, you are hiding that you agree that it wasn't an impeachable offense? Since, what he got that he deserved, according to you, was ACQUITAL. As the then-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court announced when reading the verdict, William Jefferson Clinton is hereby ACQUITTED on all charges.

The Senate did not vote in even a majority as to guilt, even though a super-majority was required to convict.

All the Republican senators voting who had been attorneys general of their state, or US attorneys, all voted no as to guilt on both articles of impeachment.

A false statement on a non-material matter in a personal lawsuit thrown out on summary judgment as not even stating a true cause of action is simply not a high crime or [high] misdemeanor, affecting the office of the presidency or the state. Despite heroic and/or treasonous efforts, that case was not made to the satisfaction of any Republican senator who had experience as a top law enforcement officer in their states.

As to Holder, the findings are the same as Daryl Issa's, as there is simply no evidence (as has been reconfirmed, as Issa's already admitted), that Holder knew about the gunwalking of the Fast and Furious program until 2011, AS HE HAS CLAIMED FROM THE BEGINNING.

So, please ramp down your libel that Holder is innocent like OJ is innocent (i.e., not at all, in your view). To the contrary, even the GOP's junk yard dog prosecutorial chairman of the oversight committee agreed with this finding months ago. Issa has long admitted he's concentrating solely on an alleged coverup, not any prior knowledge, still less involvement.

I know in the vast right wing echo chamber such basic information is intentionally hidden from their victim audience, to better bamboozle them. But look into it, if you don't know this is true, to assure yourself.

EVERYONE now agrees (including Issa), that Holder had nothing to do with the program, and no knowledge of its gunwalking, until the death of the border patrol guy saw it rise to the level of the AG's direct knowledge.

llotter
09-20-2012, 12:17 PM
Of course, the most recent lie involved the situation surrounding the attack on the consulate in Benghazi. While practically everyone knows the truth that it as a long-planned attack, The Moron sits there on Letterman and lies through teeth and his subordinate did the same on all the Sunday shows...lied through her teeth. Bald-faced lies though they know the truth.

I don't know of lies The Moron told concerning Fast and Furious but Holder lied in testimony as was revealed by emails.

Gayle in MD
09-20-2012, 12:23 PM
You are NUTS!


Ever eaten a lot of squirrels?

<span style='font-size: 11pt'> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Advice for a Squirrel</span>


Look both ways before you cross the road.

Plan ahead.

Stay active.

Eat plenty of fiber.

Spend time in the woods.

Go out on a limb.

It's OK to be a little Nuts!</span>

eg8r
09-20-2012, 01:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, no, probably it isn't. </div></div>I give up, what then was he impeached for.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, you are hiding that you agree that it wasn't an impeachable offense?</div></div>That one sure flew over your head. Heck no, the sane minds impeached his butt perjury and he got what he deserved.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, please ramp down your libel that Holder is innocent like OJ is innocent </div></div>Ramp down, you are out of your insane mind. OJ walked just like Holder is going to walk. Both were guilty as all get out and both walked free.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-20-2012, 01:40 PM
To repeat, what 'he got' was ACQUITTED on the impeachment charges.

Apparently you haven't thought this through too well.

And as to Holder, 'guilty as hell' on WHAT CHARGE? Even Issa does not claim he was responsible (i.e., 'guilty') as to setting up that program, or even having knowledge of it prior to when it blew up a couple of years into it.

So, guilty of what, in your view? The original theory was that he'd known about it, had in fact ordered it, and was lying about that prior involvement and knowledge. Issa dropped all of that part of the theory about 6 months ago, acknowledging that was all false from what he'd been able to discover.

And an inspector general's report is like Internal Affairs, not some conflicted party subject to the AG's pressure, but separate and apart from any possible AG's interference.

eg8r
09-20-2012, 02:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And as to Holder, 'guilty as hell' on WHAT CHARGE?</div></div>LOL just like OJ, on no charge. He walks free. We both know that he had all the info but to come clean with this would have tossed him in jail and you know he is not going to incriminate himself. Now you just sit there and act naive and no one will give you a second glance.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
09-20-2012, 03:48 PM
OJ Simpson was cleared also so Holder is in good company.

OJ woz/iz innocent, we all know that -- Simpson did it.
mac.

Soflasnapper
09-20-2012, 05:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And as to Holder, 'guilty as hell' on WHAT CHARGE?</div></div>LOL just like OJ, on no charge. He walks free. We both know that he had all the info but to come clean with this would have tossed him in jail and you know he is not going to incriminate himself. Now you just sit there and act naive and no one will give you a second glance.

eg8r </div></div>

Here's a clue: you think OJ walked on a murder charge. A murder charge. That's the charge he beat.

My question is what is the charge (had there been one, I mean), that now Holder has beaten? In your mistaken opinion, of course, to be clear.

Had he been knowledgeable, and in fact directed those actions, that still wouldn't be chargeable as a crime.

The alleged crime was perjury as to his prior knowledge before the 2011 revelations from the field after the border patrol agent was killed.

Issa and now the IG have both said he had no such prior knowledge, let alone directed the operation (even though neither of those two things would have been a crime).

But because he had no such knowledge, his testimony to Congress about his lack of such knowledge is TRUE and not perjury, and also not the separate but related crime of lying to the Congress.

I doubt he was guilty, and two independent parties he does not control, including one from a ferociously opposition party, have said he wasn't.

You are sure, but I doubt you have any reason to BE sure, other than an intuition. So a guess then?

llotter
09-20-2012, 06:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are NUTS!


Ever eaten a lot of squirrels?

<span style='font-size: 11pt'> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Advice for a Squirrel</span>


Look both ways before you cross the road.

Plan ahead.

Stay active.

Eat plenty of fiber.

Spend time in the woods.

Go out on a limb.

It's OK to be a little Nuts!</span> </div></div>

Great rebuttal there, Gayle. It does beg the question of just who it is that NUTS!

Sid_Vicious
09-20-2012, 06:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, do you think the car thief, arsenist crook Daryl Issa will apologize for his political witch hunt. Ya think? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Did the Repiglicans apologize for launching a multi-million dollar witch hunt against Bill Clinton, impeaching him, on charges which did NOT rise to the level of impeachment?

What Holder told him was Issa was the truth. As usual, it was the corrupt Bush Administration's doings. will Issa do the right thing and apologize for making Eric Holder the first USAG to be found in contempt?

Gee, Was John Mitchell, or the AG Nixon appointed to follow him, found in contempt?

Between Republians launching over over thirty votes to overturn the ACA, and the Republican's multi-million dollars in witch hunts, ad Vagina chronicles, does anyone think they really give a damn about spending?

I wonder if Issa will write a book called 'No Apologies' like the Mitt the twit?


Do Republicans ever apologize for anything, ever? Like running our country into a debt ditch?






http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57516081/ag-holder-cleared-in-justice-gunwalking-probe/


Repulsive pigs they are! </div></div>

Damned fine post Gayle! Our blind brethren on the right who go through life with theirs heads up their own butts wouldn't have ever noticed the total corruption of the Bush admin. Clinton's haunting was a "shutdown" of the country for bullshit causes. Now, we see this with Holder? I am glad you have faith that the American system CAN correct itself from it's built up idiocracy, because my faith has long been gone for common sense in this country. Evil has nearly, if not already, won. sid

Gayle in MD
09-21-2012, 01:34 AM
Martin,
You don't see all of the things I see happening that are good.

Like today, for example, a group in North Carolina, who claimed they were non profit, tried to obstruct votes by saying they had researched a list of thousands of people who were on the voting roles, and who were dead.

But, it came out later, they were not non profit, at all, and that their numbers were false.

Now, election officials are going through every name on that list, all of them Democrats, of course, to prevent Republicans from obstructing Americans from voting.


Today, Republican Scott Brown tried to avoid showing up for the debate in Massachusettes where Elizabeth Warren is running against him, by saying he had to be in the Senate to vote. So, Harry Reed made an announcement that all voting for the rest of the day was cancelled, and Brown would have plenty of time to get to Massachusettes for the debate, LOL...Brown lost the debate big time, BTW.

Elizabeth Warren is the lady who structured the new Consumer Protection Agency, and Republicans blocked her confirmation. Why? Because she woud have been GREAT, and would have protected consumers from the polluting corporate pigs they want to protect.

So she decided to run for Ted Kennedy's seat, which Scott Brown has won last election. That seat had never been Republican, now it is, but he is going to lose it, I feel very sure of that, and Romney's screw ups are doing damage a plenty in many state elections.

There are a lot of things going on that are good, you just don't know about them.

This is no time for those of us who see what the Republicans are trying to do to our country, to give up hope, and throw in the towel.

Mitt Romney is losing. And there are a lot of Democratic candidates that are leading.



This election in particular, every vote counts! We must stop the fascist Republican party now. If we don't, a pig like Romney will be appointing possibly two more radical Republican Activist Fascist judges to the Supreme Court!

We cannot let that happen.



G.

eg8r
09-21-2012, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a clue: you think OJ walked on a murder charge. A murder charge. That's the charge he beat.</div></div>What do you mean I "think". The record is plain as day to see.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My question is what is the charge (had there been one, I mean), that now Holder has beaten?</div></div>Perjury. The investigation came up empty so he walked free. Are you paying any attention?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Had he been knowledgeable, </div></div>Don't get ahead of your self there skippy. You don't have any idea if he was knowledgeable. On top of that, with all your ridiculous conspiracy theories it is funny that you would think Holder did not really have any knowledge. All you can say for sure is that based on the evidence provided he did not know. There is still a ton of stuff he refused to provide. If he wasn't hiding anything then why not come clean with everything? LOL, isn't that the logic you use with Romney and his taxes?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-21-2012, 09:38 AM
What do you mean I "think". The record is plain as day to see.

All can agree he was charged with a double homicide and was acquitted of those charges. I'm stating you think he got away with it, since he had indeed murdered those two persons, and I think you are probably incorrect in thinking he did it. Lt. Furhman was asked if he planted blood evidence at the scene (since he'd improperly carried around a blood sample for several days, and the blood sample preservative EDTA was found in the blood evidence). He declined to answer on the grounds it might tend to incriminate him.

Perjury. The investigation came up empty so he walked free. Are you paying any attention?

Sounded to me as if you thought the original plan was illegal, and those involved with it would be jailed for that if found guilty of it.

Had he been knowledgeable,
Don't get ahead of your self there skippy. You don't have any idea if he was knowledgeable.

The word 'had' in this case is conditional, and does not imply he was or wasn't.

it is funny that you would think Holder did not really have any knowledge.

The ATF lacks any permanent head, as the GOP has refused to confirm any nominee. The ATF has a long troubled history of being a wild child agency, and out of control. The Department of Justice has a wide sprawling reach, and Holder has a huge amount on his plate. The idea that a particular tactic born in a field operation might be unknown to him is far from impossible. It's more the claim that he certainly knows every aspect of every field office's tactics that is far fetched.

All you can say for sure is that based on the evidence provided he did not know. There is still a ton of stuff he refused to provide.

You fail to understand this case, as you prove with that statement. There is and was no withheld DOJ material as of the time of the ATF program, before it, through its course of running, and up through to the time of the death of the border patrol agent. All of the requested DOJ materials that would have shown Holder's alleged knowledge of it ahead of time, or contemporaneously, through its time in place, were all turned over.

The only materials not turned over were certain internal deliberative communications dating from after the agent was slain, in the alleged or suspected by some coverup phase. But the coverup would have been as to the prior knowledge or action of the AG Holder as to this program. Since the prior documents were all turned over as requested, and no one claims differently, there was no prior guilty knowledge or personal involvement by Holder ON THE COMPLETE RECORD.

eg8r
09-21-2012, 10:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The only materials not turned over were certain internal deliberative communications dating from after the agent was slain </div></div>Yep, material that could have implicated Holder was held back. The timing doesn't matter. Being the conspiracy theorist you are it is funny to see you close down that fantasy dreaming brain when it is a (D) in question.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-21-2012, 11:00 AM
It seems always a waste of time trying to reason with people who never even bother to look into researching the facts of the discussion.

Often you can tell that they haven't even bothered to read the provided links.

Internet trolls don't care about facts. Teir motto is, "I've already made up my mind, don't confuse e with the facts."



Your patience with the very rude and ignorant trolls on this forum, is amazing.

My hat goes off to you.

G.

LWW
09-21-2012, 12:26 PM
This thread RVELAS the ignorance of some folks

Gayle in MD
09-21-2012, 12:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 26pt'>Gayle and LWW, we all now completely understand that you two don't like each other. No real need to keep belaboring the point.

My suggestion now is to ignore each other.

Any posts from either of you pointing at the other one will result in an immediate (and very long) ban.

Admin
</span> </span> </div></div>

Soflasnapper
09-21-2012, 06:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The only materials not turned over were certain internal deliberative communications dating from after the agent was slain </div></div>Yep, material that could have implicated Holder was held back. The timing doesn't matter. Being the conspiracy theorist you are it is funny to see you close down that fantasy dreaming brain when it is a (D) in question.

eg8r </div></div>

Material pre-border agent death was not held back. Not anything requested prior to that date was withheld.

Holder's pre-knowledge, or agreement, or ordering those actions would have all been in 2009 to 2011 pre-border agent death.

All agree he did no such thing in '09-'11. The withholding of various confidential executive privilege materials that date from after that time is irrelevant to the documentary evidence they already have in hand from before that period. Which raises no issues or red flags, or occasioned any document requests related to that earlier time frame which is when Holder would have been approving those tactics.

It was a fishing expedition, to try to find some embarrassing impolitic discussion to tar up Holder.

This is the thing about conspiracy theories. Most are really not true, and not even close to true. Conspiracy theories with absolutely no evidence in their favor are more likely to be in that category than otherwise.

You complain that I don't buy a conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence. I say, good for me-- that's a sign of a more clear head.

eg8r
09-21-2012, 07:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Holder's pre-knowledge, or agreement, or ordering those actions would have all been in 2009 to 2011 pre-border agent death.</div></div>You really are thick-headed on this and just really wish you are right. How on earth could this administration lie to you. I don't care one way or the other because I have formed my own opinion but the fact of the matter is the timing of the documents does not matter in the slightest. Without any stretch of the imagination it would have been quite easy to destroy or hide whatever incriminating evidence there might have been prior to the death but then in correspondence that was overlooked that after the death needed to be silenced. If they did not have time to get rid of everything they could just refuse to provide it which is probably what happened.

There most certainly could be evidence that was held back after the death that spoke about Holder's prior knowledge and that could not and will not ever see the light of day. Only a partisan conspiracy theorist like yourself would act like this is not the most probably explanation.

Fast and Furious started under Holder's watch and now he wants to act like he doesn't know the ins and outs of the organization. Give me a break. Obama gets into office acting like he isn't ignorant and you guys give him the benefit of doubt. Holder shows up acts like he knows everything and you guys call him ignorant and give him the benefit of doubt. Are you ever consistent other than consistently being inconsistent?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-22-2012, 09:23 AM
BTW, was that five thousand or five million missing e-mails on Karl Rove's computer?

Oh, and BTW, did they ever figure out what caused the fire in VP Cheney's office?

Did they ever find out if it was a stroke that caused Cheney to claim he couldn't recall, 72 times during the Plame Investigation?

Must have been something going around, some sort of flu?

Gonzales must have caught it from Cheney, who caught it from Libby, who caught it from from Rove, who caught it from OJ Simpson and Ronald Reagan, LMAO!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Soflasnapper
09-22-2012, 09:30 AM
The problem with your conspiracy theory in this matter is that while it is a somewhat plausible scenario absent the facts of the matter, once those facts are brought into the picture, your theory gets blown up.

What facts do I refer to? The facts of the offer Holder made to Issa in their final negotiations, to try to head off the contempt threat.

That offer was to provide the committee with access to all the documents subpoenaed, and others not even subpoenaed, to receive DOJ briefings on all of them, and to respond to any questions the committee had after this review.

Did you ever hear of this? Do you remember it, now that I mention it? I'm guessing no for both questions.

But your theory requires some swift revisions to be applicable to this actual fact situation. Or, I suppose, you could deny this offer was made by Holder to Issa, although that would be contrary to the undisputed reporting.

Gayle in MD
09-22-2012, 09:47 AM
I watched the enitire witch hunt. It was a disgrace! Issa was disgusting, insulting, and acted olike exactly whhat he is, a thug car thief!

Holder had already turned over 7,000 pages!

I remember thinking how the Republicans bitched for over a year that couldn't read 2,000 pages on the ACA, but they were claiming they had gone through 7,000 pages, and couldn't find what they were looking for. What a scam.

Holder comported himself like a dignified, true gentleman throughout, while Holder's behavior was a disgrace.

It was nothing but a political witch hunt.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/politics/holder-contempt/index.html

Soflasnapper
09-22-2012, 12:17 PM
Issa's behavior was a disgrace, you meant, I'm sure.

Yes, it was.

cushioncrawler
09-22-2012, 05:05 PM
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ who caught it from OJ Simpson ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

OJ woz/iz innocent -- Simpson did it.
mac.

eg8r
09-22-2012, 06:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That offer was to provide the committee with access to all the documents subpoenaed, and others not even subpoenaed, to receive DOJ briefings on all of them, and to respond to any questions the committee had after this review.

Did you ever hear of this? Do you remember it, now that I mention it? I'm guessing no for both questions.</div></div>LOL, yeah he offer to show all documents if Issa drops the investigation. So if Issa promises not to go after him Holder will provide the incriminating evidence. Didn't sound bad for Holder did it.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-22-2012, 06:25 PM
That's an unusually stupid comment.

The threat of Issa's was to go for a contempt finding IF Holder didn't reveal the contents of certain sought documents that were being withheld. I mean, after Issa's list of sought documents was pared down from including documents definitely against the law for Holder to reveal, as Issa had stupidly demanded.

So Holder offered to reveal these documents, not to quash any further investigation of Issa's (where did you get that from?), but to prevent the contempt citation recommendation out of the committee to the House floor. Issa would have been free to continue whatever he wanted to do, but would have had the contents of the documents he was looking for, and thus, would have had no need to try to force them out with the contempt threat (or carry that out). In fact, Issa could have STILL recommended a contempt citation, but it likely would not have passed even the GOP majority House, if all Issa had sought was revealed.

You REALLY do not know this subject matter at all.

So you just play the 'interested in civics, paying attention to the news' role as a charade? (That explains a lot.)

eg8r
09-23-2012, 11:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You REALLY do not know this subject matter at all. </div></div>You REALLY have your head shoved so far up their rear that you couldn't see the truth if it was laid out right in front of you.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-23-2012, 01:17 PM
Some cogent reply there! Quite the master debater!

Care to explain why you aren't completely wrong about the statement I complained about? Defend yourself a little?

No? Can't say as I blame you for that choice.

eg8r
09-23-2012, 05:32 PM
What benefit is it to banter back and forth when you clearly have no intent to actually think? You are stuck on when info was released and absolutely without a doubt completely blinded by the idea that Holder was entirely forthcoming and would in perfect conscience provide any information that would incriminate himself. You have built this wall of naivety on sand and it really doesn't take much of a rain to wash your foundation away.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-24-2012, 04:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Issa's behavior was a disgrace, you meant, I'm sure.

Yes, it was.

</div></div>

Yes I did, lol..
Thanks for catching it.



G.

Soflasnapper
09-24-2012, 09:59 AM
Whether Holder would willingly provide documents or not? obviously not.

Whether every document Issa asked for (once they took the ones he wanted off the list when providing those would have been illegal) was offered to him (yes, after the hardball pressure of both subpoenas and threats to file contempt), yes they were.

Issa refused that deal. Holder offered him everything he'd asked for that could be legally given. Issa turned it down.

Now, maybe Holder's offer was bunk, and he wouldn't have delivered what he promised. We will never know, because Issa refused to take Holder's yes as an answer and see what would happen.

Until you figure out the above is true, which can be easily verified, you are sleepwalking in the dark on the core issues in these events.

This is not my naivete, but your ignorance that the above occurred. Did it, or not? Do you have any information about that? Do you claim it is a figment of my naive imagination?

eg8r
09-24-2012, 10:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whether every document Issa asked for (once they took the ones he wanted off the list when providing those would have been illegal) was offered to him (yes, after the hardball pressure of both subpoenas and threats to file contempt), yes they were.</div></div>Only a conspiracy theorist intent to salvage his own party could believe a lie like this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, maybe Holder's offer was bunk, and he wouldn't have delivered what he promised. We will never know, because Issa refused to take Holder's yes as an answer and see what would happen.</div></div>The first sentence is finally a ray of light that maybe you might be thinking this through a bit more. The second sentence starts out of OK but then after the comma you blow it. You see, even if Issa accepted the empty offer and many documents were provided, there still would be no proof that ALL the documents were provided. We will never know is about as honest an answer can be. You are right, this is not your naivete it is your intellectual dishonesty.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-24-2012, 02:40 PM
Only a conspiracy theorist intent to salvage his own party could believe a lie like this.


Chairman Issa himself did not dispute the offer was made. He turned it down as insufficient for reasons I guess you have still not discovered. (You really do appear entirely disinterested in any of the facts of this case, but very interested to bark your taunts at someone who does know the facts on the record.) But it wasn't because it wouldn't have completely satisfied his document request. Why was it? And you don't know and don't care?

You see, even if Issa accepted the empty offer and many documents were provided, there still would be no proof that ALL the documents were provided.

Unlike Ritt Momney's career as governor of Massachusetts, the DOJ does not destroy its e-mails. Unlike W's administration under Rove, this DOJ does not use private e-mail servers to avoid the requirements of the law as to maintaining public documents. All communications go through the official government servers, and are subject to FOIA and other informational requests from Congress.

So, what Issa based his subpoenas of documents on was the comprehensive list of e-mails by persons sending and receiving and subject matter and date received from DOJ to his committee staff.

Yes, he would have indeed been supplied with exactly those that he was looking for, AS HE WOULD SPECIFY EXACTLY. Issa's problem was not skepticism as to the provision of exactly those documents. His problem was that the manner of providing them would not lend itself to further public relations grandstanding by the chairman, for reasons that perhaps you will never know.

Gayle in MD
09-24-2012, 02:50 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif LMAO!

Perfectly stated, as usual, friend.

Love that last line!

G.

eg8r
09-24-2012, 08:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unlike Ritt Momney's career as governor of Massachusetts, the DOJ does not destroy its e-mails. </div></div>Again, only a conspiracy theorist intent to salvage his own party would believe this psuedo-lie. They may not destroy it, however if it is incriminating then it will never see the light of day. You seem to have this lofty mindset that a politician will incriminate themselves to make sure they don't break the law hiding their secrets. I know you are nuts.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unlike W's administration under Rove, this DOJ does not use private e-mail servers to avoid the requirements of the law </div></div>You have no freaking idea if they do or not. You are making a partisan-blinded hopeful guess this is true. No one admits to do something illegal until they are caught doing something illegal. To think your guys are above that is just dumb.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, he would have indeed been supplied with exactly those that he was looking for, AS HE WOULD SPECIFY EXACTLY. Issa's problem was not skepticism as to the provision of exactly those documents. His problem was that the manner of providing them would not lend itself to further public relations grandstanding by the chairman, for reasons that perhaps you will never know. </div></div>Dream on.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-25-2012, 11:27 AM
Even as you call me out as a conspiracy theorist, you have yourself been bitten by the most virulent version of the species.

That's when you have NO evidence for your position, but claim it must be true anyway.

Then, as people are unable to prove a negative (but one for which there is absolutely no evidence to indicate it could be true), THEY (well, me) are accused of holding a conspiracy theory??!?!!

No, that would be YOU in this instance, and a particularly hare-brained CT it is, since it is instead entirely unfounded pure speculation without a shred of evidence.

And, moreover, something that seems to have escaped Chairman Daryl Issa's oversight, wherein he has broad powers including subpoena power to obtain evidence.

If you know, or highly suspect, on any evidentiary evidence, that the Obama administration is breaking the law concerning the handling of official communications, please get that immediately into Issa's hands, or your own congressperson, etc.

Since you plainly have no credible evidence for your wild-eyed speculations, do not call me a conspiracy theorist on this matter, as I'm dealing entirely in the real world and consistently with all known evidence on this one, whereas you are not.

eg8r
09-25-2012, 12:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even as you call me out as a conspiracy theorist, you have yourself been bitten by the most virulent version of the species.

That's when you have NO evidence for your position, but claim it must be true anyway. </div></div>LOL, when in actuality all I am doing is saying you don't know one way or the other. My view is based on reality. I don't remember ever seeing a politician out their own criminal behaviour when they are not forced to do so.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">do not call me a conspiracy theorist on this matter</div></div> I haven't but then again you have been struggling with comprehension lately. On this matter I have called you a blinded partisan. You are ignoring the real world and floating around in your fantasy land.

eg8r