Reply With Quote
Thanks for posting.
You know you can embed those...
So much for the "Bush-did-it-too" crowd...
Another retraction: Holder withdraws claim that Bush’s attorney general knew about gunwalking
You know you can embed those...
I think this is why it needs to stay with Congress...for now.
Obama invokes privilege to halt investigation
John Yoo, who is second to none when it comes to defending the executive branch, told me this afternoon: “Holder is a gift that keeps on giving — for congressional Republicans. He is bringing a unique combination of political ineptness and cons utional myopia. Politically, he is sustaining a story of law enforcement incompetence that he could bring to a quick end by providing the Hill with do ents that bear no national security implications (unlike the Obama administration leaks about our counter-terrorism programs).”
On the law Yoo commented, “Legally, he has given the Obama White House bad advice on the scope of executive privilege, which the Supreme Court in Nixon made clear is centered on the president’s right to discuss the most sensitive national security, military and diplomatic matters with his aides. Either the White House is admitting that President Obama was involved in the ‘Fast and Furious’ controversy (which seems hard to believe), or they are seeking to claim executive privilege to mere discussion of low-level staff with the Attorney General, which the Cons ution does not recognize.”
Principled Democrats who may soon face a Romney administration had better pipe up. Otherwise the precedent will be there for vast expansion of executive power and squashing of Congress’s proper role in our system of government.
Passing gun control laws should much easier than passing Healthcare reform. Clinton proved that.
So there's no "Congressional Committee having oversight of the Justice Department"... Okay, glad we agree.
There's no investigation taking place while Issa is in charge. Issa has a history of acrimony towards Holder even before getting the chairman position. The developments of this dog an pony show between Issa and the administration shouldn't be surprising, tbh.
None of which wore a (D) or an (R) next to their name. Obviously, partisan hacks (like you) will complain or praise, depending on how things go. That's expected, but there's no doubt any of those guys would necessarily act under loyalty towards certain party. With Issa, there's no doubt. Zero.
But that was not the offer at all. The offer was that Holder would present do ents based on the questions the commission had. But the commission didn't find that acceptable. Seeing the commission isn't interested in finding an amicable solution, Barry invoked the privilege.
Unfortunately this is a typical case of political gamesmanship from both sides. Dirt digging taking precedence over finding what actually happened.
Holder cooperated. He testified numerous times in front of the commission.
Fact is Barry just doubled down on his AG today. He could've asked for his resignation instead.
The biggest problem is that nobody really cares about this seeing it has turned into a political circus. Barry should be worried about the election given the poor economic performance of the country in general.
Why would there be "illegal suggestions"? He can be simply be ordered by a superior. There's nothing illegal about that.
I'm stating that Machen has a boss that he has to answer to.
He was subpoenaed by Congress. Executive privilege was invoked. He didn't show up. There were no consequences to him.Rove was a presidential adviser subpoenaed on a matter that .....
Depends on what he's order to do.
I'm still not sure why you suggest the case ending up before Machen is a dog and pony show. Please be specific. Are you suggesting Machen wouldn't do his job as a U. S. Attorney?
So did the BATFE whistleblowers and whomever is leaking do ent to Issa's committee.
What's your point? Bosses aren't Kings. They have to obey the law, too.
Whose fault is that?
Thanks for the back and forth ElNono, we obviously disagree on the matter.
Plus, anything that hurts Obama's chances of re-election is just fine with me; so long as no puppies are harmed in the process.
Actually, the retraction is on which operation Mukasey was briefed on, not on the fact that he was briefed on a gun walking operation.
Bush did it too
Yoni, I think we can agree that Holder isn't a saint, and neither is Barry.
We'll probably disagree on Issa and his motives.
So you still didn't watch the video nono?
Yeah, not so much.
There's a difference between a controlled operation and an uncontrolled operations. I'm sure you'll learn about the difference as time goes by.
But, if the Bush Administration committed illegal acts that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican nationals and U.S. Law Enforcement Officers, I'd want him and his administration dragged before Congress, as well.
Republican Gowdy seems open to the idea, too. If evidence leads to criminality -- no matter the party, no matter the administration, they need to be prosecuted. Bring it on.
Unfortunately for Democrats, they're going to find fundamental differences in the way the Bush Administration conducted similar operations.
I think they're both worse than not being saints. I think they're both criminals that should rot in jail.
So what? If Holder committed a crime, he should be held accountable -- it doesn't matter what his accuser's motives might be.We'll probably disagree on Issa and his motives.
You might be on to something...depends on which one, right?
We don't know this was an uncontrolled operation.
No audio. Cliff notes? I doubt there's anything there we haven't heard before.
I for one would like to know what really happened. If they're criminals, no doubt.
I don't disagree with that, but I also don't necessarily agree that Issa cares about that either.
Nevermind, I found a transcript. Basically, nothing new there.
We don't? Really?
Yeah, we don't. Really. Still waiting for the ATF "smoking gun" do ent that says all guns walked untracked.
Do you have it? CosmicCowboy doesn't.
How convenient..no audio...well when you get a chance listen to Rep. Gowdy's video and it will help you understand what they are trying to telly you... an indefensible defense is indefensible.
Don't feel flattered. I don't watch any videos for the same reason.
I did read the transcript (in case you don't know what that is, is the audio transcribed into text). He didn't say anything that wasn't said before.
Thanks for posting though, I guess.
Why does it have to be all guns?
Because otherwise it's not an "uncontrolled" operation?
What needs to be determined yet is whether there was either a up with some of the guns, or the whole thing was an uncontrolled operation. I think there should be consequences no matter what it was, but it's a fairly important distinction between acting negligently or flat out criminally. But we don't know any of that yet.
ing dumbass.
You had the testimony of the ATF agents on the ground who were ordered to let the guns go.
I can't believe you can be that ing hard headed stupid.
Why don't you cut this troll bull ?
I gave you the verbatim congressional testimony of the ATF agents that were ordered to let the guns go.
ing blue team smurf.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
