Fast and FuriousFollow

Incompetence, if that is what happened, is not criminal. And investigating a "coverup" that you manufactured yourself by starting an investigation of something else (necessitating legal maneuvers and discovery and all that) is not proof of either a crime or guilty knowledge of a crime.

You remind me of people who assume that a person is guilty because otherwise the cops wouldn't have questioned him.

The documents relative to F&F have been released. If more documentation about that action is required, then those documents will be requested and provided. There's probably about as much of a coverup going on now as there was during the Lewinsky scandal, when everything possible was done to embarrass and discredit a sitting President when the original charge got zero traction with the public.

You said the hearings were ABOUT a cover-up more so than the operation. They weren't. Not until Issa didn't get the results he wanted. I posted exactly what the investigation was about, in the words of the Committee.

I'm not even going to get into the naivety of the whole "Why wouldn't someone give a hostile committee anything they ask for when they're trying to string you up for political gain? Must be a cover-up!" bit.

Edited, Jun 23rd 2012 2:22pm by Jophiel

Gbaji's been making ham-handed attempts to "shame" me into agreeing for over a decade. Ask him how well it's been going.

I think that was the cover story for Lewinsky as well. Well, if Plan A didn't get you the political score you wanted, you can always declare a cover-up and hope to win in overtime, right?

Rather than me debating point A while you say you meant point B, if you'd like to lay out your best case for a cover up this would be the time.

None of that was detailed to be worth responding to. You're of course welcome to not elaborate but there's nothing there to work with when all you're saying is "He lied!"

About what? When? How was it a lie? What was the evidence? If Holder knew about F&F throughout its operation in the capacity you claim, why aren't the documents from the time of the operation sufficient to show this? Wrongfully invokes EP according to who? Republicans? Because no one else has actually ruled on it yet outside of the GOP court of opinion. Do you really think Issa should be the sole determiner of what Issa gets to see?

And, yes, I'm aware Holder has changed some statements and issued retractions. That's why I'm asking for details. If you think something was a straight lie rather than an oversight or mistake over the course of numerous hearings and 7,000+ documents, you should be able to back it up. Or choose not to back it up but you can't expect anyone to care about your little "party line" remarks while you're essentially reciting Freeper posts.



Edited, Jun 23rd 2012 7:47pm by Jophiel

Thought so. I wouldn't want to make you work for your name-calling

I've noticed that the double post protection doesn't work for squat on my Android devices.

This is only true on an emotional level. Legally (and emotionally) it's like asserting the Fifth: people tend to assume guilty knowledge when in fact that assumption is supposed to be discounted (jurors, for example, are instructed to disregard a witness pleading the Fifth). Executive Privilege is intended to protect ongoing operations and procedure that it would be dangerous to release.

The first President to assert Executive Privilege was George Washington. Clearly guilty of partisan shenanigans, he was.

As far as I'm aware, contempt votes have to follow pretty much the same process as bills. Last I heard the contempt vote was in committee and was expected to pass. Not that any of you will admit he lied even if he gets held in contempt. It will just be a Republican witch hunt.

As far as what Issa thinks might be there, had Holder just turned over the requested documents like he is legally bound to do, there wouldn't be any speculation.

The executive privelege is supposed to apply only to the president, not cabinet members or anybody else Obama wants to put that umbrella over. Obama stated publicly recently that he heard about F&F on TV not too long ago, therefore none of the documents from last year can apply to him and executive privelege would not apply.

I'm not even trying to claim that Holder was personally involved in the F&F operation. I am claiming that he lied about when he found out about it and is not trying to cover his *** by not turning over documents that may have proof of that lie. Even if they don't have proof, the Oversight committee is still entitled to review them.

Oh, and earlier Gbaji was trying to list all of the times Obama just thumbed his nose at the law. He forgot appointing Hillary as Secretary of State, a position which she is not legally allowed to hold right now. But with everything else he's done, no reason why something minor like that should be remembered.

Also, sorry about the double posts. I have no clue what's going on with them because I am hitting post 1 time and then alt-tabbing to something else. I have been having some strange interwebz problems lately, maybe this is just another one of those.

I know you're not implying I was, but I was never a birther. My opinion as that if there was dirt like that to find on Obama the Clintons would have found it during the primaries. However, I do believe anybody who wants to run for president should be required to produce their birth certificate.

Secretary of State had a salary increase in 2008 while Clinton was a senator. The usual fix is that the person's salary is lowered to what it was before the increase, and that's what happened here as well, but apparently it has never really been ruled on and some people are saying that it shouldn't be allowed.

Edited, Jun 24th 2012 8:34pm by Siesen