Thought the Obama admin. was supposed to be transparent?

Apparently not when it comes to Fast & Furious.

SOURCE

Congress has been trying to investigate this thing for the past year and have had nothing but trouble from Holder and the Obama administration. Pretty shameful. Holder says the documents Issa wants are harmless, but then why would the Obama admin. claim executive privilege?

Watergate II?

(lol)

Sure? He is like every other candidate?

Eric Holder is a f***ing disgrace to America. Didn't he also swear an oath to uphold the constitution? He's been spitting on it for more than a year now.

Eric Holder is a f***ing disgrace to America. Didn't he also swear an oath to uphold the constitution? He's been spitting on it for more than a year now.

BossPerson

He's a disgrace to the Obama admin., not America. He's a pretty clear liar.

Key details on this: 1. This is the first time EVER in his presidency that Obama has invoked executive privilege, something that was VERY common during Bush's term in office. 2. Holder has already turned over thousands of pages and no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Obama Administration has been found. Keep in mind, this whole "Fast and Furious" thing began UNDER BUSH IN 2006. 3. Justice Department documents are not subject to Congressional subpoena if they would reveal strategies and procedures that could be used by individuals seeking to evade [DOJs] law enforcement efforts. 4. Which is something that Ronald freaking Reagan's Justice Department agreed with back in 1980. 5. Issa has refused to call Bush era Attorney General Michael Mukasey to testify, even though, again, this entire thing began under his watch. Link 6. Instead, he has accused President Obama of using this crisis to somehow take everyone's guns away. [quote="Congressman Issa"] Very clearly, they've made a crisis and they're using this crisis to somehow take away or limit people's second amendment rights nocoolnamejim

Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of California have decided to slow Rep. Darrell Issas drive to hold the attorney general in contempt over the controversial Fast and Furious program, a move that could infuriate conservatives who have been calling for Holders resignation. The delay could be a month or even longer, according to lawmakers and aides familiar with the issue. Some within House GOP leadership circles would like Issa to abandon his plan for a committee and floor vote, which was sparked by a 64-page memo last week, which laid out the case for contempt. They fear negative political fallout from citing the U.S. attorney general with contempt of Congress in an election year. Politico

If the documents that they want are harmless they should be turned over.

Secondly, it's only a witch hunt because you're an Obama supporter. You wouldn't be calling it a witch hunt if this was being directed at a Republican president. This is all because of Holder lying. To call it a witch hunt is to disregard EVERYTHING that the Justice department has done to impede the progress of this investigation.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Eric Holder is a f***ing disgrace to America. Didn't he also swear an oath to uphold the constitution? He's been spitting on it for more than a year now.

airshocker

He's a disgrace to the Obama admin., not America. He's a pretty clear liar.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Key details on this: 1. This is the first time EVER in his presidency that Obama has invoked executive privilege, something that was VERY common during Bush's term in office. 2. Holder has already turned over thousands of pages and no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Obama Administration has been found. Keep in mind, this whole "Fast and Furious" thing began UNDER BUSH IN 2006. 3. Justice Department documents are not subject to Congressional subpoena if they would reveal strategies and procedures that could be used by individuals seeking to evade [DOJs] law enforcement efforts. 4. Which is something that Ronald freaking Reagan's Justice Department agreed with back in 1980. 5. Issa has refused to call Bush era Attorney General Michael Mukasey to testify, even though, again, this entire thing began under his watch. Link 6. Instead, he has accused President Obama of using this crisis to somehow take everyone's guns away. [quote="Congressman Issa"] Very clearly, they've made a crisis and they're using this crisis to somehow take away or limit people's second amendment rights airshocker

Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of California have decided to slow Rep. Darrell Issas drive to hold the attorney general in contempt over the controversial Fast and Furious program, a move that could infuriate conservatives who have been calling for Holders resignation. The delay could be a month or even longer, according to lawmakers and aides familiar with the issue. Some within House GOP leadership circles would like Issa to abandon his plan for a committee and floor vote, which was sparked by a 64-page memo last week, which laid out the case for contempt. They fear negative political fallout from citing the U.S. attorney general with contempt of Congress in an election year. Politico

If the documents that they want are harmless they should be turned over.

Secondly, it's only a witch hunt because you're an Obama supporter. You wouldn't be calling it a witch hunt if this was being directed at a Republican president. This is all because of Holder lying. To call it a witch hunt is to disregard EVERYTHING that the Justice department has done to impede the progress of this investigation.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Key details on this: 1. This is the first time EVER in his presidency that Obama has invoked executive privilege, something that was VERY common during Bush's term in office. 2. Holder has already turned over thousands of pages and no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Obama Administration has been found. Keep in mind, this whole "Fast and Furious" thing began UNDER BUSH IN 2006. 3. Justice Department documents are not subject to Congressional subpoena if they would reveal strategies and procedures that could be used by individuals seeking to evade [DOJs] law enforcement efforts. 4. Which is something that Ronald freaking Reagan's Justice Department agreed with back in 1980. 5. Issa has refused to call Bush era Attorney General Michael Mukasey to testify, even though, again, this entire thing began under his watch. Link 6. Instead, he has accused President Obama of using this crisis to somehow take everyone's guns away. [quote="Congressman Issa"] Very clearly, they've made a crisis and they're using this crisis to somehow take away or limit people's second amendment rights airshocker

Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of California have decided to slow Rep. Darrell Issas drive to hold the attorney general in contempt over the controversial Fast and Furious program, a move that could infuriate conservatives who have been calling for Holders resignation. The delay could be a month or even longer, according to lawmakers and aides familiar with the issue. Some within House GOP leadership circles would like Issa to abandon his plan for a committee and floor vote, which was sparked by a 64-page memo last week, which laid out the case for contempt. They fear negative political fallout from citing the U.S. attorney general with contempt of Congress in an election year. Politico

If the documents that they want are harmless they should be turned over.

Secondly, it's only a witch hunt because you're an Obama supporter. You wouldn't be calling it a witch hunt if this was being directed at a Republican president. This is all because of Holder lying. To call it a witch hunt is to disregard EVERYTHING that the Justice department has done to impede the progress of this investigation.

No I'd say he's a disgrace to America, unless you don't care about indefinite detentions and assassinating US citizens and warrant-less wiretaps, yada yadaBossPerson

No, I don't particularly care that American citizens who have become terrorists are being killed. Or indefinite detentions to enemies of this country.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]No I'd say he's a disgrace to America, unless you don't care about indefinite detentions and assassinating US citizens and warrant-less wiretaps, yada yadaairshocker

No, I don't particularly care that American citizens who have become terrorists are being killed. Or indefinite detentions to enemies of this country.

#Obama2012

#YOLO

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]No I'd say he's a disgrace to America, unless you don't care about indefinite detentions and assassinating US citizens and warrant-less wiretaps, yada yadaairshocker

No, I don't particularly care that American citizens who have become terrorists are being killed. Or indefinite detentions to enemies of this country.

You missed the part of my post where I pointed out that Justice Department documents are not subject to Congressional subpoena "if they would reveal strategies and procedures that could be used by individuals seeking to evade [DOJs] law enforcement efforts." Let me ask you this...would you bend over and accept an anal cavity search for cocaine? If you've got nothing to hide then what's the problem? What, exactly, has the Justice Department done to impede the progress of the investigation? What's the basis for the contempt charge? nocoolnamejim

If the documents being subpoenaed will help further the investigation they should be released to Congress. It's not like they're releasing this to the American people.

I wouldn't, but I haven't lied. Nor have I done anything to warrant any suspicion.

Holder has lied, and the Justice Department has redacted documents to the point where they're almost worthless. That's obstruction, and if you can't see that you're simply being partisan.

Then you dont object to orwellian legislation that essentially turns america into a police state in the name of finding enemies of this countryDroidPhysX

Sure I do.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]You missed the part of my post where I pointed out that Justice Department documents are not subject to Congressional subpoena "if they would reveal strategies and procedures that could be used by individuals seeking to evade [DOJs] law enforcement efforts." Let me ask you this...would you bend over and accept an anal cavity search for cocaine? If you've got nothing to hide then what's the problem? What, exactly, has the Justice Department done to impede the progress of the investigation? What's the basis for the contempt charge? airshocker

If the documents being subpoenaed will help further the investigation they should be released to Congress. It's not like they're releasing this to the American people.

I wouldn't, but I haven't lied. Nor have I done anything to warrant any suspicion.

Holder has lied, and the Justice Department has redacted documents to the point where they're almost worthless. That's obstruction, and if you can't see that you're simply being partisan.

I can't see it because you haven't shown it. I asked you what the grounds for the contempt case are. What has Holder lied about? What has he obstructed?nocoolnamejim

What has he lied about? Are you kidding? Not only about this, but he lied about talking with Obama about Fast and Furious, as this executive privilege seems to suggest.

Secondly, if I type this to you " ... Jim is a silly liberal ... " you would probably want to know what else was redacted, right? Well, what if it turned out that I actually said this: "I don't believe Jim is a silly liberal, though I tend to disagree with him a lot." So don't pretend to me like redacting documents isn't obstruction. It is and you know it.

Transparent? I hope your not getting at race here.

Transparent? I hope your not getting at race here.

Sedin44

Are you joking?

Oh look...Holder has just RETRACTED even more of his testimony.

Yeah, not a liar at all, Jim.

Also, Jim. Congress is apparently allowed every scrap of paper in order to make government accountable and transparent, according to Bruce Fein.

Very clearly, they've made a crisis and they're using this crisis to somehow take away or limit people's second amendment rights nocoolnamejim

Lawl, "they took r gunz!" Seems to be a recurring Republican theme, even though President Obama has shown absolutley no signs of moving against gun ownership at all. An ATF sting? He's trying to take guns away? Pretty big reach, there.

I don't know why you thought he would be transparent.

Airshocker: I'm throwing out that Daily Caller link. You know as well as I that you may as well just cite Rush Limbaugh for the credibility that site has. Your other sources are some random Youtube video and a conservative lawyer who works for the Heritage Foundation. You're very incredulous that I am questioning your belief that Holder is a liar and that the obstruction/contempt case is a slam dunk. If it is that obvious, then why is the GOP leadership suggesting Issa give up and move on and why don't you have any mainstream sources reporting on the obvious case that you claim Issa has? Partially redacted documents are incredibly common. Admittedly, I'm a silly liberal...but so far I'm not seeing a great deal of counter-evidence to that long list of sources and the argument I made earlier. nocoolnamejim

Since it's been corroborated by Fox News, and the Daily Caller was the only link I could find to back up my statement, I think it's fair to use. It's not opinion, it's fact. If it were opinion, I would agree with you.

Secondly, I don't think the opinion of a constitutional lawyer can be so discounted, especially one who has criticized all recent administrations.

Anderson Cooper on CNN also corroborated the very first retraction that the DOJ made.

Redacted documents suggest there is something to hide. Sometimes justifiably, but considering this is Congress trying to investigate a wrong-doing by government, I will err on the side that they're hiding something they did wrong.

Let me guess - Rep. Issa is up for re-election this year?

Repeat after me it is the Gorge W. Obama Administration.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Airshocker: I'm throwing out that Daily Caller link. You know as well as I that you may as well just cite Rush Limbaugh for the credibility that site has. Your other sources are some random Youtube video and a conservative lawyer who works for the Heritage Foundation. You're very incredulous that I am questioning your belief that Holder is a liar and that the obstruction/contempt case is a slam dunk. If it is that obvious, then why is the GOP leadership suggesting Issa give up and move on and why don't you have any mainstream sources reporting on the obvious case that you claim Issa has? Partially redacted documents are incredibly common. Admittedly, I'm a silly liberal...but so far I'm not seeing a great deal of counter-evidence to that long list of sources and the argument I made earlier. airshocker

Since it's been corroborated by Fox News, and the Daily Caller was the only link I could find to back up my statement, I think it's fair to use. It's not opinion, it's fact. If it were opinion, I would agree with you.

Secondly, I don't think the opinion of a constitutional lawyer can be so discounted, especially one who has criticized all recent administrations.

Anderson Cooper on CNN also corroborated the very first retraction that the DOJ made.

Redacted documents suggest there is something to hide. Sometimes justifiably, but considering this is Congress trying to investigate a wrong-doing by government, I will err on the side that they're hiding something they did wrong.

I thought that congress should only be focusing on the economy airshocker. -Sun_Tzu-

There's an economy airshocker?

Sounds bad. What's it do?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I thought that congress should only be focusing on the economy airshocker. Necrifer

There's an economy airshocker?

Sounds bad. What's it do?

Although this is Obama's first time claiming executive privelege, it says Bush used it 6 times and Clinton 14, so I guess its not that unusual of an occurence.

I thought that congress should only be focusing on the economy airshocker. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Necrifer"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]I thought that congress should only be focusing on the economy airshocker. -Sun_Tzu-

There's an economy airshocker?

Sounds bad. What's it do?

no u

Although this is Obama's first time claiming executive privelege, it says Bush used it 6 times and Clinton 14, so I guess its not that unusual of an occurence.

TacticalDesire

I thought that congress should only be focusing on the economy airshocker. -Sun_Tzu-

so why does this matter Airshocker? There's an economy to fix afterall.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I can't see it because you haven't shown it. I asked you what the grounds for the contempt case are. What has Holder lied about? What has he obstructed?airshocker

What has he lied about? Are you kidding? Not only about this, but he lied about talking with Obama about Fast and Furious, as this executive privilege seems to suggest.

Secondly, if I type this to you " ... Jim is a silly liberal ... " you would probably want to know what else was redacted, right? Well, what if it turned out that I actually said this: "I don't believe Jim is a silly liberal, though I tend to disagree with him a lot." So don't pretend to me like redacting documents isn't obstruction. It is and you know it.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Very clearly, they've made a crisis and they're using this crisis to somehow take away or limit people's second amendment rights theone86

Lawl, "they took r gunz!" Seems to be a recurring Republican theme, even though President Obama has shown absolutley no signs of moving against gun ownership at all. An ATF sting? He's trying to take guns away? Pretty big reach, there.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Airshocker: I'm throwing out that Daily Caller link. You know as well as I that you may as well just cite Rush Limbaugh for the credibility that site has. Your other sources are some random Youtube video and a conservative lawyer who works for the Heritage Foundation. You're very incredulous that I am questioning your belief that Holder is a liar and that the obstruction/contempt case is a slam dunk. If it is that obvious, then why is the GOP leadership suggesting Issa give up and move on and why don't you have any mainstream sources reporting on the obvious case that you claim Issa has? Partially redacted documents are incredibly common. Admittedly, I'm a silly liberal...but so far I'm not seeing a great deal of counter-evidence to that long list of sources and the argument I made earlier. nocoolnamejim

Since it's been corroborated by Fox News, and the Daily Caller was the only link I could find to back up my statement, I think it's fair to use. It's not opinion, it's fact. If it were opinion, I would agree with you.

Secondly, I don't think the opinion of a constitutional lawyer can be so discounted, especially one who has criticized all recent administrations.

Anderson Cooper on CNN also corroborated the very first retraction that the DOJ made.

Redacted documents suggest there is something to hide. Sometimes justifiably, but considering this is Congress trying to investigate a wrong-doing by government, I will err on the side that they're hiding something they did wrong.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Very clearly, they've made a crisis and they're using this crisis to somehow take away or limit people's second amendment rights kraychik

Lawl, "they took r gunz!" Seems to be a recurring Republican theme, even though President Obama has shown absolutley no signs of moving against gun ownership at all. An ATF sting? He's trying to take guns away? Pretty big reach, there.

Oh, are you still talking?

Leftists? Transparent?

*laughs out loud*