DC Tom Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Didn't Eric Holder say in a May 2011 appearance before Congress that he first became aware of F&F a few weeks prior? So, if it was shut down in January of 2011, how can he claim credit for shutting it down? Just wondering if he's incompetent or just a liar. Same way Obama takes credit for killing bin Laden, or Bush takes credit for...something, I'm not sure what. Or Clinton takes credit for a budget "surplus". Their ass is in the chair when it happens. I have some doubts Holder's the one that ordered it shut down - fact of the matter is, a lot of times senior government people have underlings doing **** in their name that they don't know about (but are responsible for). I see it about once a week, at levels only about once or twice removed from Holder's (call it once-and-a-half). I also suspect that's in the documents they're not turning over. I also suspect that the Congresscritters know that, and know that Holder's responsibility is only nominal, since these tasks were delegated. And said Congresscritters are salivating in anticipation of the "gotcha" moment when the briefing that "Holder" had (which in fact was just sent to his office and archived, and never saw - I see that daily, at many levels) predates his claimed knowledge by several months. 'Cause that's just how the government works. Welcome to the reason Obama's "transparency" was never going to fly...there was no way in hell his goodwill was overcoming all the bureaucratic inertia of the government's procedural flustercluck.
Doc Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Incompetent, lying, being disingenuous, what have you, Holder's claims that it was a new program that he shut down (before he knew of it) provide a lot of rope with which to hang him.
DC Tom Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Incompetent, lying, being disingenuous, what have you, Holder's claims that it was a new program that he shut down (before he knew of it) provide a lot of rope with which to hang him. Which is why they don't want Congress to see the documents. At best, the documentary evidence makes Holder look like an incompetent fool.
3rdnlng Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Which is why they don't want Congress to see the documents. At best, the documentary evidence makes Holder look like an incompetent fool. This is why they just should have come clean in the first place. They could have limited this to a bunch of lower level people f'n up a plan by higher ups that could have worked. There wouldn't be any real legal ramifications and the schitstorm would have amounted to a sprinkle. I really think that Holder lied, under oath to Congress, and should be held accountable. It's the arrogance thing that really pisses me off.
dayman Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 This is why they just should have come clean in the first place. They could have limited this to a bunch of lower level people f'n up a plan by higher ups that could have worked. There wouldn't be any real legal ramifications and the schitstorm would have amounted to a sprinkle. I really think that Holder lied, under oath to Congress, and should be held accountable. It's the arrogance thing that really pisses me off. Nobody EVER just "gives" the documents ... EVER ...
3rdnlng Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Nobody EVER just "gives" the documents ... EVER ... You're fighting a losing cause. Like I said, Holder should have admitted the problems in the first place. If he had done that, then there would have been no reason to lie to Congress. He chose to lie and now it's a schitstorm. Lying, under oath to Congress is a felony. I would think that the Attorney General would know that. It's his arrogance that will do him in.
DC Tom Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 This is why they just should have come clean in the first place. They could have limited this to a bunch of lower level people f'n up a plan by higher ups that could have worked. There wouldn't be any real legal ramifications and the schitstorm would have amounted to a sprinkle. I really think that Holder lied, under oath to Congress, and should be held accountable. It's the arrogance thing that really pisses me off. It is entirely possible he didn't know enough to tell anything, but made **** up rather than look like a complete fool in front of a hearing (looking foolish in Congressional hearings is a right strictly held by Congresscritters, who ask stupid **** like "Won't Guam capsize if we make the base larger?") I'm trying to thing what would happen if my current project went pear-shaped (and by the way - yes, I do have specific instructions for retention of documentation in case the project goes sideways and testimony is required in front of a Congressional hearing. If I'm called to testify - highly unlikely - I'll let y'all know so you can record the hilarity.) If my highest-up muckety-mucks were called to the carpet for a program failure...yeah, they probably wouldn't be fully informed of even the existence of specific projects and operations until well after those projects blew up. (In fact, on reflection, I know that's true. I can think of two specific, current examples.) The muckety-mucks would be forced to either admit ignorance ("You can't control your own department?!?!?!") or temporize ("You lied to Congress!!!!!") At least, if Romney's elected, my project will span administrations. So if my project does collapse, the Republicans and Democrats will be too busy blaming Obama and Romney respectively to investigate any real, actual issues like "So what the !@#$ happened, exactly?"
dayman Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) You're fighting a losing cause. Like I said, Holder should have admitted the problems in the first place. If he had done that, then there would have been no reason to lie to Congress. He chose to lie and now it's a schitstorm. Lying, under oath to Congress is a felony. I would think that the Attorney General would know that. It's his arrogance that will do him in. Let's make a deal...if Holder is convicted of purgery I'll leave PPP forever...if it is not proven he lied before Congress you leave. Easiest way to exile you from your home ... Congressional subpoena power over the executive for purposes of oversight just isn't that powerful plain and simple. If Congress wants to stick their nose up everybody's asses then let them try but don't get all defensive when it's clear they're out of control and out of political blood. The gov't is not one giant gov't and internal processes and deliberations of particular agencies are protected for reasonable justificationtions. Edited June 22, 2012 by TheNewBills
DC Tom Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Let's make a deal...if Holder is convicted of purgery I'll leave PPP forever...if it is not proven he lied before Congress you leave. Easiest way to exile you from your home ... Congressional subpoena power over the executive for purposes of oversight just isn't that powerful plain and simple. If Congress wants to stick their nose up everybody's asses then let them try but don't get all defensive when it's clear they're out of control and out of political blood. You should be banned just for that gross butchering of "perjury".
dayman Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) At least, if Romney's elected, my project will span administrations. So if my project does collapse, the Republicans and Democrats will be too busy blaming Obama and Romney respectively to investigate any real, actual issues like "So what the !@#$ happened, exactly?" In some rare instance where there would be no political gain either way nobody in Congress would care it would be left to the exec to clean it up as their mess. You should be banned just for that gross butchering of "perjury". perjury lol ... !@#$ing after the deadline wow .... 3rd party auto edit failing me? I must have misspelled it to begin with but that isn't even a word to change to...damn just missed another error...per this edit AND...it's not on...so I just spelled it that way to begin with haha !@#$ you Tom *activate after the deadline* haha Edited June 22, 2012 by TheNewBills
3rdnlng Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Let's make a deal...if Holder is convicted of purgery I'll leave PPP forever...if it is not proven he lied before Congress you leave. Easiest way to exile you from your home ... Congressional subpoena power over the executive for purposes of oversight just isn't that powerful plain and simple. If Congress wants to stick their nose up everybody's asses then let them try but don't get all defensive when it's clear they're out of control and out of political blood. The gov't is not one giant gov't and internal processes and deliberations of particular agencies are protected for reasonable justificationtions. Wow, you want to make a bet that will be determined by whether or not Congress follows the law rigidly or compromises and makes a settlement? F off rookie. Why don't you answer my questions to you concerning Scooter Libby? Edited June 22, 2012 by 3rdnlng
dayman Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Wow, you want to make a bet that will be determined by wether or not Congress follows the law rigidly or compromises and makes a settlement? F off rookie. Why don't you answer my questions to you concerning Scooter Libby? LOL b/c what should be rhetorical questions off topic deserve no response. <br>
3rdnlng Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 LOL b/c what should be rhetorical questions off topic deserve no response. <br> Just wondering, is it easy to get over castration?
3rdnlng Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 IDK was RI Bills Fan gentle? He had his ass handed to him, and out of a lack of respect, I'm not going further.
dayman Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 He had his ass handed to him, and out of a lack of respect, I'm not going further. RI Bills owns you
B-Man Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 Dr. Charles Krauthammer on the announcement yesterday that the administration will assert executive privilege to keep certain Department of Justice documents from disclosure to Congress: "And it has several immediate effects. The first is there is no way that the mainstream media, which have studiously tried to ignore this, can do that anymore. In fact, NBC, which has shown exactly 10 seconds of coverage of this [Fast and Furious] on the evening news in the last year-and-a-half, is now going to have to explain the whole thing — since the viewership has no idea what it’s about. So, number one, it becomes a huge national issue. Secondly, it involves the president. Not that he was involved in the actual communications, but he is the one that has to issue… the claim of executive privilege. Once he does that, clearly he is connected…. Nobody is saying it was… communications with the president which are now being protected. It’s being claimed on a second level of “executive deliberation,” meaning something happened inside the Justice Department. On the importance of investigating Fast and Furious: "What makes what would ordinarily be — and there are many — ordinary Washington scandals, potential cover-ups, into a tragedy is that there are [allegedly] two American agents, honorable men in the service of their country, who are dead in part at least as a result of this operation. So I think it gives added valence, emotional impact. When the family says we want to know, it does make the administration look like it’s covering up. Remember, the documents that it is refusing to reveal — the Justice Department itself says are not documents about the operation [Fast and Furious itself] but about the communication within the Department [of Justice] on how to respond to the investigation — which sounds like cover-up." On the political fallout of the escalating Fast and Furious investigation: "I think A.B. touched upon the disconnect between what Democrats said about this kind of investigation under Bush and what they are saying now. There is a second one, more recent disconnect, which is in the Holder statement — he says: I’ve cooperated with the request [for documents], except that I won’t make disclosures that would endanger the American people or agents in the field. Well, this is an administration that has just leaked everything you want to know about Stuxnet, the secret war against Iran, just leaked details about the drone war, the double agent in Yemen — including, this morning in the Washington Post, [disclosures about] the Flame virus, the other one [cyber attack] now active. It’s not a leak, but a flood. What does all that [public disclosure of foreign policy secrets] have in common? It’s a way to show how strong and assertive this administration is in foreign affairs. This [Fast and Furious] might show negatively on the administration. That is the only difference. If it’s national security, then they have no regard for secrets — and here [with Fast and Furious] all of a sudden they are extremely guarded."
3rdnlng Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 RI Bills owns you Nice, original. When you guys can't hang, you resort to bs. I view you as someone that is all hyperbole. You've never had and never will be stand-up. You've got nothing, one more time, "conservatives bad".
dayman Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 The honorable Charles Krauthammer keeping it real as always. Straight shooter that guy.
erynthered Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 You should be banned just for that gross butchering of "perjury". You're funny. You bust his chops on that and yet two posts up you wrote this. I'm trying to thing what would happen if my current project went pear-shaped (and by the way - yes, I do have specific instructions for retention of documentation in case the project goes sideways and testimony is required in front of a Congressional hearing. Really? :lol: :lol: I'm trying to thing what would happen if my current project went pear-shaped (and by the way - yes, I do have specific instructions for retention of documentation in case the project goes sideways and testimony is required in front of a Congressional hearing.
Recommended Posts