Page 19 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 283

Thread: House holds holder in contempt [W:140

  1. #181
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: House holds holder in contempt [W:140

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Hmm...

    It appears, that yet again, you are incorrect.
    The fact that he has immunity does not mean that he didn't commit the crime, genius. It just means that he can't be prosecuted for the crime.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  2. #182
    Debate MMA
    Prof. Peabody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    07-30-12 @ 11:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,361

    Re: House holds holder in contempt [W:140

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Hmm...

    It appears, that yet again, you are incorrect.
    According to the letter, the wiretap applications contained a startling amount of detail about the operation, which would have tipped off anyone who read them closely about what tactics were being used.
    What's the point? If the operation is shut down for good, tipping them off to the tactics is moot. They just don't get it, there will be prosecutions over this.
    "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

  3. #183
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: House holds holder in contempt [W:140

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    The fact that he has immunity does not mean that he didn't commit the crime, genius. It just means that he can't be prosecuted for the crime.
    Spin spin spin... took you a long time to come up with that huge jump. What he did IS . NOT . A . CRIME .

    That pesky old constitution getting in your way again eh?
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  4. #184
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: House holds holder in contempt [W:140

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Spin spin spin... took you a long time to come up with that huge jump. What he did IS . NOT . A . CRIME .

    That pesky old constitution getting in your way again eh?
    It is a crime. Denying reality is not a good argument
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  5. #185
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: House holds holder in contempt [W:140

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post
    What's the point? If the operation is shut down for good, tipping them off to the tactics is moot. They just don't get it, there will be prosecutions over this.
    Issa has requested a warehouse full of documents. Obviously those documents will have information about much more than FF.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  6. #186
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: House holds holder in contempt [W:140

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Denying reality is not a good argument
    Then why do you do it so often?
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  7. #187
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: House holds holder in contempt [W:140

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Then why do you do it so often?


    123456789
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  8. #188
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: House holds holder in contempt [W:140

    Holding the head of the DOJ in contempt was a foolish notion from the start. I mean, really...how do the people who write the laws (Congress) hold the chief judicial department head charge with defending the law in contempt? What's he going to do? Prosecute himself? Oh, and there's this...

    "Justice Department won't pursue case against Holder"
    By NBC's Pete Williams
    As expected, the Justice [Department] has informed Congress that the U.S. attorney will not prosecute Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt, despite Thursday's House vote.

    "The longstanding position of the Department of Justice has been and remains that we will not prosecute an executive branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege," says Deputy Attorney General James Cole in a letter to the House speaker, John Boehner.

    The letter notes that during the Reagan administration, DOJ took the position that the contempt statute could not constitutionally be applied to an official who asserts the president's claim of executive privilege. That policy was first articulated in a memo written by Ted Olson when he was at DOJ in 1984.

    Cole writes that the position has been asserted several times since then, most recently during the Bush administration in 2008.

  9. #189
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: House holds holder in contempt [W:140

    Bottom Line: Congress has never really had the authority to hold the Attorney General in contempt. Per the Constitution, Congress can impeach Federal Judges, i.e., members of the Supreme Court, U.S. District Courts or U.S. Federal Courts of Appeal and even the Atty Gen but only for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors". What crime has Atty Gen. Holder been charge with exactly?

    Lying under oath? No, that's not what he's been charge with by Sen. Issa.

    Withholding federal documents? He's given up over 7,000 pages of documents since this House investigation began and still Issa couldn't find any conclusive evidence that Holder has committed treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.

    Failure to cooperate with Congress? No more than any other member of the Executive Branch has done in the past.

    Of course, the counter argument will be (or has been) that DOJ wouldn't disclose the information Issa and others believes Holder purposely withheld that possibly held the smoking gun they believed would have convicted him of wrong-doing, but my contension has long been that if Congress couldn't put together even the most circumstantial of evidence based on the documents they did have, how were they going to bring about a tougher charge other than holding him in contempt which really amounts to absolutely nothing except to say, "Well, at least we got him on something". Really? Is that all you really got?

    Congress (Rep. Issa): "Atty Gen. Eric Holder, because we, Congress (or more specific, GOP House members) believe you haven't played by our rules and giving us the information - no, evidence - we need to convict you of violating the law, we're just gonna hold you in contempt of Congress to atleast claim we won a procedural political victory. NAH, HAH, NAH, NAH, NAH! We gotcha now!...found another way to embarrass the Obama Administration."

    Only you forgot that your own Republican executives of the past hide behind executive privilege, too, making it impossible for a Judge or the Atty Gen to be charged with violating the Constitution unless he has committed treason, a high crime (i.e., a felony) or misdemeanors.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 06-30-12 at 12:18 PM.

  10. #190
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: House holds holder in contempt [W:140

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Bottom Line: Congress has never really had the authority to hold the Attorney General in contempt. Per the Constitution, Congress can impeach Federal Judges, i.e., members of the Supreme Court, U.S. District Courts or U.S. Federal Courts of Appeal and even the Atty Gen but only for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors".
    Well, as has been noted, Congress holds the authority to investigate, and hold oversight of Federal departments appointed by the President, and under his authority, including the Office of the President.

    In that capacity, if a dept head like the little FALN terrorist sympathizer Holder refuses to cooperate with that investigation there are a myriad of charges, and measures that can happen. Contempt is but one thing that can, and did happen. Now, there are two different types of contempt. Criminal, which was passed, but now ignored by the arrogant Holder, and his DoJ, which was predicted. And, Civil, which will be pressed by Congress in court. That means a Judge will have to look at the documents that Holder won't produce, and decide whether or not EP applies, or is just another smoke screen.

    What crime has Atty Gen. Holder been charge with exactly?

    Lying under oath? No, that's not what he's been charge with by Sen. Issa.
    He hasn't been charged with any crime.......Yet.

    Withholding federal documents? He's given up over 7,000 pages of documents since this House investigation began and still Issa couldn't find any conclusive evidence that Holder has committed treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.
    There are estimates that there are between 80,000 to 130,000 documents involved with F&F, you really think that 7,000 documents is full cooperation, when many were totally redacted to the point where Issa said 'You might as well have just sent over a blank ream of paper...'?

    Plus, since when does the one being investigated get to tell the investigator what he is allowed to look at?

    Failure to cooperate with Congress? No more than any other member of the Executive Branch has done in the past.
    I see, so it's ok as long as its been done in the past eh? What happened to the "Most transparent administration in history"?

    Of course, the counter argument will be (or has been) that DOJ wouldn't disclose the information Issa and others believes Holder purposely withheld that possibly held the smoking gun they believed would have convicted him of wrong-doing, but my contension has long been that if Congress couldn't put together even the most circumstantial of evidence based on the documents they did have, how were they going to bring about a tougher charge other than holding him in contempt which really amounts to absolutely nothing except to say, "Well, at least we got him on something". Really? Is that all you really got?
    You know, I remember arguing the Plame thing back in the Bush Administration, and demo's dreaming of seeing Cheney, or Rove " "frog marched" in handcuff's across the WH lawn. Fitztgerald, even though he knew who the "leaker" of Plame was early on, David Armitage, he pressed on and jailed 'Scooter' Liby on process charges of perjury, after conflicting statements.

    Now, fast forward to today, and you argue that nothing should be done here? really?

    Congress (Rep. Issa): "Atty Gen. Eric Holder, because we, Congress (or more specific, GOP House members) believe you haven't played by our rules and giving us the information - no, evidence - we need to convict you of violating the law, we're just gonna hold you in contempt of Congress to atleast claim we won a procedural political victory. NAH, HAH, NAH, NAH, NAH! We gotcha now!...found another way to embarrass the Obama Administration."
    Like it or not, process charges are how Washington DC works, in that town dominated by lawyers. What you seem to be arguing here is that the committee in charge of oversight of DoJ, is not allowed to ask to see anything that DoJ doesn't want them to see...What kind of oversight is that?

    Only you forgot that your own Republican executives of the past hide behind executive privilege, too, making it impossible for a Judge or the Atty Gen to be charged with violating the Constitution unless he has committed treason, a high crime (i.e., a felony) or misdemeanors.
    The President, is not a King, and Holder is bound by oversight, like it or not, the committee charged with overseeing the DoJ has every right to get to the bottom of this regardless of whom it makes look bad, including Holder, or now Obama himself.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 19 of 29 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •