What is Obama hiding now?

[Guest]

Like his bud Eric Holder, guess he's not so keen on getting to the bottom of Fast-n-Furious... at least before the election. What are they hiding now?

[Guest]

You must be referring to his electing today to exercise "executive privilege" to not have requested documents released to the investigators.

Obama, his WH spinners and blindly loyal supporters will no doubt point out to us how he is doing something good for America by concealing now more information.

I can't wait to see/hear how this decision to withhold information gets sanitized.

btk

[Guest]

Like his bud Eric Holder, guess he's not so keen on getting to the bottom of Fast-n-Furious... at least before the election. What are they hiding now?

He railed against Bush for executive privilege while a senator...I mean he was insulting about it. He talked about how he does not get how anyone can do that, of course that is bunk....but how we need total transparency and honesty.

This is a man who does this all the time over and over......I beg the Republicans to have the ^@##! to make character a central issue of this campaign but I don't think they have the nerve !

[Guest]

Let me go ahead and add his quote for the record.

“There’s been a tendency on the part this administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there’s something a little shaky that’s taking place,” Obama said, referring to the Bush administration. “And I think that the administration would be better served by coming clean on this.”

[Guest]

He is from Chicago, What did you expect. He is only doing what he was bred for.

This is yet another reason we need him to be unemployed. He is a bad man doing bad things to our country. He always has a reason why when he does something it was for a good reason and is all part of the plan.
I don't want his plan and in context like Rush got hammered for "I want him to fail" when it comes to his plan.

They have to be hiding something. There is no up side to blocking this info.

[Guest]

This was President Obama's first use of "Executive Privilige" since being elected three and a half years ago, compared to George W Bush's six time, Bill Clinton's 14 times and Ronald Reagan's 20 plus times. FYI

[Guest]

This was President Obama's first use of "Executive Privilige" since being elected three and a half years ago, compared to George W Bush's six time, Bill Clinton's 14 times and Ronald Reagan's 20 plus times. FYI

Did any of those folks make fun of their predecessor and make fun of the actual process of executive privilege ? You always seems to forget what this man says before he does things ! He used this issue as a campaign point !

[Guest]

The Obama administration sends guns over the border to Mexico where they end up killing scores of Mexican citizens and a US Border Patrol Agent and now Obama is helping to cover it up? Didn’t' he just recently pander to the Hispanic vote by basically giving the Hispanic children amnesty (apparently 30 years old is still considered a child by the left)? Which is it Mr. President, amnesty or assault riffles for Mexican citizens?

Or…. Possibly were they working to create a violent enough situation across the border where he could ram through one of the lefts favorites causes… (besides aborting babies of course) a ban on assault riffles?

The left seems to be good at doctoring things to create situations in their favor. Maybe Holder should have enlisted MSNBC to help. Nah, they're no good at that either.

[Guest]

I think in respects to Fast and Furious the administration was after sheriff Joe but then you know how it goes. They didnt get what they wanted

[Guest]

I think in respects to Fast and Furious the administration was after sheriff Joe but then you know how it goes. They didnt get what they wanted

And that becomes executive privilege how ?

[Guest]

These republican shenanigans that are being conducted today by Congressman Darrel Issa (R-CA) will just outrage and unite the democratic base. The house will vote to censure Attorney General Eric Holder, the case will go to court and will take two years to be heard. Keep up the good work republicans. Congress' approval rating can't go much lower.

[Guest]

These republican shenanigans that are being conducted today by Congressman Darrel Issa (R-CA) will just outrage and unite the democratic base. The house will vote to censure Attorney General Eric Holder, the case will go to court and will take two years to be heard. Keep up the good work republicans. Congress' approval rating can't go much lower.

I assume since you speak with such authority, you are watching CPAN3 where the hearing is being telecast live....you must be as you seem to talk like you know what you are talking about !!!!

[Guest]

Daniel Issa is just the ringmaster of the 3-ring circus he tries to tell people is serious business. He said after the Repubs became majority in house he would have a hearing a day. Why? Witch hunts. Guise of activity while the House does nothing. It's a sham and a shame....alliteration. :yuck:

[Guest]

Daniel Issa is just the ringmaster of the 3-ring circus he tries to tell people is serious business. He said after the Repubs became majority in house he would have a hearing a day. Why? Witch hunts. Guise of activity while the House does nothing. It's a sham and a shame....alliteration. :yuck:

You are also actually watching the hearing I suppose or how could you make comments on the subject with NO FACTS

[Guest]

He inadvertently blamed Bush !!!!!!!

"In a second major retraction over its version of the the gun-walking scandal, the Justice Department has retracted Attorney General Eric Holder's charge in a hearing last week that his Bush administration predecessor had been briefed on the affair.

In a memo just released by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa senator reveals that Holder also didn't apologize to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey for dragging him into the Fast & Furious scandal that is headed for a major legal clash and likely contempt of Congress charge against Holder.

According to Grassley's memo, Justice said that Holder "inadvertently" made the charge against Mukasey in a hearing."

Holder retracts claim Bush team knew about Fast and Furious | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/holder-retracts-claim-bush-team-knew-about-fast-and-furious/article/2500157)

[Guest]

Typical liberal response. Save Obama no matter the truth.

Wonder if the family of the Border Patrol officer killed by the administrations pet project thinks getting to the truth is a republican three ring circus?

Or don't you care?

[Guest]

Like his bud Eric Holder, guess he's not so keen on getting to the bottom of Fast-n-Furious... at least before the election. What are they hiding now?

What was Bush hiding the 6 time he used Ex Privilege?

[Guest]

What was Bush hiding the 6 time he used Ex Privilege?

Now Cologal.....are you implying that there is some relativity to what you say to today ? If that is the case, we should just shut down and everytime something bad happens, say "hey they did it" !!!!

I dont know but surprised at you taking the same tact as others on here.....Bush did it !!!

While I am curious about what could possibly be so sensitive, and also curious about....well, if you watched the hearings, the administration (and by that I mean Holder, et all, not neccessarily the President) has been just plain lying in memos and testimony.

My biggest thing about this guy is again...he actually demeaned others...not just politics, he spoke of others who do this in such a demeaning way.....which is what he does and then rolls over. He has done this so many times with things that Bush did and where he publicly did just short verbally lynch him and that either continues the same policies or repeats them and we are supposed to just accept that blindly !!!

That is my biggest problem....of course there actually could be a valid reason, but he is playing everyone for a fool with his talk versus action and has for years !

[Guest]

When George W Bush started the program, now known as 'Fast and Furious', it was called 'Operation Wide Receiver'.

[Guest]

When George W Bush started the program, now known as 'Fast and Furious', it was called 'Operation Wide Receiver'.

You obviously dont read or watch much else than MSNBC...I posted this earlier and it was covered on CSPAN...

""In a second major retraction over its version of the the gun-walking scandal, the Justice Department has retracted Attorney General Eric Holder's charge in a hearing last week that his Bush administration predecessor had been briefed on the affair.

In a memo just released by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa senator reveals that Holder also didn't apologize to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey for dragging him into the Fast & Furious scandal that is headed for a major legal clash and likely contempt of Congress charge against Holder.

According to Grassley's memo, Justice said that Holder "inadvertently" made the charge against Mukasey in a hearing."

Holder retracts claim Bush team knew about Fast and Furious | WashingtonExaminer.com


I suppose dealing with fantasy is easier than dealing with FACTS !!!

Thanks for making you post however, you simply prove my point !!

[Guest]

He is from Chicago, What did you expect. He is only doing what he was bred for.

This is yet another reason we need him to be unemployed. He is a bad man doing bad things to our country. He always has a reason why when he does something it was for a good reason and is all part of the plan.
I don't want his plan and in context like Rush got hammered for "I want him to fail" when it comes to his plan.

They have to be hiding something. There is no up side to blocking this info.

:agree:He had months to do this which would not have bothered me.Now it looks like they are covering up.Im from chicago and the hardest thing to find is a honest dem.Its a way of life for them.He is no different, from his deal with Rezko to his wife getting her pay about tripled around the day he took office in the senate.Just look at all that have went to jail 3 governors that were dems 1 republican ,sec of state dem,Jesse Jackson jr trying to buy senate seat.City aldermen dems by the the car load.For anyone to think he has not taken graft of some sort I have some great investments to sell you.

[Guest]

OK so what if W did start the program. He is not responsible for the screw up of the handling of the weapons. Those responsible are the ones in office...remember Holder? And Obama?

How anybody can reach back in time and try to twist the past to justify the current just defies any credible thinking.

How about trying something different? Offer an opinion of what the guys in charge at the time did or did not do.

The off the wall, off the subject, continual partisan view first is old, tired, boring, full of holes and just plain shallow.....and oh so redundant!!!!!!!!!

btk

[Guest]

OK so what if W did start the program. He is not responsible for the screw up of the handling of the weapons. Those responsible are the ones in office...remember Holder? And Obama?

How anybody can reach back in time and try to twist the past to justify the current just defies any credible thinking.

How about trying something different? Offer an opinion of what the guys in charge at the time did or did not do.

The off the wall, off the subject, continual partisan view first is old, tired, boring, full of holes and just plain shallow.....and oh so redundant!!!!!!!!!

btk


Keep in mind that the poster who made the Bush remark APPEARS to have ONLY ONE source of news as most of what is posted is almost word for word from the various left leaning news feeds (read party lines) and you should NEVER believe those feeds on either side of the aisle because they NEVER tell you the entire story and they feed on folks like this person who believes everything they say !

[Guest]

Like his bud Eric Holder, guess he's not so keen on getting to the bottom of Fast-n-Furious... at least before the election. What are they hiding now?I don't have any idea what the kerfuffel is regarding Eric Holder, the POTUS, et al--haven't read a word about it. I understand that the House wil proceed with a contempt of Congress "trial" against Holder beginning next week. That's after all those hearings and two unsuccessful trials of Roger Clemens for a similar offense. I wonder how much those trials cost the taxpayers?

I wonder if Congress has any more important issues that they might go to work on? A real immigration bill, a re-do of Social Security and Medicare, what to do about the expiring Bush tax cuts, some serious cutting of government spending, what to do about closing Guantanamo Bay, coming up with some serious energy policies, what about doing something about the crappy education results among our kids, seriously debating the farm spending bill with close to a trillion dollars in food stamp spending?

Any of those things would be productive. But "productive" isn't necessarily on Congresses' agenda. Not when some old-fashioned political bickering will have a great chance to get them some soundbites on TV. Maybe they could figure out how to get involved in planning the NCAA football playoff.

Do you think the House suddenly deciding to try the AG for being contemptuous of hem might be a tit for tat over Obama's executive order on migration last week?

Disgusting. If they want to try someone for being contemptuous of Congress, try me! I'm really contemptuous of the whole bunch of them.

[Guest]

I don't have any idea what the kerfuffel is regarding Eric Holder, the POTUS, et al--haven't read a word about it. I understand that the House wil proceed with a contempt of Congress "trial" against Holder beginning next week. That's after all those hearings and two unsuccessful trials of Roger Clemens for a similar offense. I wonder how much those trials cost the taxpayers?

I wonder if Congress has any more important issues that they might go to work on? A real immigration bill, a re-do of Social Security and Medicare, what to do about the expiring Bush tax cuts, some serious cutting of government spending, what to do about closing Guantanamo Bay, coming up with some serious energy policies, what about doing something about the crappy education results among our kids, seriously debating the farm spending bill with close to a trillion dollars in food stamp spending?



Any of those things would be productive. But "productive" isn't necessarily on Congresses' agenda. Not when some bitter political bickering will have a great chance to get them some soundbites on TV. Maybe they could figure out how to get involved in planning the NCAA football playoff.

Disgusting.

The "kerfuffel" as you call it has to do with unimportant issues like the killing of an american border patrol with gun supplied by this country to drug cartels, the lying to congress last year by the AG of the country (retracted this week when he got caught)...all very unimportant things of course since the Democratic party is involved in getting gutted (which is not going to happen of course) but nice to see liars called and proven liars.

This of course PALES in importance to the use of a machine in a WAWA in Pennsylvania

PS... You surely would have loved the part where the attorney general of the country BLAMED BUSH for the program and then, of course, has to retract that lie also.

[Guest]

You folks have had years to perfect your bull**** alarms. It should be going glang glang glang on these issues. Mine is working.

[Guest]

You folks have had years to perfect your bull**** alarms. It should be going glang glang glang on these issues. Mine is working.

The problem is that most people's bull**** alarms work only in one ear, either right or left.

[Guest]

I don't have any idea what the kerfuffel is regarding Eric Holder, the POTUS, et al--haven't read a word about it. I understand that the House wil proceed with a contempt of Congress "trial" against Holder beginning next week. That's after all those hearings and two unsuccessful trials of Roger Clemens for a similar offense. I wonder how much those trials cost the taxpayers?

I wonder if Congress has any more important issues that they might go to work on? A real immigration bill, a re-do of Social Security and Medicare, what to do about the expiring Bush tax cuts, some serious cutting of government spending, what to do about closing Guantanamo Bay, coming up with some serious energy policies, what about doing something about the crappy education results among our kids, seriously debating the farm spending bill with close to a trillion dollars in food stamp spending?

Any of those things would be productive. But "productive" isn't necessarily on Congresses' agenda. Not when some old-fashioned political bickering will have a great chance to get them some soundbites on TV. Maybe they could figure out how to get involved in planning the NCAA football playoff.

Do you think the House suddenly deciding to try the AG for being contemptuous of hem might be a tit for tat over Obama's executive order on migration last week?

Disgusting. If they want to try someone for being contemptuous of Congress, try me! I'm really contemptuous of the whole bunch of them.

KERFUFFEL???; selling high power weapons to terrorist elements in Mexico with no tracking mechanism that leads to the death of a U.S. Border Agent, and which the DOJ refuses to answer questions about, defying Congress, and refuses to release pertinent documents is a KERFUFFEL??

The President after saying for months and months that he knew nothing about this is now claiming Executive Privilege???

Executive Privilege from questions about something he knows "nothing" about?

Corruption at the highest level of our government is a KERFUFFEL??

Brilliant.

[Guest]

The problem is that most people's bull**** alarms work only in one ear, either right or left.

I think the true bull**** alarm resinates up and down the spine. Some folks will say bull**** no matter what their dyed wool tells them.

[Guest]

The "kerfuffel" as you call it has to do with unimportant issues like the killing of an american border patrol with gun supplied by this country to drug cartels, the lying to congress last year by the AG of the country (retracted this week when he got caught)...all very unimportant things of course since the Democratic party is involved in getting gutted (which is not going to happen of course) but nice to see liars called and proven liars.

This of course PALES in importance to the use of a machine in a WAWA in Pennsylvania

PS... You surely would have loved the part where the attorney general of the country BLAMED BUSH for the program and then, of course, has to retract that lie also.I don't know ANY of the details of this case, Bucco or Richie. But you're not going to convince me that Congress spending a lot of time on this issue or case is more important that dozens of other issues facing the country. All this is is an excuse for political posturing and purposely avoiding spending Congressional time and effort on real issues.

[Guest]

If you can't trust the AG who can you trust? Anybody remember the Mitchells?

[Guest]

I don't know ANY of the details of this case, Bucco or Richie. But you're not going to convince me that Congress spending a lot of time on this issue or case is more important that dozens of other issues facing the country. All this is is an excuse for political posturing and purposely avoiding spending Congressional time and effort on real issues.

I can't believe I'm saying this to YOU, but that is quite naive.

[Guest]

Now Cologal.....are you implying that there is some relativity to what you say to today ? If that is the case, we should just shut down and every-time something bad happens, say "hey they did it" !!!!

I don't know but surprised at you taking the same tact as others on here.....Bush did it !!!

While I am curious about what could possibly be so sensitive, and also curious about....well, if you watched the hearings, the administration (and by that I mean Holder, et all, not necessarily the President) has been just plain lying in memos and testimony.

My biggest thing about this guy is again...he actually demeaned others...not just politics, he spoke of others who do this in such a demeaning way.....which is what he does and then rolls over. He has done this so many times with things that Bush did and where he publicly did just short verbally lynch him and that either continues the same policies or repeats them and we are supposed to just accept that blindly !!!

That is my biggest problem....of course there actually could be a valid reason, but he is playing everyone for a fool with his talk versus action and has for years !

My point was not to bash Bush but to point out Ex Privilege has been widely used before. I think 14 times by Clinton.

I didn't watch the hearings this time....I do know that Holder appeared to be copied in some memo's or emails. It appears that no other official has ever been found in contempt by Congress.

Do you remember Gonzales's amnesia?

Really don't understand what they need to hide....its always better to bring things into the light.

[Guest]

My point was not to bash Bush but to point out Ex Privilege has been widely used before. I think 14 times by Clinton.

I didn't watch the hearings this time....I do know that Holder appeared to be copied in some memo's or emails. It appears that no other official has ever been found in contempt by Congress.

Do you remember Gonzales's amnesia?

Really don't understand what they need to hide....its always better to bring things into the light.

He's claiming executive privilege for something he's been claiming for months of knowing nothing about..............come on.........seriously.

[Guest]

Seriously. ;)

[Guest]

He's claiming executive privilege for something he's been claiming for months of knowing nothing about..............come on.........seriously.

Things that make you go hum...

All the while, the anti-America pro Obama libs shouting we don't care! - we don't care! - we don't care!

[Guest]

the justification by pointing to others who did or said something similar is about as logical as claiming it is OK to go through a red light because the car in front of you did.

Two wrongs, except maybe in politics, do not make a right.

btk

[Guest]

the justification by pointing to others who did or said something similar is about as logical as claiming it is OK to go through a red light because the car in front of you did.

Two wrongs, except maybe in politics, do not make a right.

btk

I am not sure that a "wrong" has been committed, and either way, a "wrong" is often in the eye of the beholder. I would argue that your analogy is off base. I think the posters bringing up the number of times executive privilege has been excercised by previous president are not excusing the act as much as they are questioning why some people are outraged by one president using it and not outraged by its use by previous presidents.

[Guest]

I am not sure that a "wrong" has been committed, and either way, a "wrong" is often in the eye of the beholder. I would argue that your analogy is off base. I think the posters bringing up the number of times executive privilege has been excercised by previous president are not excusing the act as much as they are questioning why some people are outraged by one president using it and not outraged by its use by previous presidents.

e - do you not think that a.g. eric holder lying to congress is wrong?

[Guest]

This was President Obama's first use of "Executive Privilige" since being elected three and a half years ago, compared to George W Bush's six time, Bill Clinton's 14 times and Ronald Reagan's 20 plus times. FYI

The article I read agreed with your count except for Reagan in which the number was 3....just saying

[Guest]

I think the fact that there have been so many unanswered question about this presidency that no one is trusting what any one is saying. Even the left side questions what is going on you have to admit that. And it will continue.

[Guest]

The article I read agreed with your count except for Reagan in which the number was 3....just saying

You are quite right. I heard it wrong. Should have been 24 times since Reagan, not Reagan 20 times. Sorry about that.

[Guest]

He's claiming executive privilege for something he's been claiming for months of knowing nothing about..............come on.........seriously.

Ok...so for months Obama or would that be Holder? I remember Holder saying he didn't read his emails or that memo. Anyway if Obama said he didn't know anything about it and then looked into it and then found out there was some National Security thing ... then it would make sense he would then invoke the previlege.

Not saying I agree just proposing.....

I believe they have turning some of the requested paperwork.

[Guest]

You are quite right. I heard it wrong. Should have been 24 times since Reagan, not Reagan 20 times. Sorry about that.

not in the article I read but then were addressing a situation occuring now and not in the 1980's

[Guest]

I'll try that with my boss next time. Sorry, I didn't read my emails.

[Guest]

I can't believe I'm saying this to YOU, but that is quite naive.
Richie, if you really in your heart of hearts believe that this 'fast and furious' thing with Holder and Obama is anything more than a political response to Obama upstaging the GOP with his immigration order, then I would say you've brought naïveté to an Olympic championship level.

My argument is that Congress has a whole lot more important things to address than the death if a border agent. When are they going to address the 10% tax increase everyone is going to pay starting on New Year's Day? Or what will they do about the deep and damaging cuts to the defense budget, which start on the same day? And if their inaction leads to another credit downgrade as the result of our political inability to come up with any fiscal reforms...who will they blame then? Almost all economists say that if these things happen, it will have a disastrous effect on our economy.

Romney says wait until after the election. What the heck does that mean? Will the lame duck Congress do anything between the day after the election and when they leave for their three-week Christmas vacation? What do you think?

Then after the swearing in of the 113th Congress on January 3, will they wait around and do nothing until after the presidential inauguration on January 20? Then if Romney is elected, he'll be very busy repealing legislation for a couple weeks. Who knows what Congress will be doing. Waiting for his 'leadership' to kick in maybe?

In the meantime the Pentagon checks will be bouncing, they'll be well into cancelling military contracts and laying off people. And we'll all have a helluva lot less take home pay after the new, elevated tax rates kick in.

And you're telling me I'm naive because I expect and demand better from Congress? Like I said, neither you or Bucco or DKlassen will convince me that Congress holding hearings, launching an impeachment proceeding for the attorney general, and maneuvering to get heir pusses on then evening news rises to the importance of what they should be working on. But naive? No I'm not naive...I'm PO'd!

[Guest]

Fast and Furious just an attempt at removing "the right to bear arms" but probably backfired when one of our american Heros was killed.
this administration is a disgrace!! One thing after another. But right now, let's focus on the economy folks. Keep the focus on the economy, Sharia law, and Agenda 21 and it's goodbye Obama.

[Guest]

Attorney General Eric Holder has already turned over 7600 documents and testified nine times before congress. The ATF agent in charge and AG Mike Mukasey, who started the program under George W Bush when it was called operation "Wide Receiver", have never been called to testify. If congress really wants to get to the bottom of this, why hasn't everyone involved been called?

If the House of Representatives vote next week to sanction Holder, from what I understand, they could have him handcuffed and taken right to the jail in the capital. I can't think of a better photo-op to energize the progressive base.


Politics - David A. Graham - Eric Holder, Contempt of Congress, and Fast and Furious: What You Need to Know - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/eric-holder-contempt-of-congress-fast-and-furious-what-you-need-to-know/258783/)

[Guest]

Fast and Furious just an attempt at removing "the right to bear arms" but probably backfired when one of our american Heros was killed.
this administration is a disgrace!! One thing after another. But right now, let's focus on the economy folks. Keep the focus on the economy, Sharia law, and Agenda 21 and it's goodbye Obama.

Where are the links to back up all these accusations?

[Guest]

Richie, if you really in your heart of hearts believe that this 'fast and furious' thing with Holder and Obama is anything more than a political response to Obama upstaging the GOP with his immigration order, then I would say you've brought naïveté to an Olympic championship level.

My argument is that Congress has a whole lot more important things to address than the death if a border agent. When are they going to address the 10% tax increase everyone is going to pay starting on New Year's Day? Or what will they do about the deep and damaging cuts to the defense budget, which start on the same day? And if their inaction leads to another credit downgrade as the result of our political inability to come up with any fiscal reforms...who will they blame then? Almost all economists say that if these things happen, it will have a disastrous effect on our economy.

Romney says wait until after the election. What the heck does that mean? Will the lame duck Congress do anything between the day after the election and when they leave for their three-week Christmas vacation? What do you think?

Then after the swearing in of the 113th Congress on January 3, will they wait around and do nothing until after the presidential inauguration on January 20? Then if Romney is elected, he'll be very busy repealing legislation for a couple weeks. Who knows what Congress will be doing. Waiting for his 'leadership' to kick in maybe?

In the meantime the Pentagon checks will be bouncing, they'll be well into cancelling military contracts and laying off people. And we'll all have a helluva lot less take home pay after the new, elevated tax rates kick in.

And you're telling me I'm naive because I expect and demand better from Congress? Like I said, neither you or Bucco or DKlassen will convince me that Congress holding hearings, launching an impeachment proceeding for the attorney general, and maneuvering to get heir pusses on then evening news rises to the importance of what they should be working on. But naive? No I'm not naive...I'm PO'd!

"Budget policy experts, including former CBO Director Alice Rivlin and Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, strongly endorsed the idea of giving Congress the first half of next year to come up with a comprehensive package or framework of savings and tax revenues, with the threat of the major tax expirations hanging over them.

“The fiscal cliff is a real cliff,” Rivlin said. “ It would be very bad for the economy and very bad for a lot of things people care about if we let all of the tax cuts expire all at once and the Alternative Minimum Tax and all the things that are in the cliff as well as the sequester.”

“It’s called [by some] kicking the can down the road,” she said. “It shouldn’t be. It is moving the fiscal cliff for a few months. It’s still there.”

Don (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/06/12/Dont-Jump-Yet-Congress-May-Avoid-the-Fiscal-Cliff.aspx#page2)

I give you this because as you see it is not just Romney as you just keep on insisting over and over and over.

In addition you seem to imply folks sitting around just stalling things...BOTH parties are working although it may not be up to YOUR standards...

"House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., recently endorsed a strategy for linking an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts and other expiring tax breaks to “fast-track procedures” to compel Congress to enact comprehensive tax reform next year. Congress has embraced this approach 34 times over the years, according to Camp, including most recently as part of the Trade Promotion Authority.

“This is an idea House Republicans support, the Speaker [John Boehner] endorsed . . . and I urge the Senate and the president to get behind it as well,” Camp said in a May 17 speech. “Doing so will send a clear, strong message to the markets, to employers and families that Washington is serious about reforming our tax code and putting us on a path to sustained economic growth.”

PLUS

"Senate Democrats and some Republican House leaders may be “kicking the can down the road,” but talks are intensifying with special interest groups to keep $8 trillion in combined tax increases and spending cuts from automatically kicking in beginning the first week of January."

"Camp has outlined a House GOP approach that would collapse the six current individual tax rates to two rates of 10 percent and 25 percent, eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax and “move from an outdated worldwide system of taxation to a more competitive territorial system” with lower corporate tax rates."

Is the congress inept...YES but you harp on one thing and one thing only and I know that Romney is well aware of what is going on from his rep in the House. The two parties talk to each other, even though our wonderful media is only interested in interviewing those who will make some waves.

[Guest]

Where are the links to back up all these accusations?

No need to reply to a post that is just a rant from Hulababy. Rants are sometimes just posted when there is nothing they can think of to make any sense so they just string words together.

[Guest]

Richie, if you really in your heart of hearts believe that this 'fast and furious' thing with Holder and Obama is anything more than a political response to Obama upstaging the GOP with his immigration order, then I would say you've brought naïveté to an Olympic championship level.

My argument is that Congress has a whole lot more important things to address than the death if a border agent. When are they going to address the 10% tax increase everyone is going to pay starting on New Year's Day? Or what will they do about the deep and damaging cuts to the defense budget, which start on the same day? And if their inaction leads to another credit downgrade as the result of our political inability to come up with any fiscal reforms...who will they blame then? Almost all economists say that if these things happen, it will have a disastrous effect on our economy.

Romney says wait until after the election. What the heck does that mean? Will the lame duck Congress do anything between the day after the election and when they leave for their three-week Christmas vacation? What do you think?

Then after the swearing in of the 113th Congress on January 3, will they wait around and do nothing until after the presidential inauguration on January 20? Then if Romney is elected, he'll be very busy repealing legislation for a couple weeks. Who knows what Congress will be doing. Waiting for his 'leadership' to kick in maybe?

In the meantime the Pentagon checks will be bouncing, they'll be well into cancelling military contracts and laying off people. And we'll all have a helluva lot less take home pay after the new, elevated tax rates kick in.

And you're telling me I'm naive because I expect and demand better from Congress? Like I said, neither you or Bucco or DKlassen will convince me that Congress holding hearings, launching an impeachment proceeding for the attorney general, and maneuvering to get heir pusses on then evening news rises to the importance of what they should be working on. But naive? No I'm not naive...I'm PO'd!

Fine, you're right again. The government selling guns without a tracking system to drug cartels with terrorist links in Mexico is NO BIG DEAL.

The murder of a U.S. Border Agent by these same guns. HELL, he knew the risks of trying to protect our border..........RIGHT!!

Then the Executive Branch on full out coverup to hide all the blunders they made. Heck!!; this is Obama we're talking about. It's not like he's freakin' Dick Nixon or some other scuzzy f'd up Republican.

WHAT THE HELL; we need to check the stock market clicker.

No wonder this nation is going to hell.

That's my rant for the day.

[Guest]

Fine, you're right again. The government selling guns without a tracking system to drug cartels with terrorist links in Mexico is NO BIG DEAL.

The murder of a U.S. Border Agent by these same guns. HELL, he knew the risks of trying to protect our border..........RIGHT!!

Then the Executive Branch on full out coverup to hide all the blunders they made. Heck!!; this is Obama we're talking about. It's not like he's freakin' Dick Nixon or some other scuzzy f'd up Republican.

WHAT THE HELL; we need to check the stock market clicker.

No wonder this nation is going to hell.

That's my rant for the day.

And do not forget the actual impetus for the entire big deal. A memo written by the AG saying things that were totally untrue and then telling the committee, oh never mind (he did the same thing when he blamed Bush for the entire thing but had to take that back also with an oops)....that letter saying that nobody knew anything that was withdrawn, and then the committee just wanted to find out WHY that first memo was written.....hence this stalemate !

[Guest]

No need to reply to a post that is just a rant from Hulababy. Rants are sometimes just posted when there is nothing they can think of to make any sense so they just string words together.

Wow...please accept a warm welcome from me to the Political Forum, Hulababy...

Some posters just beg to be ignored...they tend to string words together (or even just one word..."seriously") when there is nothing they can think of to make any sense in order to try to belittle and scare off a new poster.

Please stick around and don't let anyone scare you off....

[Guest]

Fine, you're right again. The government selling guns without a tracking system to drug cartels with terrorist links in Mexico is NO BIG DEAL.

The murder of a U.S. Border Agent by these same guns. HELL, he knew the risks of trying to protect our border..........RIGHT!!

Then the Executive Branch on full out coverup to hide all the blunders they made. Heck!!; this is Obama we're talking about. It's not like he's freakin' Dick Nixon or some other scuzzy f'd up Republican.

WHAT THE HELL; we need to check the stock market clicker.

No wonder this nation is going to hell.

That's my rant for the day.
Keep finding stuff like this to rant about every day--and ignore the important things Congress should be working on--and when the inevitable happens, you can blame it on Obama.

What the heck will you do if he's re-elected? I wouldn't want you to endanger your health, Richie. Seriously, I don't. All this politics baloney isn't worth it.

[Guest]

Fast and Furious just an attempt at removing "the right to bear arms" but probably backfired when one of our american Heros was killed.
this administration is a disgrace!! One thing after another. But right now, let's focus on the economy folks. Keep the focus on the economy, Sharia law, and Agenda 21 and it's goodbye Obama.

I hope you do not feel as though I came down too hard on you. Sorry about that but it pushed some buttons for me.

The economy definitely is one big thing to focus on. Sharia Law is not practiced in the USA. We have criminal and civil law and Sharia Law is NOT practiced in the USA. Agenda 21 from the United Nations is a great plan. What do you have against protecting the environment, combating poverty, and promoting health around the world?

How is the Obama Administration trying to take your guns away? They are not! Yes, it was a failed effort with Fast & Furious and a Border Patrol agent was killed with one of the guns. That was tragic - but not as tragic as George W. Bush lying to the US about weapons of mass destruction and ended up costing the US over 4,400 American lives, hundreds of thousands with physical and mental scars, and cost well into the TRILLIONS of dollars for NOTHING.

Welcome to the Political Chat. Hope you do stick around and learn.

[Guest]

"....House Republicans are obsessed on this issue (the Holder contempt and WH executive privilege issues), at the expense of addressing issues like jobs, the economy, immigration and the deficit..."

And we should vote to send ANY of these people back to Congress?

[Guest]

"....House Republicans are obsessed on this issue (the Holder contempt and WH executive privilege issues), at the expense of addressing issues like jobs, the economy, immigration and the deficit..."

And we should vote to send ANY of these people back to Congress?

You have just shown a good reason to vote Democrat.

[Guest]

"....House Republicans are obsessed on this issue (the Holder contempt and WH executive privilege issues), at the expense of addressing issues like jobs, the economy, immigration and the deficit..."

And we should vote to send ANY of these people back to Congress?

You have just shown a good reason to vote Democrat.

i can't find a reason to vote JUST for democrats - but i SURE can find LOTS of good reasons to vote AGAINST EVERY INCUMBENT! ;)

[Guest]

Just so we all understand what the House is spending all its time on with the "Fast and Furious" contempt of Congress allegation, maybe a re-visit of the rules and precedents might be helpful...

Q: What is a contempt citation?

A: Congress can vote to hold a congressional witness in contempt of Congress if it considers the witness to be obstructing its ability to carry out its constitutional powers. For a person to be held in contempt, Congress must vote on a contempt citation in committee. This is different from finding a person in contempt, which only happens after the committee votes on a citation and then passes along the vote to the full House for a vote on Contempt of Congress.

The process involves a series of legal maneuvers including the president's ability to assert executive privilege, as he did in this case. Executive privilege is rarely accepted by Congress, but the Justice Department maintains that infringing on executive privilege erodes the balance of powers.

Q: What happens next?

A: A vote in favor of a contempt in committee sends the decision to the full House for another vote. If that vote finds Holder in contempt, then, according to almost all legal scholars, it is unlikely that Holder will be prosecuted for criminal contempt. Congress's remedy, if it choose not to proceed with a trial and criminal conviction of Holder, would be a civil lawsuit in federal court.

Q: When is the last time an executive branch official faced a contempt citation?

A: Although this is the first time an attorney general has faced a contempt citation, other executive branch officials have been held in contempt of Congress.

Most recently, George W. Bush White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten were held in contempt of Congress despite Bush asserting executive privilege in their case regarding the firing of U.S.attorneys in 2007. During the vote in early 2008, a large number of Republicans walked out in protest of what they saw as a partisan vote by the Democrat-controlled House.

Miers and Bolten were accused of failing to cooperate in a congressional investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys and allegations that the White House was using the Justice Department for political aims. Their citations marked the first time White House officials had been found in contempt of Congress.

Following conviction of contempt of Congress, Cingress would have the option to conduct a criminal trial attempting to convict Holder and possibly Obama. The offense only carries a penalty of $1,000 and up to one year in prison. Neiher a criminal trial or the sentence would be likely.

Instead, it is more likely the House will pursue civil prosecution in federal court, as it did in the Miers and Bolten cases having to do with the firing of federal attorneys in the Bush administration in 2007. The House General Counsel's office prosecuted the pair to gain access to the information Congress sought by the Democrat-controlled House.

Q: What was the result of the Congress' civil lawsuit against Bush White House staff Harriett Miers and Josh Bolten?

A: First, the entire process of committee hearings and a contempt vote, followed by a vote of the full House had to be repeated. The plaintiff in the original law suit was the 110th Congress, which ceased to exist when the 111th Congress was sworn in. The result of having no plaintiff meant that the entire process had to be repeated by the 111th Congress.

After the House held Miers and Bolten in contempt the second time, the Judiciary Committee sued the two aides in federal district court.

In August 2008, a federal judge ordered Miers to testify and Bolten to turn over documents, overruling the administration’s claim of executive privilege. That ruling was appealed.

In March 2009, a year after the suit was filed, Miers and Karl Rove, who had also become ensnared in a separate contempt proceeding, agreed to testify behind closed doors to the House Judiciary Committee. The deal broke the stalemate. The results of the closed door settlement were never announced.
-------
What it boiled down to is that Congress wasted a whole lot of time and spent a huge amount of money prosecuting a contempt of Congress case, with no apparent decision. It turned out to be all about political posturing and bickering. And while it was going on, Congress was to busy to govern.

It looks like it's happening again.

[Guest]

Keep finding stuff like this to rant about every day--and ignore the important things Congress should be working on--and when the inevitable happens, you can blame it on Obama.

What the heck will you do if he's re-elected? I wouldn't want you to endanger your health, Richie. Seriously, I don't. All this politics baloney isn't worth it.

I only have a problem with you down playing this scandal. You don't think it's of any consequence........fine..........that your privilege, I guess.

It tells me a lot.

Just you and the Obama sycophants are of the opinion that it's a lot of nothing................unless, secretly you are really................naw, could it be?

[Guest]

Yes, RichieLion, it could be.

[Guest]

I only have a problem with you down playing this scandal. You don't think it's of any consequence........fine..........that your privilege, I guess.

It tells me a lot.

Just you and the Obama sycophants are of the opinion that it's a lot of nothing................unless, secretly you are really................naw, could it be?

Scandal??? .....seriously? :doh:

[Guest]

Scandal??? .....seriously? :doh:


http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad51/wakytimes/Unknown.jpg

[Guest]

The results of a poll in the Orlando Sentinel, hardly a conservative paper, indicated that 79% of the people polled wanted Holder to resign vis a vis 21% who did not want Holder to resign.

The Democrats pressured George W.'s attorney general and he did resign for less serious allegation than have been thrown at Holder.

The majority want his resignation because they recognize he is not working in behalf of "we the people" but rather in a personal manner for "he the emperor in chief" and also because he has shown a bias for minority issues such as the new black panthers, professor gates, the St. Paul MN case which he interferred with because a case was about to be won which would have gone against the disingenious "disparate impact" ,his attempts to prevent photo ID voter laws and stopping Governor Scott from securing the Florida's voter registration. An attorney general is suppose to conduct inquiries , investigations etc in an open and unbias manner. So I support the Republicans efforts to rid us of this ineffective and harmful AG.

And while I believe both Obama and Holder are up to their eyeballs in invovlement in Fast and Furious I am thankful that we as americans have the option and opportunity to to call such offenders out on allegations of impropriety unlike a banana republics. so perhaps it is a waste of time and money to some but in my view it is well worth it becaue it leaves open always that opportunity ensuring that freedom remains

[Guest]

The results of a poll in the Orlando Sentinel, hardly a conservative paper, indicated that 79% of the people polled wanted Holder to resign vis a vis 21% who did not want Holder to resign.

The Democrats pressured George W.'s attorney general and he did resign for less serious allegation than have been thrown at Holder.

The majority want his resignation because they recognize he is not working in behalf of "we the people" but rather in a personal manner for "he the emperor in chief" and also because he has shown a bias for minority issues such as the new black panthers, professor gates, the St. Paul MN case which he interferred with because a case was about to be won which would have gone against the disingenious "disparate impact" ,his attempts to prevent photo ID voter laws and stopping Governor Scott from securing the Florida's voter registration. An attorney general is suppose to conduct inquiries , investigations etc in an open and unbias manner. So I support the Republicans efforts to rid us of this ineffective and harmful AG.

And while I believe both Obama and Holder are up to their eyeballs in invovlement in Fast and Furious I am thankful that we as americans have the option and opportunity to to call such offenders out on allegations of impropriety unlike a banana republics. so perhaps it is a waste of time and money to some but in my view it is well worth it becaue it leaves open always that opportunity ensuring that freedom remains

It does seem that the Republicans are ganging up on Eric Holder and that they will do anything to undermine him and the Obama Administration at this point. The Republicans are basically holding the Obama Administration hostage at this point and nothing that benefits the agenda of the Democrats will get through the House.

Maybe a political deal could be struck so if AG Holder resigns, the Republicans would be open to more compromise on Democrat bills in the House?

However, if Holder does resign right before the election, it will be shown as a major sign of weakness and admitting to fault and the Republicans will play that up as a major fault of the Obama Administration.

I believe the best idea is for Holder to stay in office until after the election and when the Obama Administration wins again, he could resign at that point if it looks needed for a smooth running of the government.

[Guest]

It does seem that the Republicans are ganging up on Eric Holder and that they will do anything to undermine him and the Obama Administration at this point. The Republicans are basically holding the Obama Administration hostage at this point and nothing that benefits the agenda of the Democrats will get through the House.

Maybe a political deal could be struck so if AG Holder resigns, the Republicans would be open to more compromise on Democrat bills in the House?

However, if Holder does resign right before the election, it will be shown as a major sign of weakness and admitting to fault and the Republicans will play that up as a major fault of the Obama Administration.

I believe the best idea is for Holder to stay in office until after the election and when the Obama Administration wins again, he could resign at that point if it looks needed for a smooth running of the government.

I thought the only fantasy this weekend was Pixar's new movie "Brave".

[Guest]

I thought the only fantasy this weekend was Pixar's new movie "Brave".

Once again, only ridicule from the far right. No answers to anything, no discussion about the post, but only ridicule. Well, I could answer that I believe "you are better than that" or "I would expect more from you" but I won't do that. :wave:

[Guest]

he has been charged with doing wrong. Remember the concept? Was a predominant determinator in decision making in days gone by. Now replaced with political correctness (barf...happens every time I use the term) or political impact.

The magnitude of the poll cited would suggest that more than just republicans are in agreement to get rid of Holder for wrong doing as well as not representing we the people's interests....only his, Obama's and the blacks!!!

Is there no room for right or wrong anymore? ILLEGAL immigration....we do not enforce the laws for fear of hurting a voting blocks feelings.
We do not get rid of administration that is not doing the job unless there is a political trade off.

I sure hope that these distorted sentiments are reserved for the political applications in life only. I would hate to think there are that many who cheat, water down, lie, don't do what is right in every day life.

And the continual support for not doing what is right in the political arena only gets us the mediocre performers of today. Where doing what is right or for the good of the people has become a normal, acceptable trade off, if and when it is even a consideration anymore.

A lot of words about what should be done about Holder have been offered in the above posts....all partisan based and none include a personal opinion of his wrong doing.

Stand and be counted is another concept that is fast disappearing these days as well.

btk

[Guest]

Once again, only ridicule from the far right. No answers to anything, no discussion about the post, but only ridicule. Well, I could answer that I believe "you are better than that" or "I would expect more from you" but I won't do that. :wave:

Oh, so now I'm just some "generic" far right poster instead of someone you know?

I was jokingly referring to your fanciful last sentence mainly, but have it your way.

Only a new forum reader could take this post of yours at face value.

[Guest]

Oh, so now I'm just some "generic" far right poster instead of someone you know?

I was jokingly referring to your fanciful last sentence mainly, but have it your way.

Only a new forum reader could take this post of yours at face value.

Of course you are not just some generic right winger. There is only one (thank goodness) RichieLion - who gets a very stingy pour of bar bourbon since Misty left the watering hole.

Fanciful last sentence? That bet I proposed (but you declined) a few months at the watering hole is still on the table. Remember, that all the Democrat votes will cancel out an equal number of Republican votes. Will Mrs. Lion's vote cancel out yours?

[Guest]

Of course you are not just some generic right winger. There is only one (thank goodness) RichieLion - who gets a very stingy pour of bar bourbon since Misty left the watering hole.

Fanciful last sentence? That bet I proposed (but you declined) a few months at the watering hole is still on the table. Remember, that all the Democrat votes will cancel out an equal number of Republican votes. Will Mrs. Lion's vote cancel out yours?

I don't quite remember the specifics of your bet, but I'm willing to wager that we have a one term President. I predict a landslide victory, but a simple majority if fine also.

Mrs. Lion is of like mind with me when it comes to The Amateur. She won't be voting for another 4 years to devolve our nation.

By the way, Misty was at the tap on "boy's night out", but she must have been brainwashed as I got my stingiest b.n.o. pour to date :)

I leave now for El Diablo for a scramble. Maybe I'll win a few bucks that way.

[Guest]

OR...he may be hiding something like this...

"Rewind to 2009. The fight over ObamaCare is raging, and a few news outlets report that something looks ethically rotten in the White House. An outside group funded by industry is paying the former firm of senior presidential adviser David Axelrod to run ads in favor of the bill. That firm, AKPD Message and Media, still owes Mr. Axelrod money and employs his son.

The story quickly died, but emails recently released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee ought to resurrect it. The emails suggest the White House was intimately involved both in creating this lobby and hiring Mr. Axelrod's firm—which is as big an ethical no-no as it gets."

Strassel: Axelrod's ObamaCare Dollars - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304765304577480871706139792.html?m od=hp_opinion)

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;509632]he has been charged with doing wrong. Remember the concept? Was a predominant determinator in decision making in days gone by. Now replaced with political correctness (barf...happens every time I use the term) or political impact.

The magnitude of the poll cited would suggest that more than just republicans are in agreement to get rid of Holder for wrong doing as well as not representing we the people's interests....only his, Obama's and the blacks!!!

Please refresh my memory. How has Attorney General Eric Holder only represented the interests of Holder, President Obama and "the blacks"? I must have slept through that, because I don't remember any such thing.

[Guest]

I don't quite remember the specifics of your bet, but I'm willing to wager that we have a one term President. I predict a landslide victory, but a simple majority if fine also.

Mrs. Lion is of like mind with me when it comes to The Amateur. She won't be voting for another 4 years to devolve our nation.

By the way, Misty was at the tap on "boy's night out", but she must have been brainwashed as I got my stingiest b.n.o. pour to date :)

I leave now for El Diablo for a scramble. Maybe I'll win a few bucks that way.

Landslide???? Landslide??? You're talking about a landslide???? Not the way Mitt's playing. Landslide????? :doh:

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;509632]he has been charged with doing wrong. Remember the concept? Was a predominant determinator in decision making in days gone by. Now replaced with political correctness (barf...happens every time I use the term) or political impact.

The magnitude of the poll cited would suggest that more than just republicans are in agreement to get rid of Holder for wrong doing as well as not representing we the people's interests....only his, Obama's and the blacks!!!

Please refresh my memory. How has Attorney General Eric Holder only represented the interests of Holder, President Obama and "the blacks"? I must have slept through that, because I don't remember any such thing.

I would suppose that you are not aware of this book...

"This may have seemed like a small episode to some at the time, but it was only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The U.S. attorney who was prosecuting that case — J. Christian Adams — resigned from the Department of Justice in protest and wrote a book about a whole array of similar race-based decisions on voting rights by Eric Holder and his subordinates at the Department of Justice.

The book is titled “Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department.” It names names, dates, and places around the country where the Department of Justice stopped its own attorneys from pursuing cases of voter fraud and intimidation, when it was blacks who were accused of these crimes."

Holder (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/301483/holder-s-chutzpah-thomas-sowell#)

[Guest]

Bucco.... Been trying to do some research on this. Have you heard that some of the documents requested are Grand Jury testimony which is illegal.

Just asking.

[Guest]

Bucco.... Been trying to do some research on this. Have you heard that some of the documents requested are Grand Jury testimony which is illegal.

Just asking.

Not only is congress asking for secret Grand Jury testimony which is illegal, they are also asking for secret wire-tap information, which is also illegal.

[Guest]

they are hiding the fact this was all a set-up. Part of a program designed to enable Obama to crack down on gun sales in the U.S. Just ANOTHER plan to take away your constitutional right!! One more step toward socialism. That's what this President is all about.

[Guest]

Bucco.... Been trying to do some research on this. Have you heard that some of the documents requested are Grand Jury testimony which is illegal.

Just asking.


I had not heard that...all that I know for sure is that the documents are supposedly related to a memo that came from Justice saying that the Attorney General and the President were not involved and HAD NO KNOWLEDGE of this escapase or cover up of.

Then, suddenly Holder said that memo has to be retracted...the committee than asked why and can we see how you arrived at that conclusion, and THOSE are the documents that Holder will not give up.

THAT is my understanding, but in something like this...who knows.

[Guest]

Not only is congress asking for secret Grand Jury testimony which is illegal, they are also asking for secret wire-tap information, which is also illegal.

Could you please link us to that...I find nothing...what is your source ????

Worse thing now is to just make claims and accusations on stuff like this..that would be VERY wrong thus hope you can supply your source so I and others can read it !!!!!!

[Guest]

This is just to BUMP this up as I think it important that we have some link to the accusations made earlier by JANMCN !!!

[Guest]

Could you please link us to that...I find nothing...what is your source ????

Worse thing now is to just make claims and accusations on stuff like this..that would be VERY wrong thus hope you can supply your source so I and others can read it !!!!!!

Have heard this on TV several times, and when I googled it, 3,860,000 links popped up. Surprised somebody as computer savy as yourself, couldn't find it.


Holder to face contempt of Congress charges - Richmond Community Issues | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/holder-to-face-contempt-of-congress-charges)

[Guest]

Have heard this on TV several times, and when I googled it, 3,860,000 links popped up. Surprised somebody as computer savy as yourself, couldn't find it.


Holder to face contempt of Congress charges - Richmond Community Issues | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/holder-to-face-contempt-of-congress-charges)


JANMCN is correct...this is the part of the article that she refers to..

"With regards to the papers Holder is refusing to turn over to the Republicans, he has withheld some documents in response to a congressional subpoena because Grand Jury testimony and wiretap information is not allowed to be released."

I will accept but continue to investigate because NO legimate news has reported such a thing...in fact the reports are that this request was made at the last minute after Holder going to the President...would think the attorney general would have recognized it earlier.

Like I said...from legit news agencies it is being reported that the SINGLE ONLY reason for any of this is that Holder withdrew a letter in which he stated that nobody knew anything.

Time will tell but thanks for the link.

[Guest]

I think JANMCN that your source is a bit mixed up. I have spent some time researching various sites including legal sites to square what has me confused.

I did not know it, BUT there are, in fact, TWO different kinds of executive privilege. PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS and then DELIBERATIVE PROCESS.

The first has to do with as it says The President and then of course the site you linked is correct in that you cannot get wiretaps and/or grand jury information without a lot of grief.

The second type AND THAT IS WHAT HOLDER IS CLAIMING, refers to the actual process and Holder has made it clear that it has to do with how to handle this particular hearing. The items in questions are emails and the like referring to how to handle this hearing. That makes a bit more sense to me since all I have heard and read is that it specifically had to do with the original claims that NOBODY in the administration knew anything and then when really pressed...I think 20 minutes before the last session....they took it back but refused to allow anyone to see WHY DID THEY TAKE IT BACK.

I certainly would not claim to be a lawyer and surely would not take anything that anyone says as fact until it is fact but this makes sense and sort of aligns with the reports on MSM.

A few links if you want...I really worked hard to disprove the sarcasm from JANMCN in your last note to prove I can work a computer...and actually one of them is from the original link given

Obama shielding DOJ from scrutiny - Right Turn - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-shielding-doj-from-scrutiny/2012/06/20/gJQA5fpLrV_blog.html)

The facts behind Obama’s ‘Fast and Furious’ executive privilege claim | The Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/21/the-facts-behind-obamas-fast-and-furious-executive-privilege-claim/)


Executive privilege claim unwarranted | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com (http://hamptonroads.com/2012/06/executive-privilege-claim-unwarranted)

News from The Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_EXECUTIVE_PRIVILEGE_QA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

[Guest]

The Washington Post, normally a democratic sympathizer and still critical of Republicans in the House have this to say about the executive privilege claim..

"The Post editorial board, with plenty of criticism for House Republicans, nevertheless reaches the same position that conservatives have been advocating this week with regard to President Obama’s exercise of executive privilege: “Congress’s authority to gather information is broad — as broad as its sweeping powers to legislate, spend public money and hold executive officials accountable through impeachment. No doubt a lot of congressional investigations are partisan fishing expeditions. For better or worse, that comes with the democratic territory. Absent very strong countervailing considerations — stronger than some of those the administration has asserted in this case — Congress is generally entitled to disclosure.”

The mystery remains, however, why Democrats on Capitol Hill — who may well face a Romney administration next year, have an institutional interest in preserving Congress’s ability to conduct oversight and are struggling not to go down with the Obama campaign (which is taking on water at an alarming rate — should defend the president on this one. Whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath or this is much to do about nothing, why prolong ad elevate the scandal?"

Why defend Obama’s abuse of executive privilege? - Right Turn - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/why-defend-obamas-abuse-of-executive-privilege/2012/06/22/gJQAn0pvuV_blog.html)

It continues...

"The defense of Obama’s flimsy executive privilege claim is bad politics and bad law (unlike Obama’s immigration edict, which is good politics and bad law). The impulse in politics is to circle the wagons whenever “your side” is attacked. Hence the left-wing blogosphere and congressional Democrats, who regard Republican executive imperialism as akin to an anti-democratic coup, find nothing wrong with the administration’s stonewalling. This is the triumph of political partisanship over principle. Liberals certainly don’t believe in the flimsy use of executive privilege, except, of course, if Obama is wielding the privilege and there’s an election coming up.

I’m not at all impressed with the argument that Obama is entitled to stiff Congress because House Republicans are playing politics. That sure wasn’t the Watergate or Iran-Contra or Valerie Plame standard. Democrats wanted to get Nixon, Reagan and Bush in those instances, but that partisan motive wasn’t germane, was it? "

[Guest]

FORBES brings us a nice concise version of this FAST AND FURIOUS story..

"Liberal pundits, such as Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, have been quick to dismiss the Fast and Furious investigation as a political “witch hunt,” as though the scandal were a “tempest in a teapot,” the phrase Jamie Dimon initially chose to describe the $2 billion prop trading loss at JP Morgan. But, like Jamie Dimon, they may have to eat their words"

"lthough DOJ has turned over to Congress some 7,600 documents bearing on the operation, it has been begrudging in informing the House about its internal inquiry into Fast and Furious. The House committee is looking into all aspects of the fiasco. Many questions linger. How was such an obviously wrong headed operation revived after Holder learned of the failure of Wide Receiver in 2009? Why did they go against their own policies? Who was responsible for approving Fast and Furious, and where is he employed today? How was the operation monitored, and who was responsible for the grotesque incompetence that put over 1600 lethal weapons in the hands of dangerous criminals? Did Holder and his deputies, once the flawed operation came to their attention, appropriately deal with the problem? What were their internal considerations? Did they try to cover up a colossal DOJ screw-up? Were the managers of the operation disciplined or merely transferred to avoid embarrassment for the administration in an election year?"

Holder v. Congress: Political Firefight or Legal Contempt? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jameszirin/2012/06/22/holder-v-congress-political-firefight-or-legal-contempt/)

"Brandeis famously said that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” We agree. The public is entitled to answers– Fast and Furious."

[Guest]

The Washington Post, normally a democratic sympathizer and still critical of Republicans in the House have this to say about the executive privilege claim..

"The Post editorial board, with plenty of criticism for House Republicans, nevertheless reaches the same position that conservatives have been advocating this week with regard to President Obama’s exercise of executive privilege: “Congress’s authority to gather information is broad — as broad as its sweeping powers to legislate, spend public money and hold executive officials accountable through impeachment. No doubt a lot of congressional investigations are partisan fishing expeditions. For better or worse, that comes with the democratic territory. Absent very strong countervailing considerations — stronger than some of those the administration has asserted in this case — Congress is generally entitled to disclosure.”

The mystery remains, however, why Democrats on Capitol Hill — who may well face a Romney administration next year, have an institutional interest in preserving Congress’s ability to conduct oversight and are struggling not to go down with the Obama campaign (which is taking on water at an alarming rate — should defend the president on this one. Whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath or this is much to do about nothing, why prolong ad elevate the scandal?"

Why defend Obama’s abuse of executive privilege? - Right Turn - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/why-defend-obamas-abuse-of-executive-privilege/2012/06/22/gJQAn0pvuV_blog.html)

It continues...

"The defense of Obama’s flimsy executive privilege claim is bad politics and bad law (unlike Obama’s immigration edict, which is good politics and bad law). The impulse in politics is to circle the wagons whenever “your side” is attacked. Hence the left-wing blogosphere and congressional Democrats, who regard Republican executive imperialism as akin to an anti-democratic coup, find nothing wrong with the administration’s stonewalling. This is the triumph of political partisanship over principle. Liberals certainly don’t believe in the flimsy use of executive privilege, except, of course, if Obama is wielding the privilege and there’s an election coming up.

I’m not at all impressed with the argument that Obama is entitled to stiff Congress because House Republicans are playing politics. That sure wasn’t the Watergate or Iran-Contra or Valerie Plame standard. Democrats wanted to get Nixon, Reagan and Bush in those instances, but that partisan motive wasn’t germane, was it? "

Hi Bucco,
I took you off my IGNORE list.

Your statement at the top of this posting made it sound like this right wing blog entry was the opinion of the Washington Post. The Washington Post is a very fair newspaper and offers opinions on both the right and left side of the spectrum. This is one of the right wing opinions. I did copy from the Washington Post the information about the writer of the opinion. This is it:

"Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective. She covers a range of domestic and foreign policy issues and provides insight into the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Rubin came to The Post after three years with Commentary magazine. Her work has appeared in a number of print and online publications, including The Weekly Standard, where she has been a frequent contributor."

Interesting opinion, though.

[Guest]

Hi Bucco,
I took you off my IGNORE list.

Your statement at the top of this posting made it sound like this right wing blog entry was the opinion of the Washington Post. The Washington Post is a very fair newspaper and offers opinions on both the right and left side of the spectrum. This is one of the right wing opinions. I did copy from the Washington Post the information about the writer of the opinion. This is it:

"Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective. She covers a range of domestic and foreign policy issues and provides insight into the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Rubin came to The Post after three years with Commentary magazine. Her work has appeared in a number of print and online publications, including The Weekly Standard, where she has been a frequent contributor."

Interesting opinion, though.

That is interesting since he was critical of the right, but never mind...finding that most opinions of matter,....Forbes, etc. are coming down on the right....This may, OR MAYBE NOT, be a big mistake by Obama because he has made it a big deal and thus whatever he does not want out...we all know WILL come out. My gut is that it has NOTHING to do with him at all, but is all about covering for Holder. But we WILL find out.