[quote=janmcn;509672]

Originally Posted by 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 (...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

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.

Originally Posted by cologal

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.

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.

Originally Posted by cologal

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.

Originally Posted by janmcn

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 !!!!!!

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

Originally Posted by Bucco

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

Originally Posted by janmcn

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

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.

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

The facts behind Obama’s ‘Fast and Furious’ executive privilege claim | The Raw Story


Executive privilege claim unwarranted | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

News from The Associated Press

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

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? "

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

"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."

Originally Posted by Bucco

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

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.

Originally Posted by buggyone

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.