Printable View
I know what I know about F&F because I've been reading and listening to everything about it from dozens of sources for a year now. You, apparently have not since all you can do is say I'm wrong and don't offer any information of your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
The legal opinions I am offering are from one of the top Constitutional Lawyers in the country that regularly argues cases in front of the Supreme Court.
He is in charge of the Landmark Legal Foundation.
Hold the phone gugi. So you are saying because someone is not on Mr. Issa's committee or a lawyer that he/she is not remotely qualified to have an opinion on this matter.
There is so much evidence that has been brought to the forefront the leads directly to Mr. Holder and the members of the BATF that is quite damning. This latest turn of events with the pending contempt of Congress vote against Mr. Holder and the invoking of executive privilege by the White House just stinks this thing up even more.
Not to mention, the documents that Justice has turned over were so heavily redacted that nothing could be gleamed from them.
I don't know if I care to sling Donkey/Elephant blame around but... I LOVE where this report (Washington Times) has gone!!
Weak mainstream media coverage of Fast and Furious | Washington Times Communities
Yet you have provided an extremely biased account which reads like propaganda and not information or facts, and not a single source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
You are wrong. As the thread starter the onus is on you to provide 'information', I can simply call you on your deficiency and request that you substantiate your claims with facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
So, where are the references for those legal opinions? Somehow I have a hunch that they will turn out to not be 'legal' after all, but it's still your responsibility to provide them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus
Right on brother. What makes Mr. Holder so much more special than you and me. These politicians, especially of the liberal persuasion think that the are above the law and falsely believe that they have some sort of extra-legal protection that gives them immunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by crotalus
You and I can go to jail for concealing evidence. Holder is no different. Congress has the right to ask these questions, Holder does not have the right to refuse. What happened to this being "the most transparent Presidency ever". I see little evidence of it.
Yes, decisions are being made with the intention of covering the guilty parties rears, nothing else.
The whole "Do as I say, Not as I do" argument comes to mind.
Nope, I said their opinion is worth no more their vote is worth in the next election. And I also said that they do not have access to the facts, and they are unqualified to provide legal opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterMason03
Firstly, all that 'evidence' I keep hearing from you is hearsay, none of you has ever shown it, and I doubt that most have seen even a fraction of it. Secondly the contempt vote is purely political and there is no way to spin it as not - it's along party lines following political rhetoric and machinations. Thirdly you should really be would be worried if those documents were not heavily redacted. I would imagine there is a way for appropriate parties with the proper legal authorization and security clearance to access non redacted versions.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterMason03
I hate to break it to you but many politicians are in fact different from you and do have immunity. I thought you guys knew such basic things about the laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterMason03
"Committee chairman Representative Darrell Issa has "chosen to use his authority to take an extraordinary, unprecedented and entirely unnecessary action, intended to provoke an avoidable conflict between Congress and the Executive Branch," Mr Holder said.
"This divisive action does not help us fix the problems that led to this operation or previous ones and it does nothing to make any of our law enforcement agents safer," he said, calling it "an election-year tactic".
The Department of Justice says it has denied access to the files because they contain information that could affect criminal investigations.
Its officials say they have already sent more than 7,000 documents to the Republican-led House Oversight Committee.
Wednesday's use of executive privilege for withholding documents is the first time Mr Obama has invoked the power. Former Presidents George W Bush and Bill Clinton used the privilege six and 14 times respectively during their eight-year terms."
BBC News - Congress contempt charge for US Attorney General Holder
Why would they lie BAHAHAHAHAHHAAA!?
What criminal investigation? The only thing that is criminal in this matter is Mr. Holder's conduct as the AG. What is so unprecedented about Mr. Issa's aggressive desire for the truth? What is so unnecessary about getting to the bottom of this?
Bush's Operation Wide Receiver allowed a fraction of the arms to walk in order to see whose hands they wound up in. This was with the cooperation of the Mexican government. It was cancelled because it was grossly ineffective. So Holder and Obama dusted off this program and ramped it up with three to four times the amount of arms to what result. They lost track of most of them and the add insult, the Mexican government was left in the dark.
Operation F&F is nothing more than a state-sponsored arms-trafficking scheme that has resulted in loss of life on both sides of the border. Also, about the redacted documents. I smell a good ole case of CYA by the Holder Justice Dept and the WH.
And how are you qualified to determine this? Or is this yet another empty declaration based on your 'opinion'.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterMason03
Wow, just wow... "Unsubscribed."Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterMason03