Fast and Furious

[Ashmoria]

yeah but they are very effective trolls in the conservative community.

their extreme views today will be consitutionaly protected tomorrow.
Accept it the culture war is lost, the people with the guns have won.

i completely accept that.

the only thing im complaining about is the NRAs insistence that the democrats have secret plans to steal our guns when its obvious that the constitution wont ever allow that. the democrats have no such plans. they are futile.

[Wamitoria]

yeah but they are very effective trolls in the conservative community.

their extreme views today will be consitutionaly protected tomorrow.
Accept it the culture war is lost, the people with the guns have won.

Yep, the gun control issue is lost.

As far as I know, abortion is still legal.

[Ethel mermania]

whats your evidence that Issa is lying?

The fact that he hasn't held an impeachment vote on Holder despite continually accusing him of impeachable offenses.

You need the evidence first, which is what the subpoena is about. The only crime they now is contempt of congress, the documents would prove lying to congress, and then you have an impeachable offense, Obama's using privilege eliminates congress from getting those documents.

very tricksie mr president.

[Ashmoria]

The fact that he hasn't held an impeachment vote on Holder despite continually accusing him of impeachable offenses.

You need the evidence first, which is what the subpoena is about. The only crime they now is contempt of congress, the documents would prove lying to congress, and then you have an impeachable offense, Obama's using privilege eliminates congress from getting those documents.

very tricksie mr president.

if there was some (amazingly minor) crime of "lying to congress" (about something that wasnt a crime) there is plenty of time to charge mr holder after he and the president are out of office. there is no compelling need to get to it over the objections of executive privilege (so that mr isa can justify his slimey political existence)

[Wamitoria]

The fact that he hasn't held an impeachment vote on Holder despite continually accusing him of impeachable offenses.

You need the evidence first, which is what the subpoena is about.

In which case, their case against Holder is weak as hell.

[Khadgar]

The fact that he hasn't held an impeachment vote on Holder despite continually accusing him of impeachable offenses.

You need the evidence first, which is what the subpoena is about. The only crime they now is contempt of congress, the documents would prove lying to congress, and then you have an impeachable offense, Obama's using privilege eliminates congress from getting those documents.

very tricksie mr president.

Don't you usually need evidence before you can subpoena people? Though I guess that requirement could be waived for political motivations.

[New Chalcedon]

Attorney Gernal Holder is having a comptet vote today and just breaking now Obama has asserted his privilege to those documents. A comment on the story on Yahoo said this
"IMPECHMENT" what do you guys think

Oh, a "contempt vote"? How is exerting executive privilege an impeachable offense?

Because it's a Democrat, duh. I don't recall Boehner calling for contempt votes against Bush Administration officials sheltering behind executive privilege - I guess it's a privilege reserved for Republicans.

[New Chalcedon]

The fact that he hasn't held an impeachment vote on Holder despite continually accusing him of impeachable offenses.

You need the evidence first, which is what the subpoena is about. The only crime they now is contempt of congress, the documents would prove lying to congress, and then you have an impeachable offense, Obama's using privilege eliminates congress from getting those documents.

very tricksie mr president.

You can't hide behind executive privilege from impeachment counsels - Nixon tried that in 1974, and the courts said fuck off.

So if Issa really, really wanted the documents, all he'd have to do would be to file the damned articles of impeachment, just like a whole bunch of Republicans have been wanting him to do since they regained the majority in 2010. Then the Administration would have no choice but to fork over the documents, executive privilege or not.

[Bordurian]

You folks in the US really need to sort out your education system if the OP is a representative example.

And their healthcare.

[Ethel mermania]

You need the evidence first, which is what the subpoena is about. The only crime they now is contempt of congress, the documents would prove lying to congress, and then you have an impeachable offense, Obama's using privilege eliminates congress from getting those documents.

very tricksie mr president.

if there was some (amazingly minor) crime of "lying to congress" (about something that wasnt a crime) there is plenty of time to charge mr holder after he and the president are out of office. there is no compelling need to get to it over the objections of executive privilege (so that mr isa can justify his slimey political existence)

yea, the sectretary of the dept of justice, commits a federal offense and lies to the over-site committee, is not really important. Who cares whether they tell the truth or not, after all they are liberals it must be for the common good.

[Ethel mermania]

You need the evidence first, which is what the subpoena is about. The only crime they now is contempt of congress, the documents would prove lying to congress, and then you have an impeachable offense, Obama's using privilege eliminates congress from getting those documents.

very tricksie mr president.

Don't you usually need evidence before you can subpoena people? Though I guess that requirement could be waived for political motivations.

Issa does have evidence. The ATF folks said they objected to Holder about F&F in summer 2010, they produced emails addressed to holder from that time, HOlder said "the dog ate it i did not read it" ok he only said the "i did not read it". Emails from holder and his minions might prove or disprove whether he read them, and whether he lied to congress or not. These are the documents Holder is withholding.

[Farnhamia]

You need the evidence first, which is what the subpoena is about. The only crime they now is contempt of congress, the documents would prove lying to congress, and then you have an impeachable offense, Obama's using privilege eliminates congress from getting those documents.

very tricksie mr president.

You can't hide behind executive privilege from impeachment counsels - Nixon tried that in 1974, and the courts said fuck off.

So if Issa really, really wanted the documents, all he'd have to do would be to file the damned articles of impeachment, just like a whole bunch of Republicans have been wanting him to do since they regained the majority in 2010. Then the Administration would have no choice but to fork over the documents, executive privilege or not.

Impeaching the president in an election year? Nah. They can just take the administration to court.

[New Chalcedon]

You can't hide behind executive privilege from impeachment counsels - Nixon tried that in 1974, and the courts said fuck off.

So if Issa really, really wanted the documents, all he'd have to do would be to file the damned articles of impeachment, just like a whole bunch of Republicans have been wanting him to do since they regained the majority in 2010. Then the Administration would have no choice but to fork over the documents, executive privilege or not.

Impeaching the president in an election year? Nah. They can just take the administration to court.

Either way, they can get the evidence if they really want it. So when Issa's standing there, wringing his hands about the "hiding of evidence" (not that this bothered Issa, a veteran Congresscritter, whne Bush was doing it), I can know he's a hypocrite. With the friendly courts Republicans enjoy, he could get the dirt if he wanted it, and he didn't mind when Bush used the same trick.

if there was some (amazingly minor) crime of "lying to congress" (about something that wasnt a crime) there is plenty of time to charge mr holder after he and the president are out of office. there is no compelling need to get to it over the objections of executive privilege (so that mr isa can justify his slimey political existence)

yea, the sectretary of the dept of justice, commits a federal offense

Not established. And he's the Attorney-General, not the "sectretary of the dept of justice".

and lies to the over-site committee,

Not established.

is not really important.

Only person saying that is Ashmoria, that I can see.

Who cares whether they tell the truth or not, after all they are liberals it must be for the common good.

No-one's saying that, either.

And neither Eric Holder nor Barack Obama are liberals - they're both moderates with fairly wide streaks of conservatism.

You need the evidence first, which is what the subpoena is about. The only crime they now is contempt of congress, the documents would prove lying to congress, and then you have an impeachable offense, Obama's using privilege eliminates congress from getting those documents.

very tricksie mr president.

Don't you usually need evidence before you can subpoena people? Though I guess that requirement could be waived for political motivations.

No. You don't need the evidence to subpoena people - the subpoena is to get evidence, after all. Saying that a Congressional committee needs the evidence first to issue the subpoena is putting the cart before the horse.

You need the evidence first, which is what the subpoena is about. The only crime they now is contempt of congress, the documents would prove lying to congress, and then you have an impeachable offense, Obama's using privilege eliminates congress from getting those documents.

very tricksie mr president.

if there was some (amazingly minor) crime of "lying to congress" (about something that wasnt a crime) there is plenty of time to charge mr holder after he and the president are out of office. there is no compelling need to get to it over the objections of executive privilege (so that mr isa can justify his slimey political existence)

Perjuring one's self before Congress (and I believe Holder testified under oath, so it would be perjury if he lied) is not minor. Darrell Issa may be one of the more slimy politicians around (a car alarm salesman and a politician, wow!), and the "investigation" is almost certainly motivated by partisan politics rather than by any actual wrongdoing on the Administration's part - but lying before Congress is not minor. Not ever. It was major when Alberto Gonzales did it in 2006, it's major now.

If it's partisanly-motivated, then Obama should do exactly what he's doing now - use executive privilege to keep Issa from turning yet another false accusation against the Administration into a three-ring circus.

If it's not, then Issa will turn to the courts for redress, and the courts will order the Administration to comply with the subpoenas. Mind you, this is also likely to happen if the accusations are motivated by party politics - the courts have shown little interest in striking down Republican over-reach of late.

[Gauthier]

Had Bush done this you'd all be crying yourselves to sleep!

That clinches it. You're Gauthier.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have any puppets. Plus F2 and its predecessors were cooked up without Presidential awareness.

[Big Jim P]

Had Bush done this you'd all be crying yourselves to sleep!

Double standards are the whole reason we have a two-party system, dontcha know. Imagine the howl if I posted just how much like a monkey (and Bush) Obama looks.

[Gauthier]

Had Bush done this you'd all be crying yourselves to sleep!

Double standards are the whole reason we have a two-party system, dontcha know. Imagine the howl if I posted just how much like a monkey (and Bush) Obama looks.

If Bush was included in the picture the howl would be limited to people looking for racism anyways. Leave Bush out of it and everyone would howl.

[Big Jim P]

Double standards are the whole reason we have a two-party system, dontcha know. Imagine the howl if I posted just how much like a monkey (and Bush) Obama looks.

If Bush was included in the picture the howl would be limited to people looking for racism anyways. Leave Bush out of it and everyone would howl.

It is almost worth it.

Edit: Maybe Obama nailed to a cross?

[Gauthier]

If Bush was included in the picture the howl would be limited to people looking for racism anyways. Leave Bush out of it and everyone would howl.

It is almost worth it.

Edit: Maybe Obama nailed to a cross?

And you'd end up attracting Tea Party fans who buy into the Obamessiah complex.

[AiliailiA]

That clinches it. You're Gauthier.

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have any puppets.

OK. That poster has your name, spelled backwards, and seems bent on getting a ban. I thought maybe the summer madness had driven you to trolling

[Mavorpen]

their extreme views today will be consitutionaly protected tomorrow.
Accept it the culture war is lost, the people with the guns have won.

i completely accept that.

the only thing im complaining about is the NRAs insistence that the democrats have secret plans to steal our guns when its obvious that the constitution wont ever allow that. the democrats have no such plans. they are futile.

I actually debated this with a friend of mine who seriously think Obama will take away her guns if he's reelected. If there's anything that hurts my brain most, it's those people.

[Farnhamia]

i completely accept that.

the only thing im complaining about is the NRAs insistence that the democrats have secret plans to steal our guns when its obvious that the constitution wont ever allow that. the democrats have no such plans. they are futile.

I actually debated this with a friend of mine who seriously think Obama will take away her guns if he's reelected. If there's anything that hurts my brain most, it's those people.

If she thinks that, taking away her guns would probably be a good thing.

[Mavorpen]

I actually debated this with a friend of mine who seriously think Obama will take away her guns if he's reelected. If there's anything that hurts my brain most, it's those people.

If she thinks that, taking away her guns would probably be a good thing.

Well considering she said she would shoot someone in the face if they tried to take away her gun... probably.

[Wamitoria]

i completely accept that.

the only thing im complaining about is the NRAs insistence that the democrats have secret plans to steal our guns when its obvious that the constitution wont ever allow that. the democrats have no such plans. they are futile.

I actually debated this with a friend of mine who seriously think Obama will take away her guns if he's reelected. If there's anything that hurts my brain most, it's those people.

It's the damn NRA. They've become an entirely partisan lobbying organization and many of their members haven't realized it and think that they're getting information from a source that simply works to ensure continued legality of gun ownership.

[Big Jim P]

I actually debated this with a friend of mine who seriously think Obama will take away her guns if he's reelected. If there's anything that hurts my brain most, it's those people.

It's the damn NRA. They've become an entirely partisan lobbying organization and many of their members haven't realized it and think that they're getting information from a source that simply works to ensure continued legality of gun ownership.

As opposed to thier opposite numbers who have absolutely no bias whatsoever.

[Mavorpen]

I actually debated this with a friend of mine who seriously think Obama will take away her guns if he's reelected. If there's anything that hurts my brain most, it's those people.

It's the damn NRA. They've become an entirely partisan lobbying organization and many of their members haven't realized it and think that they're getting information from a source that simply works to ensure continued legality of gun ownership.

Well the sad part is that a lot of the members I've met know that the NRA is just a lobby organization, and they roll with it. Apparently the NRA is fighting for their rights, so why does it matter if their "facts" are complete bullshit?