House panel finds Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt

And now civil contempt as well. :)
 
Does contempt vote need to be pass in the senate?
 
Jiro said:
My post is related to this thread that includes all angles but it appears that you only want any article finger-pointing specifically at Obama and Holder.

I see.
Click to expand...

Because of you posts #53 & #55, I respectfully disagree. Those two post defected the attention away from Holder and his refusal to comply with Congress. An article about F & F is not what this thread is about, only that Holder, with assistance from Obama, is deviant.
 
Jiro said:
you are doing precisely what Republicans are doing. why aren't you interested in truth? did you even read the article? It's showing that Arizona is largely responsible for this mess.
Click to expand...

Well, it is "the truth" that was not handed over. That is why Holder is being held in contempt.

If no one was not interested in "the truth" as you are claiming ... then no one would have asked for any documents (which were not handed over by Holder ...maybe they should change his name to "Holding").
 
Jiro said:
My post is related to this thread that includes all angles but it appears that you only want any article finger-pointing specifically at Obama and Holder.

I see.
Click to expand...

Because this thread is about Holder being held in contempt. :roll:
What you are actually trying to do, is derail the thread.
 
rolling7 said:
Because of you posts #53 & #55, I respectfully disagree. Those two post defected the attention away from Holder and his refusal to comply with Congress. An article about F & F is not what this thread is about, only that Holder, with assistance from Obama, is deviant.
Click to expand...

Steinhauer said:
Well, it is "the truth" that was not handed over. That is why Holder is being held in contempt.

If no one was not interested in "the truth" as you are claiming ... then no one would have asked for any documents (which were not handed over by Holder ...maybe they should change his name to "Holding").
Click to expand...

Everything is always political about this situation. You're not interested in knowing whole thing behind this finger-pointing farce? In case you didn't know, this fast and furious program began before Obama and Holder. Does it ever occur to you that this contempt thing and Holder may be a distraction from the real truth? Don't forget that this program originated in Arizona. As the article shows, there was a systematic failure implicating dozens dozens of people especially in Arizona.
 
I believe that contempt vote against Holder is very political.
 
Jiro said:
Everything is always political about this situation. You're not interested in knowing whole thing behind this finger-pointing farce? In case you didn't know, this fast and furious program began before Obama and Holder. Does it ever occur to you that this contempt thing and Holder may be a distraction from the real truth? Don't forget that this program originated in Arizona. As the article shows, there was a systematic failure implicating dozens dozens of people especially in Arizona.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but Reba already corrected you when you tried to blame this on Bush. :ty:
 
Steinhauer said:
Because this thread is about Holder being held in contempt. :roll:
What you are actually trying to do, is derail the thread.
Click to expand...

What you are trying to do is censor the information pertaining to Fast and Furious scandal that implicates Republicans especially those behind cover-up and blaming Holder and Obama.

Was Governor Brewer involved? Was she aware of this problem? Did she ignore this problem? Was she behind a farce to shift blame on Obama Administration and to hold Holder in contempt? I ask same for Sheriff Arpaio.
 
Jiro said:
What you are trying to do is censor the information pertaining to Fast and Furious scandal that implicates Republicans especially those behind cover-up and blaming Holder and Obama.

Was Governor Brewer involved? Was she aware of this problem? Did she ignore this problem? Was she behind a farce to shift blame on Obama Administration and to hold Holder in contempt? I ask same for Sheriff Arpaio.
Click to expand...

No, Holder is attempting to censor the documents he was supposed to hand over.

Nice try though. Your de-railment failed.
 
Steinhauer said:
No, Holder is attempting to censor the documents he was supposed to hand over.

Nice try though. Your de-railment failed.
Click to expand...

Censor? There's no censorship in here.

Censorship is not the same thing as refusing to turn over documents. At the same time,

House holds Holder in contempt - CNN.com
Among other things, Democrats contend that California GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has refused to let witnesses proposed by Democrats give public testimony. They also claim he has been demanding documents outside the scope of the subpoenas Holder is accused of violating.
Click to expand...
 
Jiro said:
I think you're confusing me with somebody else.
Click to expand...

Yup, Reba was just point at me, not you.

It seems like Steinhauer get confused so easily or he's trying to play game with you.
 
Steinhauer said:
No, Holder is attempting to censor the documents he was supposed to hand over.

Nice try though. Your de-railment failed.
Click to expand...

None of those are derailment so stop playing stupid game with somebody.
 
Jiro said:
Censor? There's no censorship in here.

Censorship is not the same thing as refusing to turn over documents. At the same time,

House holds Holder in contempt - CNN.com
Click to expand...

You're right, what Holder is doing by intentionally withholding documents, is criminal.

But, since he does not want there to be any transparency in government, he is also a "censor".

cen·sor
   [sen-ser] Show IPA
noun
1.
an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
Click to expand...
 
Steinhauer said:
You're right, what Holder is doing by intentionally withholding documents, is criminal.
Click to expand...
not if it's got executive privilege.

Steinhauer said:
But, since he does not want there to be any transparency in government, he is also a "censor".
Click to expand...
let's stick with facts, not let's-make-up-a-definition, shall we?

censorship in government context refers to government censoring citizens, depriving them of their First Amendment.
 
Jiro said:
not if it's got executive privilege.


let's stick with facts, not let's-make-up-a-definition, shall we?

censorship in government context refers to government censoring citizens, depriving them of their First Amendment.
Click to expand...

I am sticking with the facts and no, I am not making up a definition. Intentionally misleading a Congressional Proceeding is criminal. Bill Clinton taught us all that.
 
Steinhauer said:
I am sticking with the facts and no, I am not making up a definition.
Click to expand...
good. then it's not censorship.

Steinhauer said:
Intentionally misleading a Congressional Proceeding is criminal. Bill Clinton taught us all that.
Click to expand...
I thought we're sticking with facts?

what you're describing is a perjury. that's not what happened in here. Congress voted to hold Holder in contempt for refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents. and FYI - Holder is not being criminally charged with anything.
 
Foxrac said:
I think Reba is partially incorrect.
Click to expand...
How was I incorrect? It wasn't my statement--it came directly from the Justice Department.

"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."

If you have a problem with that statement (from my previous post), take it up with the Justice Department. They said it, not me. All I did was post and link it.
 
Back
Top