Fast & Furious

Assuredcw · Aug 16, 2012

TerranceL said:
Imagine if Nixon's DOJ said "We are investigating it and nobody else can see this information because......".

What a horrible precedent.

Law enforcement gets to keep things from Congress. Sorry.

Furthermore, if any members of Congress are up to something, the AG would be the one to investigate and prosecute, and not the other way around. Congress is not above the law, and the Attorney General is The Law. The Inspectors General are looking into this, so IF and ONLY IF Holder has done something illegal, he will be subject to prosecution, and maybe even execution. Don't worry about it -- NO ONE will cover for him, but also, no one is going to railroad him, either.

MachZer0 · Aug 16, 2012

Assuredcw said:
Law enforcement gets to keep things from Congress. Sorry.

That will be determined by the lawsuit

Assuredcw · Aug 16, 2012

MachZer0 said:
That will be determined by the lawsuit

Yes, of course...

Assuredcw said:
What I am saying, is that regardless of what you do or don't do to Holder, no one should see those files. They are files for the Prosecution only. Congress is not involved in prosecutions.

I would bet that no judge is going to order Holder to show Darrell Issa those files. Ain't gonna happen.

TerranceL · Aug 17, 2012

Assuredcw said:
Law enforcement gets to keep things from Congress. Sorry.

Not when there is a subpoena.

We have checks and balances for a reason.

Assuredcw · Aug 17, 2012

TerranceL said:
Not when there is a subpoena.

We have checks and balances for a reason.

Go back and read the OP, TerranceL -- the buck stops with the Attorney General, not Congress. You have one who has authority to prosecute, and one who doesn't, so perhaps it is better to have the one who has the ability to PROSECUTE be the final authority. That's the likely reasoning behind the separation between the AG and Congress. He shouldn't have to show them anything that needs to remain classified. And he DOESN'T have to.

Here is something interesting I read about in yesterday's paper, about what often happens when things do not remain confidential:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0815-leaked-documents-20120816,0,1963725.story

This happens so often, that Attorney General Holder is not to be blamed for not wanting ANYONE to know about who he is looking at, and who is going to be arrested or charged next.

TerranceL · Aug 18, 2012

Assuredcw said:
Go back and read the OP, TerranceL -- the buck stops with the Attorney General, not Congress. You have one who has authority to prosecute, and one who doesn't, so perhaps it is better to have the one who has the ability to PROSECUTE be the final authority.

Did you miss the Clinton presidency?

Your OP is irrelevant. The constition says that the congress has the power of checks and balances. You are surprised congress even has the power to force a sitting president to give sworn testimony.

Or did you miss the Bush presidency?

Did you forget when congress forced Bush's AG to testify?

This isn't new.

That's the likely reasoning behind the separation between the AG and Congress. He shouldn't have to show them anything that needs to remain classified.

The seperation between the AG and congress is called the executive branch. It's a completely different branch of government.

And he DOESN'T have to.

Of course he does. A long time ago we fought a war to ensure that those who would rule us would be held accountable. It's been a few hundred years but I'm almost certain it still applies.

Here is something interesting I read about in yesterday's paper, about what often happens when things do not remain confidential:

Court clerk in L.A. accused of revealing raids to gang members - latimes.com

This happens so often, that Attorney General Holder is not to be blamed for not wanting ANYONE to know about who he is looking at, and who is going to be arrested or charged next.

Either you didn't actually read the article or you didn't understand it.

It doesn't apply here, now if members of holders staff were to contact members of the mexican mafia and tell them, "Hey don't buy guns from xyz they are part of a sting operation!" you might have a point.

The article talks about someone inside the court itself tipping off the bad guys.

Guess what? In every court in the country the court clerk always gets the information about the court cases... you might even say ... it's their job... the sealed documents are all right there.

Now if this was a story of an unafiliated body investigating the court and someone within that body doing something bad with the information you'd have a point. But that's not what the storys about.

Assuredcw · Aug 18, 2012

TerranceL said:
Did you miss the Clinton presidency?

Your OP is irrelevant. The constition says that the congress has the power of checks and balances. You are surprised congress even has the power to force a sitting president to give sworn testimony.

Or did you miss the Bush presidency?

Did you forget when congress forced Bush's AG to testify?

This isn't new.

The seperation between the AG and congress is called the executive branch. It's a completely different branch of government.

Of course he does. A long time ago we fought a war to ensure that those who would rule us would be held accountable. It's been a few hundred years but I'm almost certain it still applies.

Either you didn't actually read the article or you didn't understand it.

It doesn't apply here, now if members of holders staff were to contact members of the mexican mafia and tell them, "Hey don't buy guns from xyz they are part of a sting operation!" you might have a point.

The article talks about someone inside the court itself tipping off the bad guys.

Guess what? In every court in the country the court clerk always gets the information about the court cases... you might even say ... it's their job... the sealed documents are all right there.

Now if this was a story of an unafiliated body investigating the court and someone within that body doing something bad with the information you'd have a point. But that's not what the storys about.

You don't like our CURRENT Attorney General, so Congress is now prosecuting Federal cases?

Uh huh. Dream on...

My point was simply that, if you are in law enforcement, the more people who know the specifics of a case, the greater the likelihood that information will leak out, and you will sabotage your case. That is the very basis of the confidentiality that Holder is claiming -- he needs his files to remain classified so that nothing is leaked and nothing is sabotaged. Heck, we should ALL want that for every Prosecutor, and not just Holder. Neither should we be begrudging him what he needs to do his job.

Maybe you don't think he should be IN the job, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If he can't keep his files classified, none of us are safe. Congress doesn't get to see stuff like this, and Holder should be allowed to decide that, right up to the moment he is actually replaced.

TerranceL · Aug 18, 2012

Assuredcw said:
You don't like our CURRENT Attorney General, so Congress is now prosecuting Federal cases?

Uh huh. Dream on...

Perhaps if you did less dreaming and more reading you would have seen that's not even in the ballpark of what I said... I mean... the ballparks is on the otherside of town.

It's congresses job to provide oversight which is what the current preisent and the current AG are attempting to block.

Assuredcw · Aug 19, 2012

TerranceL said:
Perhaps if you did less dreaming and more reading you would have seen that's not even in the ballpark of what I said... I mean... the ballparks is on the otherside of town.

It's congresses job to provide oversight which is what the current preisent and the current AG are attempting to block.

Congress does NOT oversee the Attorney General. There is a separation in place between the Executive Branch and Congress, that would prevent that.

Perhaps I will do a Google search on exactly who would oversee the AG, but I believe that would be the Justice Dept itself. Don't worry -- the employees aren't all Obama supporters or even all Democrats, so it would be a reasonable assumption that if Holder has done something wrong, someone will talk to somebody about it.

Edited: That is assuming, of course, that only Republicans care about preventing corruption in the Justice Dept -- LOL!

Edited again: The AG can be removed by Congress by impeachment. But the Republicans will need Democrats, not to mention actual evidence, for that to happen. You don't demand to see his files to go looking for evidence. You have to get it from someone in the Justice Dept who reports to him, and can prove by actual email correspondence or internal memos, etc, that Holder ordered them to do something illegal.

TerranceL · Aug 19, 2012

Assuredcw said:
Congress does NOT oversee the Attorney General. There is a separation in place between the Executive Branch and Congress, that would prevent that.

...

I don't know how many more ways it needs to be said... congress provides oversight of the executive branch.

Congressional oversight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Supreme Court of the United States made legitimate the oversight powers of Congress, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties, on several occasions. In 1927, for instance, the High Court found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress was considering a subject "on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit."

You do know who leads the justice department right?

Perhaps I will do a Google search on exactly who would oversee the AG, but I believe that would be the Justice Dept itself.

That's hilarious.

So the AG will oversee the AG...

Assuredcw · Aug 19, 2012

TerranceL said:
...

I don't know how many more ways it needs to be said... congress provides oversight of the executive branch.

Congressional oversight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do know who leads the justice department right?

That's hilarious.

So the AG will oversee the AG...

Go back and reread my previous post. You are ASSUMING that ONLY REPUBLICANS care about fundamental decency, and furthermore, that there aren't any Republican employees working for the Justice Dept. Since both assumptions are FALSE, we can pretty much rest on its being likely that someone is going to blow the whistle if they've got evidence in hand. Without evidence, nothing can be done. I think that is how the system was set up -- to prevent contempt from turning into a unilateral Republican removal of the AG. If you can produce evidence, believe me, most if not all of the Democrats in Congress will feel compelled to impeach.

So we are either talking impeachment (by way of evidence), or we have to stop whining.

TerranceL · Aug 20, 2012

Assuredcw said:
Go back and reread my previous post. You are ASSUMING that ONLY REPUBLICANS care about fundamental decency, and furthermore, that there aren't any Republican employees working for the Justice Dept. Since both assumptions are FALSE, we can pretty much rest on its being likely that someone is going to blow the whistle if they've got evidence in hand. Without evidence, nothing can be done. I think that is how the system was set up -- to prevent contempt from turning into a unilateral Republican removal of the AG. If you can produce evidence, believe me, most if not all of the Democrats in Congress will feel compelled to impeach.

So we are either talking impeachment (by way of evidence), or we have to stop whining.

I've assumed no such thing, you are assuming that everyone is as partisan as you are and that people will call out their boss just because he's of a differing party.

Assuredcw · Aug 20, 2012

I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that quite possibly, the reason why no evidence has materialized against AG Holder is BECAUSE HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING?

That remains an additional possibility, that you appear to have failed to consider. But there is a point after which this would become not just possible, but probable.

TerranceL · Aug 20, 2012

Yeah if I am innocent of any wrong doing I totally try to hinder investigations.

Assuredcw · Aug 20, 2012

TerranceL said:
Yeah if I am innocent of any wrong doing I totally try to hinder investigations.

He is the Attorney General and he is in the middle of HIS OWN investigation. That's his job.

Hoo Boy...

HerbieHeadley · Aug 20, 2012

Gowdy on Contempt for AG Holder: Will You Settle for 75% of the Truth on Fast & Furious? - YouTube
Jun 28, 2012

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, speaks on the House Floor on the Criminal Contempt Resolution.

More information at http://FastandFuriousInvestigation.com

Assuredcw · Aug 20, 2012

HerbieHeadley said:
Gowdy on Contempt for AG Holder: Will You Settle for 75% of the Truth on Fast & Furious? - YouTube
Jun 28, 2012

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, speaks on the House Floor on the Criminal Contempt Resolution.

More information at Fast and Furious Investigation

Yes, we know they don't like him. It isn't up to them. They need Democrats, not to mention evidence, in order to get Congress to impeach, so what individual Congressmen are saying is not particularly relevant.

RETS · Aug 20, 2012

But everything that one particular single man says IS relevant and is ALSO above reproach or question, right?

Assuredcw · Aug 20, 2012

RETS said:
But everything that one particular single man says IS relevant and is ALSO above reproach or question, right?

He is in charge of the entire Justice Dept -- what do you want from me?!

Seriously, he is in charge, and you can't just REMOVE him. Don't blame me -- I am just pointing out that so far, Darrell Issa and his cronies are still digging for evidence. He admits it -- it's why he wants to see those files.

A true whistleblower sneaks over to you with an entire suitcase full of documentation to PROVE what they are saying. I personally keep documentation of EVERYTHING I am told to do, one way or another. If anyone were to say, "What you are doing is illegal," I could instantly whip out proof that I was ONLY acting on the orders of my superiors. It is important to be able to do that, because if you can't do that, you could end up in a LOT of trouble. Depend on it -- about 5 people at the ATF are already in a lot of trouble. Maybe they want to blame Holder? OK, PROVE IT. I don't buy that their inability to prove it, has an innocent explanation. Not attorneys, and not management. They know to cover themselves. Holder had nothing to do with it unless they can PROVE he did, because of the nature of the work itself (they aren't construction workers, LOL!)

RETS · Aug 21, 2012

Assuredcw said:
He is in charge of the entire Justice Dept -- what do you want from me?!

An acknowledgement that you may be wrong.

Do you know why so many within organized crime got away with what they did? Because they held and/or got rid of all the evidence needed to convict them.

Here we have a man who may be doing the same thing. He is not willing to let a special prosecutor view the files; he is not willing to do anything which would cause him to lose sight of the files for even a moment- You tell me, from an objective viewpoint, is that something a man innocent of ANY wrongdoing does?

Fast & Furious

Should Attorney General Holder be held in contempt?

Yes, he should be held in contempt (explain)

No, he should not be held in contempt (explain)

I am not sure.

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

North American Energy Independence Now!

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Telling it like it is

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Telling it like it is

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency