Fast & Furious

[Rion]

Invite you guys here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7668585/

Yes, even you, assured.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Closing this for review

BTW, the site rules include:

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.

Disruptive Behavior, Campaigning, Staff Disciplinary Action
Do not disrupt the peace and harmony of the site by rehashing alleged grievances or disputes, publicly complaining about posts or threads, or ranting about Christian Forums or its staff. Do not attempt to undermine these rules or policies via campaigns, petitions, or protests. Do not discuss staff or reported actions publicly. Use the Member Services Center to submit questions and complaints about staff disciplinary action or rules.​

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

A thread clean up has occurred to remove the off topic derogatory racial discussion. Please try to get back on topic!

MOD HAT OFF

 

[MachZer0]

So it turns out that issa is being fed info from an insider in the DOJ, a whistle blower. That's gonna hurt Holder pretty bad. I bet some of my liberal friends will be doing an About-Face on whistle blowers in the next few days and weeks

 

[NightHawkeye]

So it turns out that issa is being fed info from an insider in the DOJ, a whistle blower. That's gonna hurt Holder pretty bad. I bet some of my liberal friends will be doing an About-Face on whistle blowers in the next few days and weeks

LOL ... my guess would be multiple insiders.

 

[freezerman2000]

I'm glad to see someone within the DOJ doing what needed to be done.

 

[Assuredcw]

So it turns out that issa is being fed info from an insider in the DOJ, a whistle blower. That's gonna hurt Holder pretty bad. I bet some of my liberal friends will be doing an About-Face on whistle blowers in the next few days and weeks

Of course Issa's been talking to whistleblowers - we knew that. Issa presumably submitted whatever "proof" he had to the US Attorney of the District of Colombia, but we already KNOW there was no proof because we were told that. before the contempt vote was held. That's what members of Congress said, when they said they were against contempt - there was no proof of wrongdoing.

Who cares what the "whistleblowers" SAID? If they didn't produce an email or something, they've got nothing on him (to excuse what they did, probably). And if you get a direct order to do something, especially if you KNOW you shouldn't be doing it, you cover yourself by either getting it or confirming it in writing. You can't blame something YOU DID on Holder unless you can prove that he told you to do it. No one is that stupid, or at least I would hope not.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Who cares what the "whistleblowers" SAID?

Frequently the courts do. It's called evidence.

 

[Assuredcw]

You can't charge the Attorney General with criminal contempt without something in writing. An employee shouldn't just be able to SAY that. If the employee did something he or she suspected might backfire, they need to send themselves a copy of that email to their home computer or something (I've done that) just in case. Apparently the "whistleblower" had nothing like that - strange if he or she took direct orders from Holder. Simply saying something is not evidence - what you've said has to be substantiated.

 

[NightHawkeye]

You can't charge the Attorney General of criminal contempt without something in writing. An employee shouldn't just be able to SAY that. If the employee did something he or she suspected might backfire, they need to send themselves a copy of that email to their home computer or something (I've done that) just in case. Apparently the "whistleblower" had nothing like that - strange if he or she took direct orders from Holder. Simply saying something is not evidence - what you've said has to be substantiated.

So ... you would want corroborating testimony?

 

[MachZer0]

Of course Issa's been talking to whistleblowers - we knew that. Issa presumably submitted whatever "proof" he had to the US Attorney of the District of Colombia, but we already KNOW there was no proof because we were told that. before the contempt vote was held. That's what members of Congress said, when they said they were against contempt - there was no proof of wrongoing.

Who cares what the "whistleblowers" SAID? If they didn't produce an email or something, they've got nothing on him (to excuse what they did, probably). And if you get a direct order to do something, especially if you KNOW you shouldn't be doing it, you cover yourself by either getting it or confirming it in writing. You can't blame something YOU DID on Holder unless you can prove that he told you to do it. No one is that stupid, or at least I would hope not.

Issa produced the documents on the floor of the House yesterday. Holder has to be scrambling for way out of this at this point. Maybe he's talking to Obama about a pardon right after the election. Of course we know how our liberal friends would object based on their response to Bush commuting Libby's sentence

 

[MachZer0]

You can't charge the Attorney General of criminal contempt without something in writing. An employee shouldn't just be able to SAY that. If the employee did something he or she suspected might backfire, they need to send themselves a copy of that email to their home computer or something (I've done that) just in case. Apparently the "whistleblower" had nothing like that - strange if he or she took direct orders from Holder. Simply saying something is not evidence - what you've said has to be substantiated.

Holder has already been found in contempt

 

[SolomonVII]

Criminal Contempt of Congress by a vote of 255-67, with 17 Dems voting for the motion.
In the meantime, back at the golf course (one can only suppose), Obama assists in covering up the 1300 pages of documents not turned over, by invoking Executive Privilege.

 

[MachZer0]

Criminal Contempt of Congress by a vote of 255-67, with 17 Dems voting for the motion.
In the meantime, back at the golf course (one can only suppose), Obama assists in covering up the 1300 pages of documents not turned over, by invoking Executive Privilege.

Recalling that according to Obama, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide."

 

[Assuredcw]

Criminal Contempt of Congress by a vote of 255-67, with 17 Dems voting for the motion.
In the meantime, back at the golf course (one can only suppose), Obama assists in covering up the 1300 pages of documents not turned over, by invoking Executive Privilege.

Congress requested a criminal review, and there isn't enough evidence to press criminal charges against the AG. If you want to blame anyone, blame the whistleblowers for not grabbing enough evidence to show Issa. Sorry.

 

[Assuredcw]

So ... you would want corroborating testimony?

No - not more people SAYING things. An email from Holder to the employee, telling them not to do anything about those guns that are getting into the hands of Mexican cartels, or whatever ridiculous things they are trying to say that Holder personally told them to do. He can't have told you anything if you don't report to him, and if it was a phone conversation only, you send him an email saying, "Pursuant to your instructions this morning, I am going to do X, Y, and Z. I will prepare a report on X, Y and Z and email it back to you on Monday July 2 no later than 10 AM."

You'd have the original instruction that you confirmed with him (or that he emailed to you), as well as any supporting documentation that surrounded that assignment or instruction (such as a report or summary). If you work for him, you would have all kinds of written proof of the instructions he gave you. If you don't, then that isn't going to prove criminal contempt.

 

[MachZer0]

Congress requested a criminal review, and there isn't enough evidence to press criminal charges against the AG. If you want to blame anyone, blame the whistleblowers for not grabbing enough evidence to show Issa. Sorry.

There appears to be enough eviednce, just not enough corage in the DOJ since they would have to prosecute their boss. That's why you'll be hearing calls for a special prosecutor.

 

[Rion]

Darrell Issa Puts Details of Secret Wiretap Applications in Congressional Record : Roll Call News

The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.

According to the letter, the wiretap applications contained a startling amount of detail about the operation, which would have tipped off anyone who read them closely about what tactics were being used.

...

The tactic, which was intended to allow agents to track criminal networks by finding the guns at crime scenes, was condemned after two guns that were part of the operation were found at U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder scene.

...whoops.

 

[Assuredcw]

Darrell Issa Puts Details of Secret Wiretap Applications in Congressional Record : Roll Call News



...whoops.

Darrell Issa is crazy.

 

[Rion]

Darrell Issa is crazy.

Crazy like a fox.