Fast & Furious

[Assuredcw]

An acknowledgement that you may be wrong.

You have been getting that acknowledgement repeatedly throughout this thread -- I BELIEVE him to be innocent BECAUSE there hasn't been any proof of wrongdoing. Clearly, if I am acknowledging that it would be POSSIBLE to produce evidence, I am also acknowledging that I might be, as you say, "wrong." But my original position was innocent unless PROVEN guilty.

Can you say the same? The AG shouldn't have to prove a negative. No one has to prove they DIDN'T do something, at least not in the United States -- LOL! That's why our system of justice is based on "innocent unless proven guilty," to lift the burden of people (like the Attorney General) having to prove they DIDN'T do something (proving a negative).

He doesn't have the luxury of saying, "Come look at my files," because they aren't HIS files to show. They were only entrusted to him, and he needs to shield Federal witnesses, as well as his own plans for prosecutions and having people arrested, from the public. Even the Attorney General shouldn't have to prove a negative!

I gave an Exhibit A on what happens when people see things they shouldn't -- you missed the leaked info that compromised a Federal case in Los Angeles -- I posted it a page or two back. And I especially don't trust Congressman Issa and I don't want him to see that information. He hasn't been properly vetted to do the job that AG Holder is doing, and shouldn't be privy to his classified documents (he isn't an attorney and they would have to be explained to him anyway). The very idea upsets me.

 

[Assuredcw]

...

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?

You may not have seen this:

...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]

You may not have seen this:

No, I did see it. I also happen to know quite a bit of history as well.


Let's go back to the Clinton administration. Do you remember the name Vince Foster?

 

[Assuredcw]

No, I did see it. I also happen to know quite a bit of history as well.


Let's go back to the Clinton administration. Do you remember the name Vince Foster?

No employee of the Justice Dept has turned up dead yet. And there is reason to expect that this will not be happening anytime soon...

Also it might interest you to know what Wikipedia says about Vince Foster's death:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Foster

 

[Assuredcw]

Question -- does Darrell Issa have a security clearance? Does he qualify for one?

Darrell Issa's Criminal Background - YouTube

REPORT: Media Ignore Rep. Issa's Alleged Criminal Past | Research | Media Matters for America

No, I have no interest in smearing Issa. But honestly, I don't get it.

 

[Assuredcw]

John Nichols in The Nation knows all about Congressional Oversight and checks and balances, and he thinks Issa made a mountain out of a molehill.

Darrell Issa Shows Contemptible Disregard for the Constitution | The Nation#

Quoting from the link:

“The hoops the Committee is demanding the Attorney General jump through illustrate that these contempt hearings are as partisan as they are extreme. Over the course of this ‘investigation,’ the Committee has ordered the A.G. to produce documents whose confidentiality is protected by federal law, has refused to subpoena Bush Administration officials to testify about their knowledge of the operation during their time in office, has refused to allow public testimony from officials whose testimony counters Issa’s partisan narrative, and has repeatedly rejected the A.G.’s efforts to accommodate the committee, making compliance all but impossible."

....There is no reason to suggest that Holder is above criticism for his actions as Attorney General. He has been called out by Democrats as well as Republicans on a variety of issues. And he has not always managed his response to Issa’s abuses well. Nor should anyone who vaiues transparency and government oversight be pleased when a president determines that it is necessary to invoke “executive privilege” in a fight with Congress, as Barack Obama has done to thwart Issa’s demands.
But it is Issa whose actions have been contemptible. He is demanding deliberative documents that are ordinarily off-limits to Congress, a big ask, yet he has not built a credible coalition of supporters for the demand. And when the details of the documents and the issues involved are laid out—along with the offers by Holder to brief the committee—it quickly becomes evident that the committee chairman is so unwilling to compromise that he won’t take “yes” for an answer.

That's kind of how this looks to me, too. Not that I am any kind of expert or anything (unlike John Nichols, who as a critically-acclaimed writer and journalist who is The Nation's Washington correspondent, would certainly be considered an expert).

 

[TerranceL]

No, I have no interest in smearing Issa. But honestly, I don't get it.

Wait.. what?

I had to read this comment a few times before the audacity of what I had just read sunk in.

Referring to the people investigating Holder you have repeatedly referred to them as "crazy". you've referred to Issa himself as crazy atleast once:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7654388-62/#post60872611

Darrell Issa is crazy.

In this thread you've claimed that the investigation may have something to do with the investigators not like Holder because of his race.

But you have no interest in smearing Issa.

To say that I'm interested in what you think smearing Issa would look like is an understatement.

 

[Assuredcw]

He has been arrested, and arrested, and arrested again, and has at least one if not several actual gun charges on his record (an unregistered fiream!).

I've been holding back because there were so many other aspects of this situation to discuss (including Holder's NEED to keep his files close to his vest). But it was inevitable that this would finally come up, because honestly I don't get it.

If this was all about smearing Issa, I would have posted this information 70 pages ago, because the info has been out there for YEARS.

Edited: If you read just the excerpts from The Nation that I posted above, you will see that in light of what has been the norm in Executive challenges in the past, Issa's actions truly lack rationality. But of course, John Nichols isn't going to say he is crazy. But I will.

 

[MachZer0]

Question -- does Darrell Issa have a security clearance? Does he qualify for one?

REPORT: Media Ignore Rep. Issa's Alleged Criminal Past | Research | Media Matters for America

No, I have no interest in smearing Issa. But honestly, I don't get it.

Intresting that you would refer to an ALLEDGED criminal past but have never, to my knowledge, objected to Obama's actual and verifiable criminal past

 

[Assuredcw]

Intresting that you would refer to an ALLEDGED criminal past but have never, to my knowledge, objected to Obama's actual and verifiable criminal past

According to his (sanitized) Wikipedia page, he did in fact plead guilty to possession of an unregistered firearem.

But he has been arrested numerous times.

 

[SharonL]

I saw a picture that really brought this to the forefront.

It was a picture of Nixon saying 'I resigned over my scandel - yet no one was killed in Watergate'

 

[Assuredcw]

I saw a picture that really brought this to the forefront.

It was a picture of Nixon saying 'I resigned over my scandel - yet no one was killed in Watergate'

It doesn't surprise me that you don't want to talk about Issa anymore. He is the House's weakest link, truly, if they wanted this to look anything like a legitimate inquiry.

But I agree with you SharonL that the death of the border patrol agent was a tragedy. That it would be traced back to weapons smuggled by illegal gun-walking is beyond the pale. Holder is a new AG and the gunwalking was started during the Bush Administration. I haven't seen anything that convinces me that they received Holder's permission to continue it. If anything, it would appear that they never bothered to ASK HIM.

I would be very upset if Holder's head arbitrarily rolls for this, because A) He himself is adamantly opposed to gunwalking, and we actually need the AG to be opposed to it (duh!), and B) The perpetrators of this outrage will get away with it. That would be deeply unsatisfying to me, because the people responsible are all government employees and it could be very dangerous if this isn't carefully investigated, with every trace of the "infestation" removed.

 

[MachZer0]

It doesn't surprise me that you don't want to talk about Issa anymore. He is the House's weakest link, truly, if they wanted this to look anything like a legitimate inquiry.

Issa's past has no bearing on whether or not Holder, or anyone else, committed any crimes

 

[MachZer0]

I saw a picture that really brought this to the forefront.

It was a picture of Nixon saying 'I resigned over my scandel - yet no one was killed in Watergate'

Nobody made any money off of it either

 

[Assuredcw]

The previous AG may or may not have been aware of the (illegal) gunwalking. I don't suppose it occurred to Issa to ask Mukasey? Oh, WAIT -- that wouldn't be sufficiently embarrassing to President Obama, would it?

Even without the criminal charges and arrests, Issa would be a miserable excuse for a Congressman, and I am absolutely apalled at the way he has handled this miserable excuse for an "investigation."

 

[TerranceL]

The previous AG may or may not have been aware of the (illegal) gunwalking. I don't suppose it occurred to Issa to ask her? Oh, WAIT -- that wouldn't be sufficiently embarrassing to President Obama, would it?

You mean the previous gunwalking that was done with actual means to track the weapons and done with help from the mexican government? That pretty much makes it not illegal... it also helps that as soon as they discovered they couldn't track the weapons the program was shut down.

That's a huge difference from what Holder did.

Even without the criminal charges and arrests, Issa would be a miserable excuse for a Congressman, and I am absolutely apalled at the way he has handled this miserable excuse for an "investigation."

No, I have no interest in smearing Issa. But honestly, I don't get it.

 

[Assuredcw]

You mean the previous gunwalking that was done with actual means to track the weapons and done with help from the mexican government? That pretty much makes it not illegal... it also helps that as soon as they discovered they couldn't track the weapons the program was shut down.

That's a huge difference from what Holder did.

How could you possibly know what Holder did, if Issa is STILL trying to find out?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the basis of our justice system. The GOP cannot prove what they have accused AG Holder of, which is why he has not been prosecuted. You can say, "Cronyism -- it was the Justice Dept" all you want, but if there was no evidence, what else would the Justice Dept be expected to do? He has to be innocent until proven guilty, and prosecutors are always telling the police and others (like Issa), "There isn't enough evidence to prosecute." They would certainly be the ones to know that. Issa isn't even an attorney, but he still knew better than to expect any other outcome without evidence.

 

[TerranceL]

How could you possibly know what Holder did, if Issa is STILL trying to find out?

From what's already been released... for someone whose devoted so much time to this subject you really don't seem to know much about it. We know in detail the differences between the bush era program and the obama era programs.

The contention is what Holder knew and when he knew it.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the basis of our justice system. The GOP cannot prove what they have accused AG Holder of, which is why he has not been prosecuted. You can say, "Cornyism -- it was the Justice Dept" all you want, but if there was no evidence, what else would the Justice Dept be expected to do?

IF there is no evidence then why is the DOJ fighting so hard to keep so many papers out of the congress hands?

He has to be innocent until proven guilty, and prosecutors are always telling the police and others (like Issa), "There isn't enough evidence to prosecute."

Prosecutors don't speak to police... where do you get these ideas? A cop has no say if anyone is prosecuted, they've got no say in the matter. And in this case the congress themselves are prosecutors.

They would certainly be the ones to know that. Issa isn't even an attorney, but he still knew better than to expect any other outcome without evidence.

Yes we all understand that when someone refuses to show you all the information you can't come to a conclusion either way. But it does make one wonder if Holder is so innocent why he feels the need to hide so much about a shutdown program?

 

[Assuredcw]

...
Yes we all understand that when someone refuses to show you all the information you can't come to a conclusion either way. But it does make one wonder if Holder is so innocent why he feels the need to hide so much about a shutdown program?

You're not supposed to have to prove a negative -- "innocent unless proven guilty" and you wouldn't have to have a legal background to know that (I don't, of course). Furthermore, perhaps the police would find something to arrest YOU for, too, if only they were allowed to go through your house until they found something illegal (maybe not - but got your attention). Point is, you can't just DO that. There is such a thing as "probable cause," and Issa just doesn't seem to want to recognize what that whole concept is about. "Oh, let's just go through Holder's files until we find something." I don't know what country Issa thinks he is living in, but this is America, and we don't do that to anyone.

 

[SharonL]

One of the guilty parties has already received his punishment...

He was allowed to retire on his cushie retirement and full benefits - some kind of punishment isn't it - wonder when the other 4 will turn in their punishment forms. Don't you love paying for these people who allowed all those guns and murders for the rest of their lives.