Page 4 of 7

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:45 am
by sjfcontrol
tomneal wrote:(Who is Roger Clements?)

'roided-out baseball player. :shock:

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:49 pm
by Dave2
speedsix wrote:
sjfcontrol wrote:Fox is now reporting that the WH is asserting Executive Privilege

...http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/20/ju ... -involved/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
tomneal wrote:Well that article was interesting.
Napolitano concluded, “If the president was not personally involved, executive privilege doesn’t apply. If the president was personally involved, and they want to argue that fighting drug gangs at the border is a matter of sensitive national security, then they at least have an argument for executive privilege but that would be at odds with what Attorney General Holder has already testified to under oath.”
According to Judge Napolitano if Executive Privilege applies then Attorney General Holder lied to congress.
Chris Wallace says it could just mean a presidential aide was involved. In my mind, that's still a presidential lead worth pursuing, but if Mr. Wallace is right, it's (unfortunately) not the sure-fire link that Mr. Napolitano thinks it is.

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:13 pm
by VMI77
Dave2 wrote:
speedsix wrote:
sjfcontrol wrote:Fox is now reporting that the WH is asserting Executive Privilege

...http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/20/ju ... -involved/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
tomneal wrote:Well that article was interesting.
Napolitano concluded, “If the president was not personally involved, executive privilege doesn’t apply. If the president was personally involved, and they want to argue that fighting drug gangs at the border is a matter of sensitive national security, then they at least have an argument for executive privilege but that would be at odds with what Attorney General Holder has already testified to under oath.”
According to Judge Napolitano if Executive Privilege applies then Attorney General Holder lied to congress.
Chris Wallace says it could just mean a presidential aide was involved. In my mind, that's still a presidential lead worth pursuing, but if Mr. Wallace is right, it's (unfortunately) not the sure-fire link that Mr. Napolitano thinks it is.
They've had eight months to declare executive privileged if there really was a basis for it. This is just the last option they have left to keep the truth hidden.

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:17 pm
by RPB

How can Holder claim "Executive Privilege" on behalf of Obama for an operation both claim they knew nothing about?
:lol: :mrgreen:
Darrell Issa ‏@DarrellIssa

Voting on #fastandfurious amendments now: http://fastandfuriousinvestigation.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
WATCH LIVE: @GOPOversight contempt proceedings for AG #Holder: http://bit.ly/LB82HT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #fastandfurious via @GOPOversight
live now
http://issues.oversight.house.gov/fastandfurious/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I shop online too much during hearings lol

Contempt report will be made to the House, 17 nos, 23 ayes, the ayes have it.
End of hearing 3:22 p.m. CST

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:23 pm
by sjfcontrol
approved 23/17

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:26 pm
by RPB
NRA Applauds Passage of U.S. House Committee Resolution Recommending that the House Find Attorney General Holder in Contempt of Congress
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news- ... gress.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:29 pm
by 74novaman
I'm impressed. Wasn't sure they were going to go through with recommending contempt.

I think Obama evoking executive privilege probably did more to spur on the contempt charges then hush this up like they hoped it would. I'm glad they kicked the hornets nest and confirmed they have something to hide.

Now we just have to find enough evidence to start throwing some people in jail. (yeah right, but a guy can dream!)

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:33 pm
by Dave2
74novaman wrote:Now we just have to find enough evidence to start throwing some people in jail. (yeah right, but a guy can dream!)
I'm sure Holder will get pardoned if it comes to that. Hmm... Can Obama pardon himself?

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:34 pm
by The Annoyed Man

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:43 pm
by Rex B
Dave2 wrote:
74novaman wrote:Now we just have to find enough evidence to start throwing some people in jail. (yeah right, but a guy can dream!)
I'm sure Holder will get pardoned if it comes to that. Hmm... Can Obama pardon himself?
Obama can do anything he wants apparently. until January.

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:44 pm
by Dave2
sjfcontrol wrote:approved 23/17
Fox's headline graphic makes me happy...
Image

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:46 pm
by sjfcontrol
The Annoyed Man wrote:Sheila Jackson Lee blames Bush for Fast and Furious

That hag is crazy.
Why is she calling him "General Holder"?

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:51 pm
by speedsix
Dave2 wrote:
sjfcontrol wrote:approved 23/17
Fox's headline graphic makes me happy...
Image

...it's about TIME they catch up with the majority of Americans...millions have held him in contempt for a LOOOOOONG TIME...

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:51 pm
by Dave2
sjfcontrol wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:Sheila Jackson Lee blames Bush for Fast and Furious

That hag is crazy.
Why is she calling him "General Holder"?
Not that Sheila Jackson isn't worthy of mockery & ridicule, but I'm sure she just forgot to say "Attorney" first.

Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:55 pm
by sjfcontrol
Dave2 wrote:
sjfcontrol wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:Sheila Jackson Lee blames Bush for Fast and Furious

That hag is crazy.
Why is she calling him "General Holder"?
Not that Sheila Jackson isn't worthy of mockery & ridicule, but I'm sure she just forgot to say "Attorney" first.
Several times -- I think she thinks he's an actual "General".