Re: ‘Fast and Furious’ Does Not Mean 'Fast and Furious'.....
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:45 am
tomneal wrote:(Who is Roger Clements?)
'roided-out baseball player.

The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
tomneal wrote:(Who is Roger Clements?)
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;
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.tomneal wrote:Well that article was interesting.
According to Judge Napolitano if Executive Privilege applies then Attorney General Holder lied to congress.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.”
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.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;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.tomneal wrote:Well that article was interesting.
According to Judge Napolitano if Executive Privilege applies then Attorney General Holder lied to congress.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.”
Darrell Issa @DarrellIssa
Voting on #fastandfurious amendments now: http://fastandfuriousinvestigation.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
live nowWATCH LIVE: @GOPOversight contempt proceedings for AG #Holder: http://bit.ly/LB82HT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #fastandfurious via @GOPOversight
I'm sure Holder will get pardoned if it comes to that. Hmm... Can Obama pardon himself?74novaman wrote:Now we just have to find enough evidence to start throwing some people in jail. (yeah right, but a guy can dream!)
Obama can do anything he wants apparently. until January.Dave2 wrote:I'm sure Holder will get pardoned if it comes to that. Hmm... Can Obama pardon himself?74novaman wrote:Now we just have to find enough evidence to start throwing some people in jail. (yeah right, but a guy can dream!)
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.sjfcontrol wrote:Why is she calling him "General Holder"?
Several times -- I think she thinks he's an actual "General".Dave2 wrote:Not that Sheila Jackson isn't worthy of mockery & ridicule, but I'm sure she just forgot to say "Attorney" first.sjfcontrol wrote:Why is she calling him "General Holder"?