Do You Think The Fast & Furious Scandal Is Worse Than Watergate Scandal?

[The T]

So? The ONUS is on Holder...isn't it? HE is hiding behind the slick perfectly creased trousers of Obama under EP in a fetal postion, isn't he?

*I* Don't buy it with Mr. Holder's prior record working for Janet-el-Reno.

TRY again.

You don't have to buy anything.

The motivation for their inquisition is obvious to anyone, and Holder is far from stupid.

Therefore, he's not playing along. And Obama's got his back.

Now, if there were even an iota of criminal wrongdoing on Holder's part, I would be up in arms about this. But even Issa admits there is not, and he should know.

And since there is not, I'm going to keep on pointing out the facts with the intent of defending their actions.

Indeed it's Obvious. TWO Agents lost thier lives...Hundreds of Mexican citizens, and GUNS let loose with the blessings of Obama and HOLDER are still out there and can't be tracked.

YOU may cease with your partisan stupidity at any time.

Question is WHEN?

 

[Foxfyre]

You are drawing assumptions that you cannot prove. You appear to be coming from a purely partisan perspective, one with total blinders on, to defend the AG and the President against something you cannot support with any documentation or anybody's words or anybody's suggestion other than what you are reading on the leftwing websites or hearing from the partisan talking heads on television who are trying their damndest to deflect attention from the AG and President and make the GOP the villains.

The AG and President give every appearance of having something serious to hide by their actions. If they had been forthcoming with the subpoenaed documents and had thereby shown that there was nothing incriminating there, this would have been over long ago.

I'm not making any "assumptions".

Let me ask you this:

The specific documents that Issa filed contempt charges against Holder for:

Were they, or were they not letters sent to congress by Holder that seemed to contradict each other?

Were they, or were they not documents that dealt specifically with Holder's knowledge of the operation, rather than operational failures?

And, if the documents initially produced compared with other information obtained by the Congressional oversight committee show contradictory information, what in that do you not think the committee should explore further? And if the AG told Congress one thing, or claimed no knowledge of something he clearly had knowledge of, how is that not worthy of being held in contempt of Congress?

You are probably too young to remember the Iran Contra hearings. But I don't think I missed a single syllable of that entire process that was fully televised for the world to see. And only after being given Congressional immunity for his testimony, did Oliver North admit that he had absolutely lied to Congress about many components of Iran Contra and he gave his full reasons for doing so. But had he not been given immunity, he would surely have been in contempt of Congress. And no manner of justification by any of us, no matter how much we admired Col. North, would have changed the fact that he was guilty of contempt of Congress. They just couldn't hold it against him because they promised they would not.

They did go on to dig for something and they did find a couple of minor infractions that they convicted him on. That conviction and the fine and community service ordered were subsequently thrown out by a federal court who ruled that North 'incriminated himself' only on the strength of the immunity he had been given and Congress could not convict him on something they had promised immunity.

 

[Vast LWC]

Indeed it's Obvious. TWO Agents lost thier lives...Hundreds of Mexican citizens, and GUNS let loose with the blessings of Obama and HOLDER are still out there and can't be tracked.

YOU may cease with your partisan stupidity at any time.

Question is WHEN?

Oh, it's two now, is it?

But still, you have not given any reason as to why Fast and Furious was responsible for the first Border Agent's death. A death that would have happened whether Fast and Furious was in place, or not.

In fact, placing blame on Fast and Furious for the death of said Border Agent indicates that blame should be placed on Gun Shop owners everywhere whenever a criminal uses one of their guns to kill someone.

 

[Vast LWC]

And, if the documents initially produced compared with other information obtained by the Congressional oversight committee show contradictory information, what in that do you not think the committee should explore further? And if the AG told Congress one thing, or claimed no knowledge of something he clearly had knowledge of, how is that not worthy of being held in contempt of Congress?

You are probably too young to remember the Iran Contra hearings. But I don't think I missed a single syllable of that entire process that was fully televised for the world to see. And only after being given Congressional immunity for his testimony, did Oliver North admit that he had absolutely lied to Congress about many components of Iran Contra and he gave his full reasons for doing so. But had he not been given immunity, he would surely have been in contempt of Congress. And no manner of justification by any of us, no matter how much we admired Col. North, would have changed the fact that he was guilty of contempt of Congress. They just couldn't hold it against him because they promised they would not.

They did go on to dig for something and they did find a couple of minor infractions that they convicted him on. That conviction and the fine and community service ordered were subsequently thrown out by a federal court who ruled that North 'incriminated himself' only on the strength of the immunity he had been given and Congress could not convict him on something they had promised immunity.

I am not in fact too young to remember Iran Contra.

I remember that in Iran Contra, there were in fact arms sold illegally through an intermediary to Iran, and there was funding given illegally to a Central-American terrorist organization.

I also remember that there was clear evidence of both before Oliver North's testimony even took place.

And finally, I remember right-wingers defending said illegal action to this day.

Ollie North works for FoxNews for God's sake.

 

[SableRay]

Perhaps, w has the answer. He should be questioned.

 

[taichiliberal]

REALITY CHECK:


GOP Oversight Chair Admits There Is No Evidence Of White House Involvement In Fast And Furious


WALLACE: Do you have any evidence that White House officials were involved in these decisions, that they knowingly misled Congress, and are involved in a cover-up?

ISSA: No, we don’t. And what we are seeking are documents that we know to exist, February 4 to December [2011] that are in fact about [murdered Border Patrol agent] Brian Terry’s murder, who knew, and why people were lying about it…

WALLACE: I want to be clear, because we’ve got to get out, no evidence that the White House is involved in the cover up?

ISSA: And I hope they don’t get involved.


Oversight Chair No Evidence White House Involvement | ThinkProgress

Just in case you overlooked this, folks.

 

[Foxfyre]

And, if the documents initially produced compared with other information obtained by the Congressional oversight committee show contradictory information, what in that do you not think the committee should explore further? And if the AG told Congress one thing, or claimed no knowledge of something he clearly had knowledge of, how is that not worthy of being held in contempt of Congress?

You are probably too young to remember the Iran Contra hearings. But I don't think I missed a single syllable of that entire process that was fully televised for the world to see. And only after being given Congressional immunity for his testimony, did Oliver North admit that he had absolutely lied to Congress about many components of Iran Contra and he gave his full reasons for doing so. But had he not been given immunity, he would surely have been in contempt of Congress. And no manner of justification by any of us, no matter how much we admired Col. North, would have changed the fact that he was guilty of contempt of Congress. They just couldn't hold it against him because they promised they would not.

They did go on to dig for something and they did find a couple of minor infractions that they convicted him on. That conviction and the fine and community service ordered were subsequently thrown out by a federal court who ruled that North 'incriminated himself' only on the strength of the immunity he had been given and Congress could not convict him on something they had promised immunity.

I am not in fact too young to remember Iran Contra.

I remember that in Iran Contra, there were in fact arms sold illegally through an intermediary to Iran, and there was funding given illegally to a Central-American terrorist organization.

I also remember that there was clear evidence of both before Oliver North's testimony even took place.

And finally, I remember right-wingers defending said illegal action to this day.

Ollie North works for FoxNews for God's sake.

If you remember it, then you remember that it was long before there WAS a Fox News. And you might have even read some of the many books, including, his that were written about it. And you might also remember that the Democratic Congress did request the the AG appoint a special prosecutor and spent $43 million--that was a LOT of money back in the 80's--who was able to convict and sentence quite a few people found guilty of illegal operations during Iran Contra. The special prosecutor was not able to find anything that carried any kind of penalty to hang Oliver North or President Reagan or any of his staff re Iran Contra though.

Congress had to look elsewhere for somethng to convict Oliver North. And, as I said, a federal judge subsequently threw even that out.

But would you have accused Congress of conducting a witch hunt re Oliver North? Or Ronald Reagan? Or any of the investigations of the Bush administration re Iraq?

Or is it only your heroes that you resent anybody questioning or asking questions of?

 

[The T]

You are drawing assumptions that you cannot prove. You appear to be coming from a purely partisan perspective, one with total blinders on, to defend the AG and the President against something you cannot support with any documentation or anybody's words or anybody's suggestion other than what you are reading on the leftwing websites or hearing from the partisan talking heads on television who are trying their damndest to deflect attention from the AG and President and make the GOP the villains.

The AG and President give every appearance of having something serious to hide by their actions. If they had been forthcoming with the subpoenaed documents and had thereby shown that there was nothing incriminating there, this would have been over long ago.

I'm not making any "assumptions".

Let me ask you this:

The specific documents that Issa filed contempt charges against Holder for:

Were they, or were they not letters sent to congress by Holder that seemed to contradict each other?

Were they, or were they not documents that dealt specifically with Holder's knowledge of the operation, rather than operational failures?

And, if the documents initially produced compared with other information obtained by the Congressional oversight committee show contradictory information, what in that do you not think the committee should explore further? And if the AG told Congress one thing, or claimed no knowledge of something he clearly had knowledge of, how is that not worthy of being held in contempt of Congress?

You are probably too young to remember the Iran Contra hearings. But I don't think I missed a single syllable of that entire process that was fully televised for the world to see. And only after being given Congressional immunity for his testimony, did Oliver North admit that he had absolutely lied to Congress about many components of Iran Contra and he gave his full reasons for doing so. But had he not been given immunity, he would surely have been in contempt of Congress. And no manner of justification by any of us, no matter how much we admired Col. North, would have changed the fact that he was guilty of contempt of Congress. They just couldn't hold it against him because they promised they would not.

They did go on to dig for something and they did find a couple of minor infractions that they convicted him on. That conviction and the fine and community service ordered were subsequently thrown out by a federal court who ruled that North 'incriminated himself' only on the strength of the immunity he had been given and Congress could not convict him on something they had promised immunity.

You might as well go outside and talk to the nearest wall of your home. Same effect except the wall can't post and is inanimate.

 

[The T]

REALITY CHECK:


GOP Oversight Chair Admits There Is No Evidence Of White House Involvement In Fast And Furious


WALLACE: Do you have any evidence that White House officials were involved in these decisions, that they knowingly misled Congress, and are involved in a cover-up?

ISSA: No, we don’t. And what we are seeking are documents that we know to exist, February 4 to December [2011] that are in fact about [murdered Border Patrol agent] Brian Terry’s murder, who knew, and why people were lying about it…

WALLACE: I want to be clear, because we’ve got to get out, no evidence that the White House is involved in the cover up?

ISSA: And I hope they don’t get involved.


Oversight Chair No Evidence White House Involvement | ThinkProgress

Just in case you overlooked this, folks.

Think progress? Soros? Really?

SPARE US

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not making any "assumptions".

Let me ask you this:

The specific documents that Issa filed contempt charges against Holder for:

Were they, or were they not letters sent to congress by Holder that seemed to contradict each other?

Were they, or were they not documents that dealt specifically with Holder's knowledge of the operation, rather than operational failures?

And, if the documents initially produced compared with other information obtained by the Congressional oversight committee show contradictory information, what in that do you not think the committee should explore further? And if the AG told Congress one thing, or claimed no knowledge of something he clearly had knowledge of, how is that not worthy of being held in contempt of Congress?

You are probably too young to remember the Iran Contra hearings. But I don't think I missed a single syllable of that entire process that was fully televised for the world to see. And only after being given Congressional immunity for his testimony, did Oliver North admit that he had absolutely lied to Congress about many components of Iran Contra and he gave his full reasons for doing so. But had he not been given immunity, he would surely have been in contempt of Congress. And no manner of justification by any of us, no matter how much we admired Col. North, would have changed the fact that he was guilty of contempt of Congress. They just couldn't hold it against him because they promised they would not.

They did go on to dig for something and they did find a couple of minor infractions that they convicted him on. That conviction and the fine and community service ordered were subsequently thrown out by a federal court who ruled that North 'incriminated himself' only on the strength of the immunity he had been given and Congress could not convict him on something they had promised immunity.

You might as well go outside and talk to the nearest wall of your home. Same effect except the wall can't post and is inanimate.

I know. But just in case there are some here who aren't totally brainwashed but who actually want to know what is actually happening here, I like to make sure they get all sides of the story and not just the Democratic assigned talking points to be mindlessly regurgitated until everybody gets tired of the discussion.

 

[The T]

And, if the documents initially produced compared with other information obtained by the Congressional oversight committee show contradictory information, what in that do you not think the committee should explore further? And if the AG told Congress one thing, or claimed no knowledge of something he clearly had knowledge of, how is that not worthy of being held in contempt of Congress?

You are probably too young to remember the Iran Contra hearings. But I don't think I missed a single syllable of that entire process that was fully televised for the world to see. And only after being given Congressional immunity for his testimony, did Oliver North admit that he had absolutely lied to Congress about many components of Iran Contra and he gave his full reasons for doing so. But had he not been given immunity, he would surely have been in contempt of Congress. And no manner of justification by any of us, no matter how much we admired Col. North, would have changed the fact that he was guilty of contempt of Congress. They just couldn't hold it against him because they promised they would not.

They did go on to dig for something and they did find a couple of minor infractions that they convicted him on. That conviction and the fine and community service ordered were subsequently thrown out by a federal court who ruled that North 'incriminated himself' only on the strength of the immunity he had been given and Congress could not convict him on something they had promised immunity.

You might as well go outside and talk to the nearest wall of your home. Same effect except the wall can't post and is inanimate.

I know. But just in case there are some here who aren't totally brainwashed but who actually want to know what is actually happening here, I like to make sure they get all sides of the story.

Sometimes you just have to put the brakes on and assign that which you're addressing like Vast LWC inept...and partisan rather than looking after the best interest of the Republic.

vast LWC is employing Circuliar logic that most of what he/she/it fronts has already been refuted...

(And YES LWC) I know you're reading this...

Time to let them go back into the ether of thier own stupidity, and make note of it.

Regards Dear Foxy...

~T

 

[Vast LWC]

If you remember it, then you remember that it was long before there WAS a Fox News.

I was saying that North works for FoxNews NOW, as an indication of how Republicans still back him to this day.

And you might have even read some of the many books, including, his that were written about it. And you might also remember that the Democratic Congress did request the the AG appoint a special prosecutor and spent $43 million--that was a LOT of money back in the 80's--who was able to convict and sentence quite a few people found guilty of illegal operations during Iran Contra. The special prosecutor was not able to find anything that carried any kind of penalty to hang Oliver North or President Reagan or any of his staff re Iran Contra though.

Congress had to look elsewhere for somethng to convict Oliver North. And, as I said, a federal judge subsequently threw even that out.

But would you have accused Congress of conducting a witch hunt re Oliver North? Or Ronald Reagan? Or any of the investigations of the Bush administration re Iraq?

Or is it only your heroes that you resent anybody questioning or asking questions of?

I do not call the investigation of Col North a "witch hunt", because there were actual, PROVEN illegal acts, and a PROVEN conspiracy to commit said illegal acts.

The question that Congress was pursuing was who exactly was involved in said ILLEGAL ACTS.

In this case, there is no proof of illegal acts at all.

None, nada, zip, zero.

There is in fact, no evidence of any wrongdoing at all.

The only thing that has been proven in any of the investigation has been that it was a failed operation, and that is not a crime.

If it was, Bush and company would be serving multiple life sentences for their operational failures during the Iraq War. But it is not.

 

[Foxfyre]

You might as well go outside and talk to the nearest wall of your home. Same effect except the wall can't post and is inanimate.

I know. But just in case there are some here who aren't totally brainwashed but who actually want to know what is actually happening here, I like to make sure they get all sides of the story.

Sometimes you just have to put the brakes on and assign that which you're addressing like Vast LWC inept...and partisan rather than looking after the best interest of the Republic.

vast LWC is employing Circuliar logic that most of what he/she/it fronts has already been refuted...

(And YES LWC) I know you're reading this...

Time to let them go back into the ether of thier own stupidity, and make note of it.

Regards Dear Foxy...

~T

Noting that Mr. T did NOT alter my post, but rather quoted it prior to an edit. But it doesn't really change the sentiment. No harm, no foul.

 

[The T]

I know. But just in case there are some here who aren't totally brainwashed but who actually want to know what is actually happening here, I like to make sure they get all sides of the story.

Sometimes you just have to put the brakes on and assign that which you're addressing like Vast LWC inept...and partisan rather than looking after the best interest of the Republic.

vast LWC is employing Circuliar logic that most of what he/she/it fronts has already been refuted...

(And YES LWC) I know you're reading this...

Time to let them go back into the ether of thier own stupidity, and make note of it.

Regards Dear Foxy...

~T

Noting that Mr. T did NOT alter my post, but rather quoted it prior to an edit. But it doesn't really change the sentiment. No harm, no foul.

Thank you darlin'.

 

[The T]

If you remember it, then you remember that it was long before there WAS a Fox News.

I was saying that North works for FoxNews NOW, as an indication of how Republicans still back him to this day.

And you might have even read some of the many books, including, his that were written about it. And you might also remember that the Democratic Congress did request the the AG appoint a special prosecutor and spent $43 million--that was a LOT of money back in the 80's--who was able to convict and sentence quite a few people found guilty of illegal operations during Iran Contra. The special prosecutor was not able to find anything that carried any kind of penalty to hang Oliver North or President Reagan or any of his staff re Iran Contra though.

Congress had to look elsewhere for somethng to convict Oliver North. And, as I said, a federal judge subsequently threw even that out.

But would you have accused Congress of conducting a witch hunt re Oliver North? Or Ronald Reagan? Or any of the investigations of the Bush administration re Iraq?

Or is it only your heroes that you resent anybody questioning or asking questions of?

I do not call the investigation of Col North a "witch hunt", because there were actual, PROVEN illegal acts, and a PROVEN conspiracy to commit said illegal acts.

The question that Congress was pursuing was who exactly was involved in said ILLEGAL ACTS.

In this case, there is no proof of illegal acts at all.

None, nada, zip, zero.

There is in fact, no evidence of any wrongdoing at all.

The only thing that has been proven in any of the investigation has been that it was a failed operation, and that is not a crime.

If it was, Bush and company would be serving multiple life sentences for their operational failures during the Iraq War. But it is not.

HOLDER and OBAMA HAD time to prove it. They didn't.

Too late.

Albatross hangs heavy and hard around Obama's NECK.

And YES Americans care that Agents DIE for no reason as well as Mexican Brothers ans sisters in the HUMAN community.

 

[Vast LWC]

Sometimes you just have to put the brakes on and assign that which you're addressing like Vast LWC inept...and partisan rather than looking after the best interest of the Republic.

vast LWC is employing Circuliar logic that most of what he/she/it fronts has already been refuted...

(And YES LWC) I know you're reading this...

Time to let them go back into the ether of thier own stupidity, and make note of it.

Regards Dear Foxy...

~T

LOL. Every statement you've made in this thread has been shot down, handily, so you retreat to find refuge in baseless claims of "circular logic" and "stupidity".

Insults are a tactic of someone who's losing the argument T.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you remember it, then you remember that it was long before there WAS a Fox News.

I was saying that North works for FoxNews NOW, as an indication of how Republicans still back him to this day.

And you might have even read some of the many books, including, his that were written about it. And you might also remember that the Democratic Congress did request the the AG appoint a special prosecutor and spent $43 million--that was a LOT of money back in the 80's--who was able to convict and sentence quite a few people found guilty of illegal operations during Iran Contra. The special prosecutor was not able to find anything that carried any kind of penalty to hang Oliver North or President Reagan or any of his staff re Iran Contra though.

Congress had to look elsewhere for somethng to convict Oliver North. And, as I said, a federal judge subsequently threw even that out.

But would you have accused Congress of conducting a witch hunt re Oliver North? Or Ronald Reagan? Or any of the investigations of the Bush administration re Iraq?

Or is it only your heroes that you resent anybody questioning or asking questions of?

I do not call the investigation of Col North a "witch hunt", because there were actual, PROVEN illegal acts, and a PROVEN conspiracy to commit said illegal acts.

The question that Congress was pursuing was who exactly was involved in said ILLEGAL ACTS.

In this case, there is no proof of illegal acts at all.

None, nada, zip, zero.

There is in fact, no evidence of any wrongdoing at all.

The only thing that has been proven in any of the investigation has been that it was a failed operation, and that is not a crime.

If it was, Bush and company would be serving multiple life sentences for their operational failures during the Iraq War. But it is not.

There was no proof of illegal acts in Iran Contra either prior to the Congressional hearings and prior to the investigation by a special prosecutor.

News Flash: The PURPOSE of Congressional hearings is to determine the circumstances of any given actions of government and to determine whether there are inproprieties, wrong doings, things that need correcting, or illegal activities. If there is a possibility of wrong doing, then a special prosecutor is requested.

Or perhaps you think Congress should not exercise its constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight UNLESS there is PROOF of illegal activities?

And perhaps you think that contradictory testimony and/or refusal to release certain unclassified documents subpoenaed by Congress should not raise questions as to whether there are illegal activities. At least if the subjects are Democrats. Okay if they are Republicans, yes?

 

[Vast LWC]

HOLDER and OBAMA HAD time to prove it. They didn't.

Too late.

Albatross hangs heavy and hard around Obama's NECK.

And YES Americans care that Agents DIE for no reason as well as Mexican Brothers ans sisters in the HUMAN community.

Apparently, you lack apprehension of the most basic tenet of the American legal system.

The accused is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[The T]

HOLDER and OBAMA HAD time to prove it. They didn't.

Too late.

Albatross hangs heavy and hard around Obama's NECK.

And YES Americans care that Agents DIE for no reason as well as Mexican Brothers ans sisters in the HUMAN community.

Apparently, you lack apprehension of the most basic tenet of the American legal system.

The accused is innocent until proven guilty.

And Holder WAS. He didn't comply with LEGAL Congressional subpoena.

Keep up with the circular logic will you?

Congress has better things to do than prosecute BASEBALL PLAYERS since Congress doesn't fund them like they do DOJ Asswipe.

 

[Foxfyre]

HOLDER and OBAMA HAD time to prove it. They didn't.

Too late.

Albatross hangs heavy and hard around Obama's NECK.

And YES Americans care that Agents DIE for no reason as well as Mexican Brothers ans sisters in the HUMAN community.

Apparently, you lack apprehension of the most basic tenet of the American legal system.

The accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Well hell then. Should we wait until there is a conviction in order to hold the trial? That seem to be what you are arguing here. And nobody should be allowed to investigate to see if a trial is warranted?

Tell me, what PROOF did we have that Nixon was complicent in the Watergate Scandal prior to the Congressional hearings? It was eventually proved that he didn't plan it and he didn't know about it in advance. But it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that he did participate in the coverup of it. Should Congress have not held hearings to determine that given that until the hearings they had zero evidence that Nixon was in any way implicated?