Inthemiddle
Rookie
- Oct 4, 2011
- 6,354
- 675
- 0
- Banned
- #1
Well? You all seem to have alot of hooting and hollering to do about this whole Fast and Furious/Executive Privilege ordeal. Any of you know what's actually going on?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Start a thread and educate us:I guess that's a no. I shouldn't be surprised.
Well? You all seem to have alot of hooting and hollering to do about this whole Fast and Furious/Executive Privilege ordeal. Any of you know what's actually going on?
Start a thread and educate us:I guess that's a no. I shouldn't be surprised.
"ITT: I Explain What Congress Is Trying to Subpoena in Fast and Furious".
Dazzle us with your brilliance.
Well? You all seem to have alot of hooting and hollering to do about this whole Fast and Furious/Executive Privilege ordeal. Any of you know what's actually going on?
They are trying to get intel correspondence between the agencies to find out who stared the program in 2009 and what Holder and others knew about it.
Well, why don't you just educate us all with your intimate knowledge of the situation?Well? You all seem to have alot of hooting and hollering to do about this whole Fast and Furious/Executive Privilege ordeal. Any of you know what's actually going on?
They are trying to get intel correspondence between the agencies to find out who stared the program in 2009 and what Holder and others knew about it.
Eh, not exactly.
Well? You all seem to have alot of hooting and hollering to do about this whole Fast and Furious/Executive Privilege ordeal. Any of you know what's actually going on?
They are trying to get intel correspondence between the agencies to find out who stared the program in 2009 and what Holder and others knew about it.
Eh, not exactly.
...the House committee has narrowed its subpoena to an extraordinary degree. The public may not be aware that what we are talking about here is not some vast universe of documents relating to Fast and Furious, but rather, as Holder acknowledges, a tiny subset: “The Committee has made clear that its contempt resolution will be limited to internal Department ‘documents from after February 4, 2011, related to the Department’s response to Congress.’” February 4 was the date of DOJ’s letter which falsely represented to Congress that Fast and Furious did not involve deliberately allowing guns to make their way across the border to the cartels. DOJ withdrew that letter on December 2, 2011, ten months later. So Issa is trying to obtain only DOJ communications relating to the false letter, and the process by which DOJ concluded that the letter was indefensible, and decided to retract it. This represents an extraordinary concession on Issa’s part. I cannot imagine that, in Issa’s position, I would have let the administration off so easily....
They are trying to get intel correspondence between the agencies to find out who stared the program in 2009 and what Holder and others knew about it.
Eh, not exactly.
What does that matter? When you are subpoenaed you don't get to pick what you will provide and what you will not. It doesn't work that way.
This is is a discussion board, in case you hadn't noticed people "hoot and holler" on here all the time.Start a thread and educate us:I guess that's a no. I shouldn't be surprised.
"ITT: I Explain What Congress Is Trying to Subpoena in Fast and Furious".
Dazzle us with your brilliance.
And whether or not I do so, how does that justify people hooting and hollering about an issue they aren't actually knowledgeable on?
Eh, not exactly.
What does that matter? When you are subpoenaed you don't get to pick what you will provide and what you will not. It doesn't work that way.
Actually, that's EXACTLY how it works in this case, a la executive privilege.
This is is a discussion board, in case you hadn't noticed people "hoot and holler" on here all the time.
Still waiting for "brilliance" from the OP.
Actually, not exactly. The committee has already found Holder in contempt, seems the full House will vote next week.
That will start a lengthy legal process, that will not give cover to the administration.
Actually, not exactly. The committee has already found Holder in contempt, seems the full House will vote next week.
The Committee can't "find" anyone in contempt. Congress has to do that as a whole. All the committee did was make a recommendation. But what's your point? Do you know why they are recommending contempt? Do you know what the subpoena is about? Do you actually know anything about this whatsoever?
That will start a lengthy legal process, that will not give cover to the administration.
No it won't. It will state a sideshow of election year shenanigans, and that's about it.