Does anybody even know what info Congress is trying to subpoena?

[Inthemiddle]

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?

 

[Inthemiddle]

I guess that's a no. I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[kwc57]

You're a day late and a dollar short. There are plenty of news stories on the interwebs and threads covering the topic to educate yourself with.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I guess that's a no. I shouldn't be surprised.

Start a thread and educate us:

"ITT: I Explain What Congress Is Trying to Subpoena in Fast and Furious".

Dazzle us with your brilliance.

 

[peach174]

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.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I guess that's a no. I shouldn't be surprised.

Start a thread and educate us:

"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?

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

 

[asaratis]

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, why don't you just educate us all with your intimate knowledge of the situation?

 

[Inthemiddle]

I wouldn't call it intimate knowledge, so much as paying attention instead of being reactionary. Everyone is talking about it, and most of what people saying doesn't make sense if they actually were paying attention to what's REALLY going on with the whole thing right now. Seems like everyone has forgotten about the letter that this is all about right now.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

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.

 

[Annie]

Obama’s Claim of Executive Privilege: It’s Frivolous | Power Line

...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....

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

Actually, that's EXACTLY how it works in this case, a la executive privilege.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I guess that's a no. I shouldn't be surprised.

Start a thread and educate us:

"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?

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

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.

 

[Inthemiddle]

This is is a discussion board, in case you hadn't noticed people "hoot and holler" on here all the time.

And still, that does not justify babbling on about issues people don't actually know anything about.

Still waiting for "brilliance" from the OP.

It's not my responsibility to educate you.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Ok bye.

 

[Annie]

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.

LOL! I already answered you earlier, but you're interested in diversions, not what others know.

 

[whitehall]

Democrats didn't even know what was in the 3,000 page health care law when they signed it. The point is that the Attorney General refused to comply with a congressional subpoena and even a jerk like Urcle should know that it is illegal.

 

[blastoff]

What's to understand? The committee wants certain documents relating to F& F and Holder's refusing to turn them over.