Holder Held

[Oddball]

What was partisan about Clinton committing perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness tampering? Do you think that rules and laws shouldn't apply to democrats?

Give it up....The Clintoon zombie losers are going to go to their graves, with the words "it was only a blowjob" uttered with their last dying breath.

Unlike you, I start at the beginning. Why was that part even investigated in the first place? You may laugh it off, but even though you're a fence sitter, you think it OK that your private life is invaded? That was what that was tantamount to.

Sure, if he lied about national security, or something that would affect everyday Americans - throw the book at him. But for being embarassed and not wanting his personal business over the air waves? fuck off. As Ravi says, spitefull jerks...

Clintoon lied about a case of sexual harassment...Statutes about which he supported.

He didn't know that, when he lied and coerced others into lying for him, the case was going to be thrown out.

Fail.

*it was only a blowjob*

 

[Dr Grump]

Give it up....The Clintoon zombie losers are going to go to their graves, with the words "it was only a blowjob" uttered with their last dying breath.

Unlike you, I start at the beginning. Why was that part even investigated in the first place? You may laugh it off, but even though you're a fence sitter, you think it OK that your private life is invaded? That was what that was tantamount to.

Sure, if he lied about national security, or something that would affect everyday Americans - throw the book at him. But for being embarassed and not wanting his personal business over the air waves? fuck off. As Ravi says, spitefull jerks...

You don't get to commit perjury and then just say "fuck off, it's private." It doesn't work that way. The whole thing began over an investigation into allegations of sexual harrassment against another woman - one in a long string of charges of sex crimes against the president going back at least to his days as governor. CRIMES, so fuck off with your fuck off. The whole thing led to his testifying and lying and tampering with witnesses and evidence and obstructing justice. It is NOT the 'oh, he just got a blow job from some fat skank, leave him alone' BS that liberals have tried to revise it to.

Oh, now you just make shit up as you go along..Tampering with witnesses? Really? Hmmm. Obstructing justice? Really?

It was a blowjob - a consensual one, too - and that is all it was...

 

[Dr Grump]

Give it up....The Clintoon zombie losers are going to go to their graves, with the words "it was only a blowjob" uttered with their last dying breath.

Unlike you, I start at the beginning. Why was that part even investigated in the first place? You may laugh it off, but even though you're a fence sitter, you think it OK that your private life is invaded? That was what that was tantamount to.

Sure, if he lied about national security, or something that would affect everyday Americans - throw the book at him. But for being embarassed and not wanting his personal business over the air waves? fuck off. As Ravi says, spitefull jerks...

Clintoon lied about a case of sexual harassment...Statutes about which he supported.

He didn't know that, when he lied and coerced others into lying for him, the case was going to be thrown out.

Fail.

*it was only a blowjob*

No, he lied about getting a blow job....

 

[Oddball]

Unlike you, I start at the beginning. Why was that part even investigated in the first place? You may laugh it off, but even though you're a fence sitter, you think it OK that your private life is invaded? That was what that was tantamount to.

Sure, if he lied about national security, or something that would affect everyday Americans - throw the book at him. But for being embarassed and not wanting his personal business over the air waves? fuck off. As Ravi says, spitefull jerks...

Clintoon lied about a case of sexual harassment...Statutes about which he supported.

He didn't know that, when he lied and coerced others into lying for him, the case was going to be thrown out.

Fail.

*it was only a blowjob*

No, he lied about getting a blow job....

Then he used his position as POTUS, as a power play, to coerce others into doing his lying for him.

*but it was only a blowjob*

Loser.

 

[Unkotare]

Unlike you, I start at the beginning. Why was that part even investigated in the first place? You may laugh it off, but even though you're a fence sitter, you think it OK that your private life is invaded? That was what that was tantamount to.

Sure, if he lied about national security, or something that would affect everyday Americans - throw the book at him. But for being embarassed and not wanting his personal business over the air waves? fuck off. As Ravi says, spitefull jerks...

You don't get to commit perjury and then just say "fuck off, it's private." It doesn't work that way. The whole thing began over an investigation into allegations of sexual harrassment against another woman - one in a long string of charges of sex crimes against the president going back at least to his days as governor. CRIMES, so fuck off with your fuck off. The whole thing led to his testifying and lying and tampering with witnesses and evidence and obstructing justice. It is NOT the 'oh, he just got a blow job from some fat skank, leave him alone' BS that liberals have tried to revise it to.

Oh, now you just make shit up as you go along..Tampering with witnesses? Really? Hmmm. Obstructing justice? Really? ...

Yes, REALLY. You might learn the FACTS of the case and not just the lefty bumper sticker slogans.

 

[Big Fitz]

Applause for the most embarrassing nakedly partisan thing I have ever seen congress do? I guess the ends must justify the means in someone's mind.

You're right, most dems DID fleebag out of there with the racist black caucus.

 

[tjvh]

In criminal contempt of Congress. First time in US history.

A lot of FIRSTS for the Obama Administration... Some of those "firsts" don't paint a very nice picture.

 

[tjvh]

The NRA controls congress.

So sad.

So funny!

 

[Unkotare]

Unlike you, I start at the beginning. Why was that part even investigated in the first place? You may laugh it off, but even though you're a fence sitter, you think it OK that your private life is invaded? That was what that was tantamount to.

Sure, if he lied about national security, or something that would affect everyday Americans - throw the book at him. But for being embarassed and not wanting his personal business over the air waves? fuck off. As Ravi says, spitefull jerks...

Clintoon lied about a case of sexual harassment...Statutes about which he supported.

He didn't know that, when he lied and coerced others into lying for him, the case was going to be thrown out.

Fail.

*it was only a blowjob*

No, he lied about getting a blow job....

At some point ignorance becomes willful...

 

[tjvh]

Applause for the most embarrassing nakedly partisan thing I have ever seen congress do? I guess the ends must justify the means in someone's mind.

You're right, most dems DID fleebag out of there with the racist black caucus.

You'd have thought they'd have learned something after Wisconsin... How does that go again? Insanity... Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Of course in this case they get a pass as they were clearly playing the RACE CARD.

 

[Big Fitz]

Applause for the most embarrassing nakedly partisan thing I have ever seen congress do? I guess the ends must justify the means in someone's mind.

You're right, most dems DID fleebag out of there with the racist black caucus.

You'd have thought they'd have learned something after Wisconsin... How does that go again? Insanity... Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Of course in this case they get a pass as they were clearly playing the RACE CARD.

The essence of liberalism in all it's shades on the leftist rainbow.

 

[Ravi]

Can somebody tell this ignorant ferriner what this actually means? The contempt charge that is....Does he go to jail? Get sacked? Pay a fine? Hand over documents? What?

All it really means is that Republicans can add to their resumes, "I'm a petty whiner," and some Democrats can add to their resumes, "I'm going to do whatever the NRA wants me to do."

 

[Liability]

Can somebody tell this ignorant ferriner what this actually means? The contempt charge that is....Does he go to jail? Get sacked? Pay a fine? Hand over documents? What?

All it really means is that Republicans can add to their resumes, "I'm a petty whiner," and some Democrats can add to their resumes, "I'm going to do whatever the NRA wants me to do."

Ravi, of course, dishonestly spun what it means.

It was not whining. That's just a Ravi lie. Redundant, I know.

However, to answer Dr. Grump's question, the truth is: it doesn't mean much.

A contempt of Congress resolution doesn't mean much of anything absent actual enforcement. The main enforcement technique is a law that has the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia present the matter to a Grand Jury. But the U.S. Attorney for D.C. is an underling of the very Attorney General who would be the subject of the Grand Jury proceeding. So it is doubtful that anything will come of that.

The House COULD ask for a special prosecutor, but if it requires a Senate "ok," then that option will obviously go nowhere.

The House COULD proceed by way of an old legal process called "self help." That is, it is possible that the House COULD have the AG arrested by the Sgt. at Arms of the House. Holder could be held in civil contempt that way (in a cell somewhere in the Capital, theoretically) until he COMPLIED with the subpoena. But, a political firestorm and a Constitutional crisis would ensue. The likelihood is therefore approximately zero of that happening.

The House COULD also undertake an Impeachment proceedings against the Attorney General. Sadly, that too is unlikely. And ultimately, it would still require a super-majority of the Senate to "convict" the AG and have him removed from Office. Guess what? Again, that seems all but impossible.

 

[Ravi]

Can somebody tell this ignorant ferriner what this actually means? The contempt charge that is....Does he go to jail? Get sacked? Pay a fine? Hand over documents? What?

All it really means is that Republicans can add to their resumes, "I'm a petty whiner," and some Democrats can add to their resumes, "I'm going to do whatever the NRA wants me to do."

Ravi, of course, dishonestly spun what it means.

It was not whining. That's just a Ravi lie. Redundant, I know.

However, to answer Dr. Grump's question, the truth is: it doesn't mean much.

A contempt of Congress resolution doesn't mean much of anything absent actual enforcement. The main enforcement technique is a law that has the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia present the matter to a Grand Jury. But the U.S. Attorney for D.C. is an underling of the very Attorney General who would be the subject of the Grand Jury proceeding. So it is doubtful that anything will come of that.

The House COULD ask for a special prosecutor, but if it requires a Senate "ok," then that option will obviously go nowhere.

The House COULD proceed by way of an old legal process called "self help." That is, it is possible that the House COULD have the AG arrested by the Sgt. at Arms of the House. Holder could be held in civil contempt that way (in a cell somewhere in the Capital, theoretically) until he COMPLIED with the subpoena. But, a political firestorm and a Constitutional crisis would ensue. The likelihood is therefore approximately zero of that happening.

The House COULD also undertake an Impeachment proceedings against the Attorney General. Sadly, that too is unlikely. And ultimately, it would still require a super-majority of the Senate to "convict" the AG and have him removed from Office. Guess what? Again, that seems all but impossible.

Thanks for using ten times as many words to say what I said.

 

[Liability]

All it really means is that Republicans can add to their resumes, "I'm a petty whiner," and some Democrats can add to their resumes, "I'm going to do whatever the NRA wants me to do."

Ravi, of course, dishonestly spun what it means.

It was not whining. That's just a Ravi lie. Redundant, I know.

However, to answer Dr. Grump's question, the truth is: it doesn't mean much.

A contempt of Congress resolution doesn't mean much of anything absent actual enforcement. The main enforcement technique is a law that has the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia present the matter to a Grand Jury. But the U.S. Attorney for D.C. is an underling of the very Attorney General who would be the subject of the Grand Jury proceeding. So it is doubtful that anything will come of that.

The House COULD ask for a special prosecutor, but if it requires a Senate "ok," then that option will obviously go nowhere.

The House COULD proceed by way of an old legal process called "self help." That is, it is possible that the House COULD have the AG arrested by the Sgt. at Arms of the House. Holder could be held in civil contempt that way (in a cell somewhere in the Capital, theoretically) until he COMPLIED with the subpoena. But, a political firestorm and a Constitutional crisis would ensue. The likelihood is therefore approximately zero of that happening.

The House COULD also undertake an Impeachment proceedings against the Attorney General. Sadly, that too is unlikely. And ultimately, it would still require a super-majority of the Senate to "convict" the AG and have him removed from Office. Guess what? Again, that seems all but impossible.

Thanks for using ten times as many words to say what I said.

You just lied again. You may be the one idiot at USMB more hostile to honesty and truth than TdM and rderp.

 

[Katzndogz]

Secret wiretaps, Eric! And you said you didn't know.

Issa Puts Wiretap Details in Congressional Record | The Weekly Standard

 

[The Infidel]

Secret wiretaps, Eric! And you said you didn't know.

Issa Puts Wiretap Details in Congressional Record | The Weekly Standard

Racist