Holder Delivers Epic Smackdown To Issa

[koshergrl]

Sallow truly is an idiot.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

His LYING UNDER OATH was the impeachment. The subject matter was related to his adultery, but the impeachment was for LYING ABOUT IT WHILE UNDER OATH.


Impeachment Law & Legal Definition

Impeachment may refer to different legal concepts. One meaning in the law refers to discrediting a witness by showing that he or she is not telling the truth or does not have a reliable basis for their testimony. Rules of evidence govern what type of questioning may be used to impeach a witness. Generally, unrelated evidence that the person is a" bad person" and therefore untrustworthy, is not allowed.

Impeachment also refers to the trial of a public official for charges of illegal acts committed in the performance of public duty. It is the constitutional process, not the conviction or removal from office, whereby the House of Representatives may "impeach" (accuse of misconduct) high officers of the federal government for trial in the Senate.


What Does It Mean to Impeach? | eHow

Constitutional Provision

According to Article II, Section 4 of the U. S. Constitution, "the President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article I, Section 3 spells out the roles played by the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Role of the House of Representatives

The impeachment process starts in the judiciary committee of the House of Representatives, which decides whether to authorize an investigation. If enough evidence of crime is uncovered, articles of impeachment are sent to the full House of Representatives, where the articles must pass with a majority vote.


Role of the Senate

After House approval, the articles of impeachment go to the Senate, which acts as a jury for a trial prosecuted by the House of Representatives. Conviction requires a two-thirds affirmative vote by the Senate members present.
Historic Impeachments

Though articles of impeachment have been filed against nine U.S. presidents, only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and William Clinton, have been brought to trial. In 1868, Johnson avoided impeachment by just one vote. Clinton survived his 1999 impeachment trial by a vote of 55-to-45. In 1974, President Richard Nixon chose to resign from office before official proceedings were underway.


***************************************************************
Clinton was impeached by the House but survived the vote in the Senate.

That's what I've told these fools.

But you mistakenly criticized hjmick for speaking correctly. He was NOT impeached for committing adultery.

hjmick makes few mistakes!





In a previous post: (#72 in this thread)

LL
It is a lie. He wasn't impeached for adultery moron!

Sallow
Well yeah..he was.
Moron.

hjmick
Well no... He wasn't.
Imbecile.

LL
He damn sure was impeached by the House you idiot!!

My apologies to hjmick then.

Note to self:
Be more alert on who is quoting who while on Vicodin.

I don't normally take pain pills but I just had hand surgery and it was begining to hurt like hell.

 

[asaratis]

That's what I've told these fools.

But you mistakenly criticized hjmick for speaking correctly. He was NOT impeached for committing adultery.

hjmick makes few mistakes!





In a previous post: (#72 in this thread)

LL
It is a lie. He wasn't impeached for adultery moron!

Sallow
Well yeah..he was.
Moron.

hjmick
Well no... He wasn't.
Imbecile.

LL
He damn sure was impeached by the House you idiot!!

My apologies to hjmick then.

Note to self:
Be more alert on who is quoting who while on Vicodin.

I don't normally take pain pills but I just had hand surgery and it was beginning to hurt like hell.

Hey! Take a cuppla slugs o' scotch, bite down on a wooden pencil and go on about your business.

A little pain never hurt anyone!

 

[peach174]

That's the Progressive trick of the trade whenever they get hard questions asked and they don't want to answer them.
I'm not being treated fairly, or the big one, He/she is not treating me with the respect I deserve.
Eric Holder- let me answer the question. "It's unacceptable and it's shameful"
None of the Republicans yelled at Holder the way that Dem's do when they are in control.
Whenever Dem's are in control of the hearings, they treat people with total disrespect and cut them off all of the time and yell at them.
Rep. Robert Wexler asking questions to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
This is shameful Mr. Holder, not what Isa did to you.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKGl2htrZgc]Rep. Robert Wexler Grills Alberto Gonzales - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Stephanie]

The Dems Congresscritters treat people like shit and they get threads like this saying they SMACKED-down someone..

No wonder they continue doing it, they know they have a base that will defend them

but don't you dare say, OBAMA LIED while he is giving one of his sermons...all friggen hell will break lose

 

[koshergrl]

That's because the classless left thinks it's cool to be classless.

 

[Stephanie]

That's because the classless left thinks it's cool to be classless.

Democrats of OLD didn't use to be like that, they at least had a little class..How the left acted when Bush was President was some of the classless....and then they accuse others that it is them who tearing this country apart

 

[Liberaservative]

So, I was leaning toward position that the grab of the AP phone records was not a scandal. But then, Holder testified.

His testimony raises a couple of significant questions; Why would he recuse himself without memorializing, in writing, to someone, that he was doing so? Are we just supposed to take he word that he recused himself from the leak investigation and, therefore had no knowledge (beyond its existence) of the details?

In one of worst security leaks, of which he was aware (his words, not mine), he failed to inform the White House (again, he says) he was taking himself out of the loop?

Kind of incredible...if you ask me.

Then, we learn the leak was actually on an operation the Administration was going to publicize the day after the Associated Press published its story; that the administration had merely asked them to hold the story one more day and, apparently, the AP refused the request.

How could it be one of the worst security leaks he's ever seen if the administration was going to reveal the subject of the leak anyway? Curious.

It's almost as if this administration was pissed the AP beat them to print and was punishing them with a thorough cavity search of their phone records.

Here's the original story that got the AP in so much hot water:

The AP learned about the thwarted plot last week but agreed to White House and CIA requests not to publish it immediately because the sensitive intelligence operation was still under way.

Once those concerns were allayed, the AP decided to disclose the plot Monday despite requests from the Obama administration to wait for an official announcement Tuesday.

The White House confirmed the story after the AP published it on Monday afternoon. Caitlin Hayden, the deputy national security council spokeswoman, said in a statement that Obama was first informed about the plot in April by his homeland security adviser John Brennan, and was advised that it did not pose a threat to the public.

I understand the administration's desire to ferret out someone who would leak the existence of an ongoing undercover operation but the sheer scorched-earth magnitude of the data grab seems to me to be disproportionate to what was being sought.

Something isn't right here. Holder's behavior is weird, particularly his inability to say when he recused himself and why he didn't inform the White House of that recusal.

 

[Yurt]

figures sallow never linked up

i think he knows he is lying

 

[koshergrl]

That's because the classless left thinks it's cool to be classless.

Democrats of OLD didn't use to be like that, they at least had a little class..How the left acted when Bush was President was some of the classless....and then they accuse others that it is them who tearing this country apart

That's because they are "punk ass bitches". They have an inflated sense of their own value, they see no value in anything that represents honor, integrity, character, and believe everything is relative to them. They're self centered, narcissistic and boorish.

That's the way they were raised by our public schools and the liberal mamas who drank the koolaid of the 70s...

 

[peach174]

Can you imagine if the Republicans had treated Attorney General Eric Holder like that Democratic Representative treated Attorney General Alberto Gonzales?
They would be screaming bloody murder about it.
It would be all over the news.
It's downright disgraceful.

 

[Stephanie]

Can you imagine if the Republicans had treated Attorney General Eric Holder like that Democratic Representative treated Attorney General Alberto Gonzales?
They would be screaming bloody murder about it.
It would be all over the news.
It's downright disgraceful.

the Democrats and their base are all two faced hypocrites..and they don't care that they are..they think it's justifiable for their elected Reps to treat people like shit..