Yes, but you and I disagree as to what is being said. Which is why this conversation is dragging on though
Originally Posted by LkWd_Don
16-17 pages and no doubt will go on for more unless the mods whack us.
THe key phrase here is "from what I can see."
Again you misconstrue! Show me where Holder took action against a subordinate for circumventing his authority and I will see such evidence. In the meantime, from what I can see, all of the players who were there are still there and in their respective positions indicating that nothing has happened.
Neither of us, unless you work for that House Committee, are in much of position to see much of anything.
Nor does it mean that wrongdoing was there. As with many threads here,
Thus my seeing no evidence. J because I see no evidence of wrong doing, does not mean that wrong doing was not there
you and I can't know from what we hear or read in the newsy. We both have opposing hunches and
in our gut beliefs about what is going on; but neither of us knows, unless you work for DOJ at a high
level or for Congress at a high level. Hence we are left to our speculations and little more.
Which brings us back once more to the issue of Separation of Powers. Moreover, it also
and brings us back to Why hasn't Holder complied and turned over the documens that have been requested and nodemanded.
brings us to the issue that while you assume Holder has done something wrong, I tend to assume
Issa is doing something wrong. Hence, we can't go anywhere with this conversation, frankly.
Time and an election will sort it out for us, maybe.
Some of the non-profits are just lobbying companies in disguise.
That is not true. There are many sources that I consider credible. Starting with multiple Governmental Agencies, Major Law-Firms or Schools such as Cornell Law, many public and non-profit research facilities (un-paid to include Schools/Universities).
I'll judge them as they come. Cornell Law; Government Agencies; major Law Schools and firms when
commenting solely on law and not on policy. OK, we have some sort of base were I inclined to play
I agree mostly, though I have found only one serious error on Wiki over time. I like to start there, and
Sources that I tend to say are not credible are Political Action Committees (focused on Campaigning or Lobbying activities) and any site that anyone wishing to can edit the information or contribute to the information available regardless of the accuracy of such contributions like wikipedia and many blogs that are out there.
if need be go to the citations. Also, Google keyword searches sometimes will turn up good stuff as will
Google Scholar a resource many don't even realize exists; I'll guess.
Well we immediately will run into a problem with that as we'd likely argue forever over the validity of NYT reporting
There are non-politically motivated news agencies out there that are very credible and when they find they made a mistake, they post a retraction or edit their information. Likewise there are some that it seems that hour are needed to scan through multiple corrections and retractions every day because they fail to verify before publicizing. These I shy away from.
or Washington Post Reporting, or LA Times Reporting.
Anyway, this is way off topic and just adds a complexity to the discussion that I think isn't necessary.