Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder - Page 16

Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

This is a discussion on Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Hopyard Originally Posted by LkWd_Don What I really find very interesting is that Deputy Assistant AG Jason Weinstein became aware of the ...

Page 16 of 24 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 355
Like Tree259Likes

Thread: Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

  1. #226
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don
    What I really find very interesting is that Deputy Assistant AG Jason Weinstein became aware of the operation in December of 2009 yet AG Holder would not have been made aware of a funding request going to the DOJ to fund an operation that his Agency was partnered in, when not just the supervisory but fiduciary responsibility of everything happening within his Agency that he leads falls completely on his lap, desk, head, whatever.
    Whatever inference you are trying to make here, the part in bold doesn't seem to make any sense as
    what an IG was doing in 2009 may well have been kept (and should have been kept till the conclusion of
    the investigation) from Holder.
    I made no reference to the IG in that instance or to an investigation, an Assistant AG does not hold the same Supervisory or fiduciary responsibility for the Department as the AG does and is why Holder being the AG even then should have been aware or should be considered as grossly negligent of his duties as the Head of the Department.

    As that statement contained no inferencece to the IG or to what would have been a premature investigation if conducted in January 2009 well before (nearly two years before) F&F failed and resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry the night of December 14th/15th of 2010, I find myself wondering if you paid close enough attention while reading the post to know that or if for whatever reason, you are trying to misdirect attention by implying something that could not have existed in January 2009.
    I will post both of those links again for your perusal.
    http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conten...ment-FINAL.pdf
    http://issues.oversight.house.gov/fa...enTheyKnew.pdf
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.


  2. #227
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    I made no reference to the IG in that instance or to an investigation, an Assistant AG does not hold the same Supervisory or fiduciary responsibility for the Department as the AG does and is why Holder being the AG even then should have been aware or should be considered as grossly negligent of his duties as the Head of the Department.

    As that statement contained no inferencece to the IG or to what would have been a premature investigation if conducted in January 2009 well before (nearly two years before) F&F failed and resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry the night of December 14th/15th of 2010, I find myself wondering if you paid close enough attention while reading the post to know that or if for whatever reason, you are trying to misdirect attention by implying something that could not have existed in January 2009.
    I will post both of those links again for your perusal.
    http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conten...ment-FINAL.pdf
    http://issues.oversight.house.gov/fa...enTheyKnew.pdf
    You are right. I misread where you wrote. " AG" and confused part of your post with one which
    I think was put up by MCP. (I can't see the previous page while typing so I can't double check that.)

    Nevertheless, I can't agree with the implications of your first paragraph here,
    which I put in bold. We aren't Japanese. Our CEOs and Agency heads aren't expected to fall on their swords
    over the misdeeds of underlings, if any. It is usually sufficient to ferret it out and punish the guilty.
    This the IG (not AG) has been doing or trying to do despite interference by a House Commitee and the
    refusal of The Senate to confirm a permanent IG.

    The Agency IG (and here I mean IG not AG) has been doing that. Apparently there have been
    Grand Jury proceedings otherwise Issa wouldn't have attempted to obtain the transcripts of these.
    Is Congress in the business of second guessing a GJ?

    Everyone seems in a big hurry to yell cover up and make a lot of noise, and not let the processes
    which exist work. I have my own view of why that is, and I'm sure it differs greatly from yours,
    but to go there would violate our rules. So, I'm sticking with Separation of Powers being sufficiently
    necessary for the system to work, EP having been claimed many times before, and therefore I see
    no rational purpose to what the Issa Committee is doing.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  3. #228
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    You are right. I misread where you wrote. " AG" and confused part of your post with one which
    I think was put up by MCP. (I can't see the previous page while typing so I can't double check that.)
    Thank you for confirming that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard
    Nevertheless, I can't agree with the implications of your first paragraph here,
    which I put in bold. We aren't Japanese. Our CEOs and Agency heads aren't expected to fall on their swords
    over the misdeeds of underlings, if any. It is usually sufficient to ferret it out and punish the guilty.
    This the IG (not AG) has been doing or trying to do despite interference by a House Commitee and the
    refusal of The Senate to confirm a permanent IG.
    I am not suggesting that we are Japan or any other foreign country either!
    I am trying to make a point that had Holder legitimately not known about something going on within his own Department (under his nose) that rather than Fall on his Sword as you call it, that there should have been some disciplinary action taken against those who circumvented his authority.
    Seeing no evidence of either happening and the POTUS trying to protect Holder, leads me to question not only Holders Integrity but his abilty to be a responsible Head of a Governmental Agency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard
    The Agency IG (and here I mean IG not AG) has been doing that. Apparently there have been
    Grand Jury proceedings otherwise Issa wouldn't have attempted to obtain the transcripts of these.
    Is Congress in the business of second guessing a GJ?
    Care to provide a credible source citation that shows the IG was seriously investigating rather than refusing to investigate as all evidence presented to Rep Issa indicates? I have read your statements but see no evidence indicating that the IG really started to do anything till after the Oversight Committee started their hearings. At that point IMHO the IG had already proved incompetent and possibly involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard
    Everyone seems in a big hurry to yell cover up and make a lot of noise, and not let the processes
    which exist work. I have my own view of why that is, and I'm sure it differs greatly from yours,
    but to go there would violate our rules. So, I'm sticking with Separation of Powers being sufficiently
    necessary for the system to work, EP having been claimed many times before, and therefore I see
    no rational purpose to what the Issa Committee is doing.
    I will agree that the Separation of Powers exist and that they exist for a reason, but I would also emphatically state that far too often the POTUS exceeds his authority under that Separation of Powers concept. Trying to claim EP when none exists is simply proof of that. Even my favorite POTUS (Reagan) got his hands slapped for trying to invoke EP.

    EDIT: Delected case quote and comment. Will look for correct case
    Last edited by LkWd_Don; June 25th, 2012 at 06:32 PM. Reason: quoted wrong case
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  4. #229
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,986
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    OK, let's grant you your premise. That does not automatically mean the two things folks are infering:
    1) that there must be a prosecution; 2) that higher authority authorized something they had no authority to
    authorize.

    There are all manner of laws that start with the language in that code --any person who shall--- or whatever it says,
    but elsewhere in other code there are to be found law enforcement exceptions. Yes, cops carry guns in
    hospitals.
    Yes and normally when disputing something one cites such exceptions. Can you cite any in this case? How about for ITAR?
    And besides, you yourself said they were not agents so an exemption for LEOs would not apply.
    So who in the federal government legally has the authority to tell a person that laws don't apply to them and where do they get that authority?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  5. #230
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post

    I am trying to make a point that had Holder legitimately not known about something going on within his own Department (under his nose) that rather than Fall on his Sword as you call it, that there should have been some disciplinary action taken against those who circumvented his authority.
    IT sounds like a GJ was convened. We of course
    have no clue what took place in such a convention, and Congress is not entitled to inquire.

    Meanwhile, the IG--- did provide thousands of pages of documents to the committee; I am left to assume
    they found little wrong doing, that this was not what the committee hoped for, and thus they have embarked on
    a witch hunt.

    Seeing no evidence of either happening and the POTUS trying to protect Holder, leads me to question not only Holders Integrity but his abilty to be a responsible Head of a Governmental Agency.
    Are you privy to all actions which might have been taken against those involved? Your seeing no evidence
    of such means nothing has happened. Again, by the manner in which the subpoena had to be re-cast between
    last Friday and last Wed, it is clear a GJ was convened.

    Moreover, Issa himself pretty much said on TV Sunday that there wasn't any evidence of a conspiracy -- I forgot the exact phrase; but then he added the word "yet."

    That is a tip off to his hopes and aspirations, I suspect, but it isn't grounds for complaining about EP.

    Care to provide a credible source citation that shows the IG was seriously investigating
    Sorry, I think anything I provide you with will be deemed as non-credible. I don't want to go down the route
    of swearing my sources are better than your sources like two children fighting over whose
    dad is stronger.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #231
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    IT sounds like a GJ was convened. We of course
    have no clue what took place in such a convention, and Congress is not entitled to inquire.
    That is a response to
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don
    I am trying to make a point that had Holder legitimately not known about something going on within his own Department (under his nose) that rather than Fall on his Sword as you call it, that there should have been some disciplinary action taken against those who circumvented his authority.
    ??


    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard
    Meanwhile, the IG--- did provide thousands of pages of documents to the committee; I am left to assume
    they found little wrong doing, that this was not what the committee hoped for, and thus they have embarked on
    a witch hunt.
    Putting aside the accusation of a witch hunt without credible source material. The IG presenting/providing documents to the Committee and the Committee concluding that the IG did nothing speaks for itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lkwd_Don
    Seeing no evidence of either happening and the POTUS trying to protect Holder, leads me to question not only Holders Integrity but his abilty to be a responsible Head of a Governmental Agency.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard
    Are you privy to all actions which might have been taken against those involved? Your seeing no evidence
    of such means nothing has happened. Again, by the manner in which the subpoena had to be re-cast between
    last Friday and last Wed, it is clear a GJ was convened.
    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. Thus my seeing no evidence. J because I see no evidence of wrong doing, does not mean that wrong doing was not there and brings us back to Why hasn't Holder complied and turned over the documens that have been requested and now demanded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard
    Sorry, I think anything I provide you with will be deemed as non-credible.
    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). 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. 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.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  7. #232
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Here is a Congressional Research Service Report done to the topic of EP. It is a good read, covering Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History, Law,
    Practice and Recent Developments, you should read it.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RL30319.pdf

    It clearly indicates that the Separation of Powers has even been infringed upon by the courts as they are in effect legislating from the bench in the same manner that the POTUS in effect legislates by Executive Order.

    In fact, it was not until the Watergate-related lawsuits in the 1970’s seeking access to President Nixon’s tapes that the existence of a presidential confidentiality privilege was judicially established as a necessary derivative of the President’s status in our constitutional scheme of separated powers.
    My point made in the above quote.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  8. #233
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post

    Putting aside the accusation of a witch hunt without credible source material. The IG presenting/providing documents to the Committee and the Committee concluding that the IG did nothing speaks for itself.
    Yes, but you and I disagree as to what is being said. Which is why this conversation is dragging on though
    16-17 pages and no doubt will go on for more unless the mods whack us.

    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.
    THe key phrase here is "from what I can see."
    Neither of us, unless you work for that House Committee, are in much of position to see much of anything.

    Thus my seeing no evidence. J because I see no evidence of wrong doing, does not mean that wrong doing was not there
    Nor does it mean that wrongdoing was there. As with many threads here,
    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.

    and brings us back to Why hasn't Holder complied and turned over the documens that have been requested and nodemanded.
    Which brings us back once more to the issue of Separation of Powers. Moreover, it also
    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.

    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).
    Some of the non-profits are just lobbying companies in disguise.
    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
    academic games.

    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.
    I agree mostly, though I have found only one serious error on Wiki over time. I like to start there, and
    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.


    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.
    Well we immediately will run into a problem with that as we'd likely argue forever over the validity of NYT reporting
    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.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #234
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Yes and normally when disputing something one cites such exceptions. Can you cite any in this case? How about for ITAR?
    And besides, you yourself said they were not agents so an exemption for LEOs would not apply.
    So who in the federal government legally has the authority to tell a person that laws don't apply to them and where do they get that authority?
    What about ITAR? State, Commerce and Homeland Security all have discretion and export licenses are
    granted; if your point is that there is not evidence that DOJ went to Commerce or consulted State,
    therefore the operations could not be legal, you would have a valid point only if we knew more about
    behind the scenes deliberations. I agree with you that on the surface it appears to violate ITAR, but
    we have no idea what steps may have been taken to make the operation kosher. And we aren't going
    to get that from anyone; because even if done (something I doubt) it would be classified most likely. And
    it would certainly fall under the EP on deliberations which our other participant denies exists.

    Look, I understand that some folks want blood, but this is IMO going nowhere. There isn't enough there, there.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  10. #235
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,668
    OK-- I'm sparring with MCP and LkWd_Don and to some extent my buddy Sig, and I did some
    physical sparring in a gym which was at 90 ish by 10 this morning. Over and out for tonight; at least on this
    topic.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  11. #236
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,102
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    What about ITAR? State, Commerce and Homeland Security all have discretion and export licenses are
    granted; if your point is that there is not evidence that DOJ went to Commerce or consulted State,
    therefore the operations could not be legal, you would have a valid point only if we knew more about
    behind the scenes deliberations. I agree with you that on the surface it appears to violate ITAR, but
    we have no idea what steps may have been taken to make the operation kosher. And we aren't going
    to get that from anyone; because even if done (something I doubt) it would be classified most likely. And
    it would certainly fall under the EP on deliberations which our other participant denies exists.

    Look, I understand that some folks want blood, but this is IMO going nowhere. There isn't enough there, there.
    Our government can't violate the law - by any machinization "to make the operation kosher", lie about it, stonewall about it, and claim EP! The IG is Holder's DOJ employee; and the Senate is majority Democratic and so, in the face of a House vote of Contempt of Congress against Holder, maybe unlikely to call a special committee to investigate the crimes of F&F. But, especially in this season, that is far from "nowhere".
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  12. #237
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    and I did some
    physical sparring in a gym which was at 90 ish by 10 this morning. Over and out for tonight; at least on this
    Take it easy. Today i'll be sparring with a load of sod in the 110 degree heat. Should have laid that sod last month.

  13. #238
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    Take it easy. Today i'll be sparring with a load of sod in the 110 degree heat. Should have laid that sod last month.
    Good luck with that. Stay hydrated.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  14. #239
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Our government can't violate the law
    - And what makes you think it did? Do you know with certainty the totality of communications between
    DOJ, State, and Commerce may have taken place? DO you know with certainty what latitude
    and what other laws (amongst the 10,000 + we have) may have covered the operation in the cloak of legality?

    Low level employees, and even higher level employees, unknowingly break all manner of laws as they go about
    their daily tasks--- mostly because of the complexity of them all. Sometimes they get an appropriate reprimand or demotion. Sometimes the get dismissed.


    All we know is that the IG conducted an investigation, interfered with by Congress, gave the results to Holder and to Congress, and a
    Grand Jury was convened. Everything else is supposition.

    EP goes to Separation of Powers, and is an essential element of our system of checks and balances. While one participant here wants to deny that it is legitimate,
    that defies history. He wants case law to show that it is legit, but an absence of case law doesn't prove something is wrong; it proves it is right, else
    there would have been much more litigation through the years.

    by any machinization "to make the operation kosher", lie about it,
    We know
    of one piece of testimony which was retracted/corrected. That is not the same thing as lying about "it."


    stonewall about it, and claim EP!
    EP for deliberative materials is kosher, and is not
    about hiding things. It is about protecting Separation of Powers.

    The IG is Holder's DOJ employee; and the Senate is majority Democratic and so, in the face of a House vote of Contempt of Congress against Holder, maybe unlikely to call a special committee to investigate the crimes of F&F. But, especially in this season, that is far from "nowhere".
    You keep using the word crimes. Where is your evidence
    that crimes were committed? At the higher levels Issa himself did not make that claim against the White House or
    Holder. He complains only that he can't get the information he seeks, though he has sought information he is
    not entitled to have; and which his own assertion regarding the White House would indicate he has no need for.

    At lower levels there may have been crimes. We of course don't have a clue as to what went on in the Grand Jury, now do we? And you know well we should not.

    Our governors aren't held responsible, nor are our State AGs, when a local DA declines to prosecute a case of police misconduct; even sometimes manslaughter. You are trying to use
    an unrealistic standard for this matter.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #240
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,102
    The voters are going to be calling for more facts.
    You want to bury yourself in subjective legal theory and history and close your eyes to ITAR, the murder of two federal agents and hundreds of Mexicans, and three inconsistencies in Holder's responses - uncovered in time not by voluntary correction but by contradictory accounts and evidence. It isn't this investigation that's "going nowhere".
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

amending u-4 for a complaint where rep is not mentioned
,
complaint seek law license of eric holder unabridged complaint
,

congressperson for concealed carry

,
eric holder 2nd amendment
,
eric holder to be pardon by executor order
,

fast and furious david voth testifing house issa plead the fifth

,
issa page 418
,
rep issa
,
rep. issa skeletons in closet
,
skeletons in rep issa's closet
,
why this is going nowhere with eric holder
,
wiretaps and grand jury transcripts and holder
Click on a term to search for related topics.