Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder - Page 22

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; In any event, 'this' is a prosecutable felony. No? It would be for any one other than players in the Obama Administration, which obviously are ...

Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 1218192021222324 LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 351
Like Tree251Likes

Thread: Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

  1. #316
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,925
    In any event, 'this' is a prosecutable felony. No?
    It would be for any one other than players in the Obama Administration, which obviously are above the law.

    Disagree? Actions speak louder than words. Ask yourself this, is JUSTICE being done?

    It would seem that once again, it is not.

    Eventually, some of the naysayers will wake up and figure it out.By then it may be too late.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/


  2. #317
    Member Array Tayopo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alamos, Son, Mexico
    Posts
    190
    Good morning Hopy: Join me for a cup of coffee in the patio? You posted --> I think you are assuming a level of supervisory control which may not have existed.
    *********************

    Ah so, interesting.

    Don Jose de La Mancha

    "I exist to live, not live to exist"

  3. #318
    VIP Member
    Array MrBuckwheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Down Incognito
    Posts
    6,525
    Lock him up. He is a criminal and needs to be arrested and processed like one.

  4. #319
    Member Array Tayopo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alamos, Son, Mexico
    Posts
    190
    good morning again Hopy, More coffee?? You posted --> my only point here was that the IGs do not fool around,
    ****************
    And by implification, a congressional committee does? Hmmmm

    Don Jose de La Mancha

    I exisr ro Live, not live to exist"

  5. #320
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Tayopo View Post
    good morning again Hopy, More coffee?? You posted --> my only point here was that the IGs do not fool around,
    ****************
    And by implification, a congressional committee does? Hmmmm

    Don Jose de La Mancha
    Yes-- because there are all sorts of partisan and publicity motivations to create a scandal which
    motivations are lacking among the professional investigators.
    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. #321
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Tayopo View Post
    Hola hopy: You posted -->No.That didn't happen.
    **************
    perhaps, perhaps, we may never know, but we do know from sworn testimony that they made the gun dealer sell to a known felon. despite protests from the dealer. In any event, 'this' is a prosecutable felony. No?

    Don Jose de La Mancha

    "I exist to live, not live to exist"
    Where do you get that from; this is very much in dispute. Moreover, even if it did happen that way, you are
    talking about something which occurred at a very local level; it is frankly weird to watch folks spin it to a
    Presidential-Cabinet level matter.

    As best I can tell from the news, and I don't think any of it from either side is all that reliable, the complainant
    purchased guns in violation of his own instructions. The other purchases were made by straw buyers and not
    by ATF.

    I've already posted links to stories of that sort. But forget the stories. Congress has the IG's investigation report
    but they seem to refuse to believe it. Their excuse has been that there was an acting IG in place at the time
    of the investigation. So what? The guys in the trenches do the work, and as I said, they don't fool around.

    I know who is fooling around, but then we don't want our conversation to go in that partisan direction so I'll say no more
    about that.

    My main points are that the IGs have plenty of authority to investigate things and the ability to go to Congress and complain
    if there is political interference. They have not made that claim. To believe the conspiracy theories floating around
    one would have to totally disbelieve the IG, and I'm not going to go there.

    Second point I have has been directed at the issue of Executive Privilege. I've already posted links to the
    Office of White House Counsel memo of 1984 explaining that matter. Congress wants to go to civil court to
    litigate it, fine. They can knock themselves out.
    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

  7. #322
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,980
    Hopyard,
    You know much more about the IG situation in this case than I do. Do you know who it was that hired this IG? We know they are theoretically apolitical but whose administration hired him? Its this someone who came on in Reagan's second term and worked their way up our are they someone that came in with this administration?

    The reason I ask is that the reason my father retired from CIA when he did is because they were getting pressured to tailor their analysis to be as he put it "more in line with what the administration wanted." Some of this pressure was by career officers who are supposed to be apolitical but were perhaps looking to get in line for an appointed position after they retired.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  8. #323
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Hopyard,
    You know much more about the IG situation in this case than I do. Do you know who it was that hired this IG? We know they are theoretically apolitical but whose administration hired him? Its this someone who came on in Reagan's second term and worked their way up our are they someone that came in with this administration?

    The reason I ask is that the reason my father retired from CIA when he did is because they were getting pressured to tailor their analysis to be as he put it "more in line with what the administration wanted." Some of this pressure was by career officers who are supposed to be apolitical but were perhaps looking to get in line for an appointed position after they retired.
    I know nothing at all about who appointed the acting IG. Usually those acting positions in an Agency will
    go to a career person until a political appointment gets through Congress. I don't know anything more
    about this than anyone else who reads the newspapers and magazines and blogs.

    My point is that the initial investigation would have been done by ordinary grunt investigators, and
    those guys don't fool around. That is why I am puzzled by Congress' unwillingness to believe the
    report they have received and can attribute that only to partisan motives.

    Again-- my two points are that 1) I trust the IG; 2) I believe that EP is inherent in the Separation of
    Powers. These are non-partisan points of view. They are based on how the government is structured either through
    constitution, history and case law, or many years of Advise and Consent.

    Apparently, The Senate confirmed a new IG and he was recently sworn in. I thought that had been filibustered, but
    if it was, the nomination did go through.

    USDOJ/OIG | Meet the Inspector General

    I can't find a bio on the former Acting IG. Maybe someone else will have better luck.

    If you go to the DOJ website and to the subsite on the OIG, it clearly states that the IGs report to both
    the Agency Head and to Congress. Congress has received the IG report. The ability to report to Congress
    is precisely what prevents political interference with their investigations. They have made no such
    allegations. The allegations of political interference in the investigation seem to all be coming from The House
    Committee and from the press. IMO, none of them except the IG are credible.
    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. #324
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I'm not trying to confuse the issue. I'm simply stating that an investigation of some sort appears to have occurred and
    concluded that the complaint wasn't credible. That is the part Congress refuses to believe. To get to the point
    where they determine the complaint isn't credible they would have had to talk to people. One, likely would have been
    the supervisor. If they put him under oath, and he pulled a stack of warning letters, improvement plans, and other
    stuff out of his desk to substantiate oral statements about the complainant, the investigation would end.

    I'll admit that some complaints if not the majority are so off the wall that they don't even get to that point,
    and you and I have no way of knowing how the complainant's initial complaint was viewed.

    In any case, I don't want to play a semantic game with you--- my only point here was that the IGs
    do not fool around, and therefore for Congress to simply dismiss their findings the way Issa has done and
    cast outlandish assertions about high level conspiracy is a bit off the wall to be mild about it.

    Now they want to protect the complainant from the discipline that is coming his way. They are meddling
    in personnel actions that are none of their business because he didn't go to them with his complaint.
    He also has plenty of protection in OSC and appeals to the Merit System Protection Board and the District
    Courts if necessary.
    Ok, so you are saying that a verification of a complaint is an official investigation even when the IG has not decided to undertake an official investigation. Gotcha!

    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.

  10. #325
    Member Array Tayopo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alamos, Son, Mexico
    Posts
    190
    Good morning Hopy: I see that I will have to tell Lupita, the maid, to start another pot of coffee, and to keep them coming.

    You posted --> As best I can tell from the news, and I don't think any of it from either side is all that reliable
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    We agree again.

    ************************************************** ********************

    You posted --> The other purchases were made by straw buyers and not by ATF.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    True, but with the ATF pressuring the dealer who was questioning the process?? After all, if your business and livelihood were at the mercy of someone you tend to go along with them. Entrapment factor?
    ************************************************** *********************

    You posted --> Their excuse has been that there was an acting IG in place at the time of the investigation.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    and an acting IG is responsible to whom?, especially if he hopes to be nominated to IG as a permanent position??
    ************************************************** **********************

    You posted --> I know who is fooling around, but then we don't want our conversation to go in that partisan direction
    *************

    Again we agree.
    ************************************************** ***********

    You posted --> To believe the conspiracy theories floating around one would have to totally disbelieve the IG, and I'm not going to go there
    *************

    Totally disbelieve? Nah, but then, I don't particularly believe either group. Politics live and revolve around 1/2 truths, inferred truths, tilted statistics, controlled media etc etc. and in the case of senor Goebbels, pure lies. The Third Reich effectively controlled 'their' judicial system nicely.
    ************************************************** **************

    You posted --> Second point I have has been directed at the issue of Executive Privilege
    *************

    Interesting,since there apparently is no provision for this in our poor, extremely battered, Constitution? Reminds me of my own status as an Officer and gentleman. My word is my bond---until ---- snicker.

    Incidentally it was tentatively ruled that Executive privilege was not, nor could it be used, as a cover for criminal proceedings or actions.

    Hopy, thanks for putting me on my toes, actually you have much to teach me, which is why I tend to question so much.

    You are invited to my 150 th Birthday party, it will be in approx 61 years, so start getting ready.

    Don Jose de La Mancha

    "I exist to Live, not live to exist"
    DPro.40 likes this.

  11. #326
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    Ok, so you are saying that a verification of a complaint is an official investigation even when the IG has not decided to undertake an official investigation. Gotcha!

    No-- I am saying that it sometimes takes some investigation to determine if the complaint is credible.
    Sometimes I'm sure it is obvious, one way or the other, from the nature of the complaint. Other times
    it would seem to be an investigation must be undertaken to determine if there is something worthy of investigating
    more thoroughly.

    It sounds like they began an investigation, reached a conclusion that the complaint was not credible or verifiable,
    and brought it to a conclusion. Don't make such a big deal out of these minor semantic issues. It is what it is.

    A complaint was received. It was looked at. A report was given to Congress. SOP.

    The issue for me is why is Congress choosing to disbelieve the IG? I haven't heard any meaningful
    reason given beyond the fact that the IG reports to the Agency Head; but that is only a half truth as they
    report to Congress as well. So not accepting the IG conclusion is a big slap at the professional investigators
    and their integrity; and as far as I'm concerned, I know who I believe and who I don't.
    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

  12. #327
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Tayopo View Post
    Good morning Hopy: I see that I will have to tell Lupita, the maid, to start another pot of coffee, and to keep them coming.

    You posted --> As best I can tell from the news, and I don't think any of it from either side is all that reliable
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    We agree again.

    ************************************************** ********************
    Good.

    You posted --> The other purchases were made by straw buyers and not by ATF.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    True, but with the ATF pressuring the dealer who was questioning the process?? After all, if your business and livelihood were at the mercy of someone you tend to go along with them. Entrapment factor?
    ************************************************** *********************
    I don't know about entrapment, but most people would tend to go along with folks who present
    themselves as LEOs. I see nothing unusual there if the story is true.


    You posted --> Their excuse has been that there was an acting IG in place at the time of the investigation.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    and an acting IG is responsible to whom?, especially if he hopes to be nominated to IG as a permanent position??
    Except that the reports go to both the Agency head and to Congress. An IG works for both sides, in a
    certain sense. That's the beauty of the system of Inspctor's General. Congress is in the loop, and
    that is the safeguard against an IG being intimidated by a Department Head.

    You posted --> I know who is fooling around, but then we don't want our conversation to go in that partisan direction
    *************

    Again we agree.
    ************************************************** ***********
    Good again.

    You posted --> To believe the conspiracy theories floating around one would have to totally disbelieve the IG, and I'm not going to go there
    *************

    Totally disbelieve? Nah, but then, I don't particularly believe either group. Politics live and revolve around 1/2 truths, inferred truths, tilted statistics, controlled media etc etc. and in the case of senor Goebbels, pure lies. The Third Reich effectively controlled 'their' judicial system nicely.
    ************************************************** **************
    I get off the train on this one. Sometimes things aren't big conspiracy. Stupidity explains more.

    You posted --> Second point I have has been directed at the issue of Executive Privilege
    *************

    Interesting,since there apparently is no provision for this in our poor, extremely battered, Constitution? Reminds me of my own status as an Officer and gentleman. My word is my bond---until ---- snicker.
    Nor is there a specific authority in the constitution for Congress to hold these kinds of hearings or
    to accuse anyone of anything, or punish anyone for anything. Where do you find the words "contempt of Congress" in our written constitution?

    Our actual constitution, how things are done and how they have evolved over 220+ years is a different matter,
    and no one questions Congress' authority in this sphere, nor should they question EP. I've posted a link to the
    Office of White House Counsel memo on this matter (from 1984) a couple of times in this thread already.

    Incidentally it was tentatively ruled that Executive privilege was not, nor could it be used, as a cover for criminal proceedings or actions.
    I don't think it was tentative. It was rather definitive. But if you think about it, a court
    can't adjudicate a criminal matter without the things that are pertinent to reaching a decision. This is
    quite a different thing from what Congress is doing, and also-- there is nothing in the constitution that
    spells out the court's right to do that. Though I agree with the court, we have had some very very conservative
    participants here before who wanted nothing to do with the Marshall court's "arrogation of power" not given to it
    in our constitution. Folks pop up with that lost argument now and again.



    Hopy, thanks for putting me on my toes, actually you have much to teach me, which is why I tend to question so much.

    You are invited to my 150 th Birthday party, it will be in approx 61 years, so start getting ready.
    Well one of us won't be around, for sure.

    More coffee?
    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

  13. #328
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    No-- I am saying that it sometimes takes some investigation to determine if the complaint is credible.
    Sometimes I'm sure it is obvious, one way or the other, from the nature of the complaint. Other times
    it would seem to be an investigation must be undertaken to determine if there is something worthy of investigating
    more thoroughly.
    That is generally referred to as an inquiry which is supposed to be cursory and maintain utmost discretion. Additionally inquiries are not conducted by contacting anyone the complaint is being brought against, especially not with questions about those lodging or bringing the complaint and I have never known of an inquiry of that nature to put anyone under oath, as that would violate any assurance of discretion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard
    It sounds like they began an investigation, reached a conclusion that the complaint was not credible or verifiable,
    and brought it to a conclusion. Don't make such a big deal out of these minor semantic issues. It is what it is.
    I will have to review the findings and all of the past postings I have been reading to see where I had read that the IG had determined the agents bringing the complaint had been less than truthful, as in that I recall it being said the IG had spoken with those that the Complaint was being brought against.

    That in and of itself is a total violation of how any Whistleblower complaint is supposed to be handled and should in itself be justification for Congress to investigate more than just the F&F operation and Mr Holder.
    Last edited by LkWd_Don; July 2nd, 2012 at 06:41 PM. Reason: typo correction
    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.

  14. #329
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,665
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    That is generally referred to as an inquiry which is supposed to be cursory and maintain utmost discretion. Additionally inquiries are not conducted by contacting anyone the complaint is being brought against, especially not with questions about those lodging or bringing the complaint and I have never known of an inquiry of that nature to put anyone under oath, as that would violate any assurance of discretion.
    I think you are confusing civilian police investigation methods with internal investigations. To start off, there is
    a certain pre- authorization implicit in the employer-employee relationship; no it is explicit. You lose your job
    if you do not answer questions from the IG. You might go to jail if you are caught telling them untruths. It is that simple.

    We can quibble whether you want to call it an inquiry or an investigation,
    but the fact is when they show up at your door you get put under oath and you have no choice but to answer or get up and
    kiss your job goodbye. As I said, i had one encounter over a table with an IG, and I didn't like it one bit. I knew of
    two other "inquiries/investigations" which were conducted, and the folks involved were terrified. These IGs are well
    qualified competent investigators, they are tough and hard, and I'm simply not going to second guess them or disbelieve them, especially when Congress (in the hands of either side) is the one throwing the stones at them.

    I will have to review the findings and all of the past postings I have been reading to see where I had read that the IG had determined the agents bringing the complaint had been less than truthful, as in that I recall it being said the IG had spoken with those that the Complaint was being brought against.
    And? You are trying to imply that this would be wrong or improper. It might just as well be a matter of being
    thorough. They may have caught said Supervisor in lies, and accomplishing that would shed light on the veracity of
    the complainant. I don't know what they did. I'm just saying I know who I believe and who I don't believe, and
    my trust is in the IG; it is with the professional investigators and not with the clowns on the hill.

    That in and of itself is a total violation of how any Whistleblower complaint is supposed to be handled and should in itself be justification for Congress to investigate more than just the F&F operation and Mr Holder.
    A complaint gets handled. The report goes to the Agency head and to Congress. You may suppose anything you wish
    about how things should be handled, but that is supposition. They do it their way, not your way or my way.

    Congress so far has failed to enunciate any reason for disbelieving the IG.

    There have been political pundits who have generated all manner of assertions along the lines
    that it was because the IG was an acting IG. Again, this is a hogwash explanation. The work gets done by
    professional grunts who have no skin in the game.

    Then they have tried the line that the IG is politically influenced, and that too is hogwash; certainly untrue at the
    grunt level, and in any event they have all the power they need to resist that sort of thing, including the ability
    to seek indictments, and bring things before Congress. They operate in a parallel universe with the Agency officials.

    I think it was Reagan who said he intended to appoint IGs who were tougher than a junk yard dog.
    My impression is that is about the way it is. Don't mess with Fido.
    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. #330
    Ex Member Array Bullet1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    963
    My regrets & sympathies are with Brian Terry's family,,,, we all need to remember

    On December 14, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry was conducting operations as a member of the Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC) in the Nogales, Arizona area of operations. Agent Terry’s team encountered five individuals, at least two of whom were armed with AK-47’s, in the “Peck Well” area near Rio Rico, Arizona. These individuals were border bandits who were awaiting a drug load north of the Arizona-Mexico border. Agent Terry was mortally wounded during the exchange of gunfire and succumbed to his injuries on December 15, 2010. The weapons found at the scene of Agent Terry’s murder were later disclosed to be part of an ATF program named, Operation Fast and Furious. His murder is still currently under investigation as is the ATF for this reckless program that let guns walk.

    It is not or should not BE FORGOTTEN,,,,, HE WAS DOING HIS JOB,,,,, if only the DOJ would DO THEIR JOB.

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.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors