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; I'm surprised it has taken Issa this long to push for contempt. It's blatantly obvious that information was withheld. We all had a chance to ...

Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 350
Like Tree250Likes

Thread: Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

  1. #76
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,129
    I'm surprised it has taken Issa this long to push for contempt. It's blatantly obvious that information was withheld. We all had a chance to read emails between (ATF Field Ops Assistant Director) Mark Chait and (ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious) Bill Newell pertaining Fast and Furious' role in conjunction with Demand Letter 3. All sorts of details are still lacking. Time to snuff the truth out.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #77
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Isn't that just a little bit like asking why a DEA Agent who goes undercover and sells crack shouldn't be prosecuted
    for the sale?

    And isn't that like asking why whatever administration is in power when the undercover operation
    took place shouldn't be prosecuted?

    And wouldn't an affirmative answer destroy law enforcement efforts?

    Are we gong to go after an Attorney General when a street drug under cover operation goes
    bad and an undercover cop gets killed by a drug gang member?

    Just asking.
    Well Hop - since you waded into it. Please explain exactly where, in the Constitution or BOR, the federal government has ANY right to law enforcement?
    tangoseal and Spirit51 like this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  4. #78
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,336
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Well Hop - since you waded into it. Please explain exactly where, in the Constitution or BOR, the federal government has ANY right to law enforcement?
    When you know the Law how can one argue with you. Great call out on that one.

    You can't ever argue a fact with a Liberal, you cant reason with a liberal based on common sense, you can only listen to their blatant disregard for reality, law, and common sense, and nod your head in a pleasant sheep keeper kind of way. There are sheep that go off the reservation all the time. Some of us simply need to rescue sheep from their own selves. There are Sheep (the masses of lame stream know nothings), Wolves (liberal, commie, socialist, Marxist, etc... who seek to destroy everything in the name of forced draconian utopia), and there are Wolf Hunters (those who know our BOR and Constitution and will fight to their last breath to defend liberty and happiness for all Americans).
    Doodle likes this.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  5. #79
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    This on again, off again "investigation" of F&F by Issa and Grassley is a referendum on Holder and the Obama administration. The congressional leadership conveniently forgot all the excesses committed by the BATFE over that agencies lifetime. Congress did nothing after Ruby Ridge, they did nothing after women and kids were burned to death in Waco. Issa, Grassley and their cohorts have no intention of reining in the BATFE: Its all about partisan politics. Congress has never had the guts to take on and rein in the BATFE.

  6. #80
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    This on again, off again "investigation" of F&F by Issa and Grassley is a referendum on Holder and the Obama administration. The congressional leadership conveniently forgot all the excesses committed by the BATFE over that agencies lifetime. Congress did nothing after Ruby Ridge, they did nothing after women and kids were burned to death in Waco. Issa, Grassley and their cohorts have no intention of reining in the BATFE: Its all about partisan politics. Congress has never had the guts to take on and rein in the BATFE.
    So, since some people (right or not) think that this is just a political move, I guess we should just forget about the whole thing, right? Condemn the actions of congressmen trying to find the truth as political, and just let the "Justice" department continue to violate common sense, not to mention a whole bunch of laws. Since nobody has tried to rain them in before we should just assume it will never happen and let them run amok. Sure, those all sounds like great ideas to me.

    Or, we could support the congressional inquiry and at least hope that DOJ will learn their lesson.
    Stubborn likes this.
    Walk softly ...

  7. #81
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,529
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Well Hop - since you waded into it. Please explain exactly where, in the Constitution or BOR, the federal government has ANY right to law enforcement?
    Get real K. Are you seriously proposing that Uncle can't enforce its own laws? And isn't law enforcement rather well implied
    by the right to a jury trial? You know, you can't have a jury trial if you don't have a defendant, and you can't have
    a defendant until you have law enforcement; some these points and counterpoints are beyond useless and silly.
    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

  8. #82
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,529
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    You must be mistaking the Anti-Federalists for the Federalist papers. The Anti-Federalists were opposed to the ratification of our Constitution where the authors of the Federalist Papers supported our Constitution and its ratification and were using the Federalist Papers to educate the People of New York about how it would protect them by being specific in what powers the Government was being given and spelling out the limits to the Congress that were being proposed.
    Here is a link to some info about the Anti-Federalists.
    Anti-Federalists
    No Sir. You are correct as far as the relative positions and view of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists with regard to
    ratification of our constitution. Where you and many others err severely is when you quote Federalist writings as
    an argument against a very strong central government. They were the opposite. Federalists as can be determined by
    looking at the name alone, were for power flowing to the Federal Government in general, and The Executive in particular,
    at the expense of the states.

    About 80% of the Federalist papers were written by Hamilton, who more than any of the rest of the leaders of his day
    championed the notion of an extremely powerful central government with power vested in The Executive. He even at one
    point during the Constitutional Convention urged that the post of President be life tenured to keep him above the
    reach of the people (Congress). It was one of his larger political blunders.
    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. #83
    VIP Member Array Hiram25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wyoming, DE
    Posts
    10,940
    Done!
    Hiram25
    You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
    Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
    dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku

  10. #84
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig 210 View Post
    This on again, off again "investigation" of F&F by Issa and Grassley is a referendum on Holder and the Obama administration. The congressional leadership conveniently forgot all the excesses committed by the BATFE over that agencies lifetime. Congress did nothing after Ruby Ridge, they did nothing after women and kids were burned to death in Waco. Issa, Grassley and their cohorts have no intention of reining in the BATFE: Its all about partisan politics. Congress has never had the guts to take on and rein in the BATFE.
    You may want to rethink what you believe is true. Remember Congress is comprised of two separate houses.. The Senate and the House of Representatives. One or the other has held their own or asked for investigations into many abuses by the Military and various LEO agencies over the years, to include the Iran/Contra affair(remember Col Ollie North?), Waco and Ruby Ridge.

    Here are a couple of links to results of those investigations.

    On the Waco, TX incident, Congress either did not get very involved because the DOJ took the lead or had asked the DOJ to investigate. The DOJ did commission a special investigation of the FBI and the Military and a report was issued.. though I will ask that you look at who the findings were provided to.
    Final report from John C. Danforth, office of Special Counsel, Waco Investigation The report was given to Deputy Director Eric Holder

    The Ruby Ridge investigation was called for by Congress and specifically the:
    Senate Committee on the Judiciary - Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Government Information
    Ruby Ridge Hearing-Director Freeh's Opening Statement
    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.

  11. #85
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Congress isn't entitled to anything and everything it demands of The Executive. Like I said, silly season is upon us.
    And the Executive is not entitled to decide what Congress is entitled to. There are very specific legal justifications for EP. If they apply in this case all the President has to do is invoke it. If Congress then decides to challange that in court they may. But for some reason he has to this point chosen not to. This whole thing could be a non issue. All the President has to do is either invoke EP or order the AG to comply.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  12. #86
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    No Sir. You are correct as far as the relative positions and view of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists with regard to
    ratification of our constitution. Where you and many others err severely is when you quote Federalist writings as
    an argument against a very strong central government. They were the opposite. Federalists as can be determined by
    looking at the name alone, were for power flowing to the Federal Government in general, and The Executive in particular,
    at the expense of the states.

    About 80% of the Federalist papers were written by Hamilton, who more than any of the rest of the leaders of his day
    championed the notion of an extremely powerful central government with power vested in The Executive. He even at one
    point during the Constitutional Convention urged that the post of President be life tenured to keep him above the
    reach of the people (Congress). It was one of his larger political blunders.
    Then I will ask you to go back and re-read what I was saying, which was in order to know what their thoughts at the time were, we are left only to be able to read the Federalist Papers which were composed as an explanation of the Constitution!
    Now I will add that the arguments being made by Madison, Jay and Hamilton was in fact, "WHY WE SHOULD RATIFY" the Constitution and as I found a better link to them, I am providing that. The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

    I will also point out that if you read the last link I provided pertaining to the Anti-Federalists you will now know that they were the beginning of what was to eventually become todays Democratic Political Party.
    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.

  13. #87
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Get real K. Are you seriously proposing that Uncle can't enforce its own laws? And isn't law enforcement rather well implied
    by the right to a jury trial? You know, you can't have a jury trial if you don't have a defendant, and you can't have
    a defendant until you have law enforcement; some these points and counterpoints are beyond useless and silly.
    Not wading into the issue of wether or not federal law enforcement is constitutional or not, but requiring a jury trial is just laying out the requirement for State and local justice systems, not implying that there is a federal system. It is reenforcing the individuals right, not giving authority to the government.
    Walk softly ...

  14. #88
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,529
    Quote Originally Posted by BigStick View Post
    Not wading into the issue of wether or not federal law enforcement is constitutional or not, but requiring a jury trial is just laying out the requirement for State and local justice systems, not implying that there is a federal system. It is reenforcing the individuals right, not giving authority to the government.
    Well tell that to the innumerable people who were charged, convicted and even hung for violating Federal law during our history.
    If you want proof that Uncle has the right to enforce his laws, try telling the IRS that you don't have to pay your taxes and
    see where that gets you.
    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. #89
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by BigStick View Post
    Not wading into the issue of wether or not federal law enforcement is constitutional or not, but requiring a jury trial is just laying out the requirement for State and local justice systems, not implying that there is a federal system. It is reenforcing the individuals right, not giving authority to the government.
    A simple answer is found in our Constitution under Article 1 Section 8 Powers of Congress Clause 18
    The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    So, Congress passes the Laws and Congress can oversee the enforcement of the Laws, likewise if either house of Congress wishes to demand anything of any Head of any Department, they have that power under our Constitution.
    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.

  16. #90
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,529
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    And the Executive is not entitled to decide what Congress is entitled to.
    Really?
    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

Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast

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.