New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Here's What Democrats Said in 2012 About holding an Attorney General in Contempt

middleview

President
Supporting Member
If you don't want to be insulted then stop making dumb comments. Simple solution.

And what about the executive privilege claim by Trump? Surely if you believe a POTUS conversations with the country's Attorney General falls under executive privilege then undoubtedly a POTUS conversation with his OWN counsel would certainly qualify for the same, correct?

:)
Actually, that is a question for you. I think the president is right to claim executive privilege in conversations with his AG or WH Counsel. Do you? Especially when the conversations take place after the fact. Fast and Furious had been shut down for quite a while. The President and his AG were discussing a range of issues related to the operation. All documents subpoenaed which were from the period while F&F was in operation were produced.

Now you have a document produced in an investigation and you claim it is the same as the conversations between the president and the AG.

You can attempt to justify your insults all you like...the fact is that you resort to insults when you are losing.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The subpoenas and the contempt charge came down months before Holder's own DOJ cleared him. Otoh, Congress has the Goddamn Mueller report right in front of their faces stating no collusion.....yet they persist.

No rational, decent, honorable person could say the first contempt scenario is illegitimate while the 2nd isn't. There aren't a lot of honorable people on the left. This has exposed all the corrupt, two-faced rats.
1. Why would the DOJ have cleared Holder before he was charged? Seems like a silly thing to post.
2. The Mueller report does not say "no collusion". It also does not say "No obstruction". Substantial parts of the report are redacted. What is Trump hiding?

Yet you think rational, decent and honorable people would actually falsely claim it does.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
1. Why would the DOJ have cleared Holder before he was charged? Seems like a silly thing to post.
Huh? It was the IG report. It has nothing to do with criminal decisions, moron. That said, it absolutely excoriated the Holder and Obama DOJ. It just let Holder off the hook for the incompetence and corruption below him that he was suppose to oversee. The investigation was active and the IG report was still months away when the contempt charge came down, though. It played no role in that matter. Democrats, otoh, have received the 2 year long Mueller witch hunt and the conclusion that collusion never happened.

2. The Mueller report does not say "no collusion". It also does not say "No obstruction".
It says this right on Page 2:

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.........We addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]” — a term that appears in the appointment order — with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement — tacit or express — between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

That's complete exoneration. No one can spin it otherwise. And after 2 years of investigation Mueller's 18 angry Democrats couldn't find obstruction of a crime that never happened. In light of the facts, that charge was dismissed by the DOJ. You have the information right in front of you. Take time to actually up to date you low IQ turd.

What thorough investigation did the House have in front of them when they held Holder in contempt for not turning over vital documents? They knew they were trying to get to the bottom of it and Holder was holding back potentially incriminating evidence. You are desperate to spin two different standards here and I'm punching you in the mouth over it. Lulz



Substantial parts of the report are redacted. What is Trump hiding?
We've already been over this time and time again. Mueller's team worked with the DOJ to redact portions the had to redact as REQUIRED by law. Now you are back to square one and confused about how the redaction process works and why it happens? Good lord, your IQ is low. You can't even think straight anymore. LUlz

Yet you think rational, decent and honorable people would actually falsely claim it does.
Read Mueller's quote above about the conclusion of his report. Could any decent and honorable person still try to argue there was? You and your ilk are trash.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
Actually, that is a question for you. I think the president is right to claim executive privilege in conversations with his AG or WH Counsel. Do you?
I think executive privilege in both cases is fine. If we want to get technical I think the President's personal discussions with his own WH legal counsel far more in that range than discussions or emails between the President and the COUNTRY'S top attorney, the AG. I can go with someone who isn't a fan of Presidential executive privilege IF they maintain that standard regardless of who is in the WH. When that standard shifts not a little bit.....but between two polar opposite positions is when two-faced rats get exposed. That is the problem myself and many others have with this whole sordid mess.


Especially when the conversations take place after the fact. Fast and Furious had been shut down for quite a while. The President and his AG were discussing a range of issues related to the operation. All documents subpoenaed which were from the period while F&F was in operation were produced.
The timing is irrelevant. Incriminating evidence can be produced at any time. A murderer confessing to a murder in a personal conversation or email to a confidant long after the actual event is still considered evidence and can be submitted as such. Just like Holder and Obama emailing each other can be very relevant. The timing means NOTHING. The conversations were relevant to the investigation. You are trying to make an excuse where none exists. You know the double standard is wrong but you can't bring yourself to own up to it. No honorable, decent person would take that stance. Now if you don't like insults then stop making dumb comments. Easy solution.
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
Fast and Furious was the same gun running sting operation as the one started in 2006 when Bush was president, except the Mexican officials were not informed, because the Phoenix ATF office who started both operations believed the Mexican officials might leak info to the bad guys. Same mission, same operation, same dumbass execution that failed to keep the guns in sight and able to be interdicted BEFORE they could go to the bad guys. but let's face it...anyone who knows texas and texas gun laws knows there are no background checks at any of the hundreds of big gun shows that occur every weekend in almost all Texas towns with a pulse. No ID, No credit card, No problem...Just cash. all you need to buy assault weapons and high capacity clips out the ying yang...and with so many different gun shows, you could get 50 bad guys to go buy 10 guns apiece and shoot up as many border patrol agents as you wanted....trying to blame anybody's death on any certain gun being brought over from Texas or Arizona when they could have used any of the guns they had for the last 30 years to do the shooting is the height of stupidity and dishonesty. for at least that long, the mexican police, and even the mexican army have complained about the bad guys in their country having more lethal weapons than they had!! THIS JUST DID NOT HAPPEN IN 2009 OR IN 2006....but right wingers, spurred on by Fox and other propaganda stations, want to believe obama and holder started it.
Actually, that is incorrect. Wide Reciever was started under Bush from 2006 until 2007 and was stopped because the ATF could not keep track of the firearms once the buyer left the authorized gun dealers.
Fast and the furious was started in 2009
Here's obama lying about it
Here's leftist approved Politifacts on obama's lie
https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/sep/24/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-fast-and-furious-began-under-bus/
 

llovejim

Current Champion
Actually, that is incorrect. Wide Reciever was started under Bush from 2006 until 2007 and was stopped because the ATF could not keep track of the firearms once the buyer left the authorized gun dealers.
Fast and the furious was started in 2009
Here's obama lying about it
Here's leftist approved Politifacts on obama's lie
https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/sep/24/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-fast-and-furious-began-under-bus/
it was basically the same operation. period. and neither one was started by or authorized by bush and his AG or by Obama or his AG. so why are you crying about tiny differences? the goal was good, to try and stop the huge flow of assault weapons to mexico. mistakes were made. time to move on, for everyone concerned. the people who made the mistakes were fired...
 

llovejim

Current Champion
QUOTE="Mick, post: 2428978, member: 26880"]I think executive privilege in both cases is fine. If we want to get technical I think the President's personal discussions with his own WH legal counsel far more in that range than discussions or emails between the President and the COUNTRY'S top attorney, the AG. I can go with someone who isn't a fan of Presidential executive privilege IF they maintain that standard regardless of who is in the WH. When that standard shifts not a little bit.....but between two polar opposite positions is when two-faced rats get exposed. That is the problem myself and many others have with this whole sordid mess.

The timing is irrelevant. Incriminating evidence can be produced at any time. A murderer confessing to a murder in a personal conversation or email to a confidant long after the actual event is still considered evidence and can be submitted as such. Just like Holder and Obama emailing each other can be very relevant. The timing means NOTHING. The conversations were relevant to the investigation. You are trying to make an excuse where none exists. You know the double standard is wrong but you can't bring yourself to own up to it. No honorable, decent person would take that stance. Now if you don't like insults then stop making dumb comments. Easy solution.[/QUOTE]

There does come a time when any president will just say enough of this shit. When it is a fishing expedition for a case THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ALREADY DECIDED, AND HEADS ALREADY ROLLED, AND THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS WERE ALREADY TURNED OVER. and how many documents has trump and his banker turned over concerning his taxes? zero. SEE THE DIFFERENCE? and has any INSPECTOR GENERAL MADE A DECISION ALREADY ABOUT TRUMP'S TAXES AND CONGRESS' NEED TO SEE THEM? no.

you are comparing apples to hand grenades.
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
it was basically the same operation. period. and neither one was started by or authorized by bush and his AG or by Obama or his AG.
so why are you crying about tiny differences? the goal was good, to try and stop the huge flow of assault weapons to mexico. mistakes were made. time to move on, for everyone concerned. the people who made the mistakes were fired...

.
irrelevant you said fast and the furious was started under Bush
it was not
Tiny difference? one was started under Bush and stopped because it didn't work the other was started under obama and now you leftist try to say this was a gun running program that Bush started. which obama started it. So your saying obama had no knowledge of the program? If that is true he had no authority to use executive action on Holder.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I think executive privilege in both cases is fine. If we want to get technical I think the President's personal discussions with his own WH legal counsel far more in that range than discussions or emails between the President and the COUNTRY'S top attorney, the AG. I can go with someone who isn't a fan of Presidential executive privilege IF they maintain that standard regardless of who is in the WH. When that standard shifts not a little bit.....but between two polar opposite positions is when two-faced rats get exposed. That is the problem myself and many others have with this whole sordid mess.




The timing is irrelevant. Incriminating evidence can be produced at any time. A murderer confessing to a murder in a personal conversation or email to a confidant long after the actual event is still considered evidence and can be submitted as such. Just like Holder and Obama emailing each other can be very relevant. The timing means NOTHING. The conversations were relevant to the investigation. You are trying to make an excuse where none exists. You know the double standard is wrong but you can't bring yourself to own up to it. No honorable, decent person would take that stance. Now if you don't like insults then stop making dumb comments. Easy solution.
1. What crime were they investigating? The congress got all relevant documents related to F&F. What they wanted was something to embarass the president and score political points.
2. Trump is claiming he can keep congress from seeing the redacted part of an investigation. What if Clinton had blacked out huge portions of the Starr report?
 

llovejim

Current Champion
irrelevant you said fast and the furious was started under Bush
it was not
Tiny difference? one was started under Bush and stopped because it didn't work the other was started under obama and now you leftist try to say this was a gun running program that Bush started. which obama started it. So your saying obama had no knowledge of the program? If that is true he had no authority to use executive action on Holder.
nobody said it was a gun running operation that bush started, that a similar gun running operation started while bush was president...two different things. a president is not responsible for the actions of every person in every government agency, if those actions are taken without authority of the president and without even his knowledge. period. both programs had good intentions. both did not work. both would have only made small dents in the overall number of assault weapons being taken into mexico due to our stupid shit gun laws in Arizona and Texas and other dumbass states controlled by repubs at the direction of the NRA.
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
nobody said it was a gun running operation that bush started, that a similar gun running operation started while bush was president...two different things. a president is not responsible for the actions of every person in every government agency, if those actions are taken without authority of the president and without even his knowledge. period. both programs had good intentions. both did not work. both would have only made small dents in the overall number of assault weapons being taken into mexico due to our stupid shit gun laws in Arizona and Texas and other dumbass states controlled by repubs at the direction of the NRA.
Your ignorance is showing I said one was started under Bush and stopped the other was started under Obama. Two different gun running programs started under two different administration's. FYI the one under Bush was started with the knowledge of the Mexican government. The one under Obama was not.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I think executive privilege in both cases is fine. If we want to get technical I think the President's personal discussions with his own WH legal counsel far more in that range than discussions or emails between the President and the COUNTRY'S top attorney, the AG. I can go with someone who isn't a fan of Presidential executive privilege IF they maintain that standard regardless of who is in the WH. When that standard shifts not a little bit.....but between two polar opposite positions is when two-faced rats get exposed. That is the problem myself and many others have with this whole sordid mess.




The timing is irrelevant. Incriminating evidence can be produced at any time. A murderer confessing to a murder in a personal conversation or email to a confidant long after the actual event is still considered evidence and can be submitted as such. Just like Holder and Obama emailing each other can be very relevant. The timing means NOTHING. The conversations were relevant to the investigation. You are trying to make an excuse where none exists. You know the double standard is wrong but you can't bring yourself to own up to it. No honorable, decent person would take that stance. Now if you don't like insults then stop making dumb comments. Easy solution.
In one case we are talking about discussions with senior advisors. In the other we are talking about the work product of an investigation. You argue that they are the same thing...they are not.

The easy solution to your childish insults is to put you on ignore. Clearly your justification for insults is any post by anyone who disagrees with you.
 

Nostra

Governor
In one case we are talking about discussions with senior advisors. In the other we are talking about the work product of an investigation. You argue that they are the same thing...they are not.

The easy solution to your childish insults is to put you on ignore. Clearly your justification for insults is any post by anyone who disagrees with you.
Put him on ignore............I predict you will be replying to him within a few days..........just as you did with me AFTER putting me on ignore.:D
 

Mick

The Right is always right
There does come a time when any president will just say enough of this shit. When it is a fishing expedition for a case THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ALREADY DECIDED, AND HEADS ALREADY ROLLED, AND THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS WERE ALREADY TURNED OVER.
First of all, homojim, the Inspector General had not "decided" anything when the contempt of Congress charge came. The contempt was months before the IG released any information. Either educate yourself you low IQ left wing chump or stop lying.

Second, the Inspector General report absolutely excoriated the Obama and Holder DOJ for corruption and missteps. The IG has no prosecutorial power so no "heads rolled" . The IG just makes recommendations for improvement. That IG report justified a further dig. Dummy.

And third, your nonsense about "enough of this shit" is almost outrageously funny coming from a deranged TDS sufferer. Your ilk have been on the Russia/Trump collusion phony bullshit for almost 3 years now. You got an entire special counsel team full of 19 angry Democrats, an unlimited budget, and two years of thousands of hours of testimony and millions of pages of documents. To find what exactly? The exact thing everyone with an IQ above 20 knew 2 years ago. This was a hoax and it never happened. Now the angry Democrats in Congress who didn't like that finding are calling back all the same people, all the same evidence, all the same b.s. just to go over that which was already pounded into submission with Congress, with the FBI, with a special counsel. And you think Obama had had "enough of this shit" compared to what your own ilk are perpetrating? ROFL. Good lord, you're delusional.

and how many documents has trump and his banker turned over concerning his taxes? zero. SEE THE DIFFERENCE? and has any INSPECTOR GENERAL MADE A DECISION ALREADY ABOUT TRUMP'S TAXES AND CONGRESS' NEED TO SEE THEM? no.

you are comparing apples to hand grenades.
HomoJim, we already stated to you that the IG hadn't "made a decision" when Holder was held in contempt you stupid mofo. The fact you are having to lie and distort the timing of all this shows you know you have no valid answer. And the IG report was terrible for the Obama DOJ. By itself, it warranted a Congressional investigation.

Trump turned over millions of documents to the special counsel and allowed everyone and everything to testify. Time to move on. And why should Trump turn over his personal taxes? What's the predicate for that investigation? That's the ultimate "FISHING EXPEDITION" like what you raged about above, clown. Fishing is not a valid predicate for a Congressional investigation. There has to be credible, sound evidence that misconduct and/or incompetence has occurred (like Fast and Furious) in the executive. And Trump's taxes were not about the contempt charge against Barr anyway. It was about the fact that Barr(and rightly so) wasn't going to break the law and turn over the redacted portion of the Mueller report because freaks demanded it.

HomoJim, if you can't stay with facts please refrain from posting. You are just proving to us that your base is full of miscreants, misfits, low IQ individuals, and the mentally ill. The stereotype is true.

Now go back to telling us how "leftists took lead out of gasoline" which was done almost entirely by Republican administrations or use articles on SULFUR dioxide to make arguments against CARBON dioxide. Those were equally hilarious.

Lulz

Dismissed
 
Last edited:

Mick

The Right is always right
1. What crime were they investigating?
Since when are Congressional probes criminal probes? Who is the prosecutor again? Doofus. Congressional probes can lead to referrals for prosecutions but they, by themselves, are not criminal probes. Congress is engaged in oversight and potential misconduct by the executive branch. Your ilk have decided that only works in one direction. Twisted and sick.

The congress got all relevant documents related to F&F. What they wanted was something to embarass the president and score political points.
So, you are saying the subpoenaed target of the probe gets to decide if the subpoena is valid or not? Thanks for clearing that up. Maybe Barr gets that standard? Oh wait.....*chuckles*....low IQ dolt.

And, as a Democrat supporters, are you really going whine about Congress trying to "embarrass" the President with dirt? Your ilk are the worst of all. Hypocrite.

Trump is claiming he can keep congress from seeing the redacted part of an investigation.
President Trump has made no such claim. Barr, aided by Mueller's team, redacted the portions of the Mueller report they had to redact by law. It has nothing to do with the President. Barr refused to break the law for them so Democrats went berserk.

What if Clinton had blacked out huge portions of the Starr report?
Depends on what the legal requirements were at the time. If they legally had to, yes.

In one case we are talking about discussions with senior advisors. In the other we are talking about the work product of an investigation. You argue that they are the same thing...they are not.
They absolutely can be the same thing. Material evidence relevant to an investigation can be produced during the event or events being investigated or they can be produced as a response to those events. Just like the instance I gave you above about someone confessing in private to a confidant. That is material evidence and those types of things are submitted to courts all the time as evidence. I'm sure criminals everywhere would love that new standard. If the evidence isn't produced in the commission of a crime it can't be submitted! ROFL! Because you don't understand how investigations work or how evidence is collected or used isn't our problem. It's yours. Figure it out, peabrain.

The easy solution to your childish insults is to put you on ignore. Clearly your justification for insults is any post by anyone who disagrees with you.
If you don't want to be insulted then don't make dumb comments.....like claiming confessions to confidants can't be submitted as evidence and can't be subpoenaed. That's just plain idiotic and embarrassing on your part.

The bottom is this.....Democrats have created a double standard here. It's sick and twisted. And rather than make asinine arguments that are embarrassingly foolish on your part just own it and admit your leaders need to be better leaders. Either an AG can ignore a subpoena and you can be fine with it or not. It's not both depending solely on whether there is an (R) by his name or a (D). The blatant polar opposite double standard just proves beyond any doubt these people are not looking for the truth and doing what's right. They are motivated by seedier, sicker motives. Evil stuff.
 
Last edited:
Top