Senator tells Holder to resign.

[volinbham]

Quick quiz. Who said this?

“I think we will determine over the next several weeks how this administration (President Bush) responds to the very appropriate call by Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to have these individuals come in and testify, xxxx said in 2007. “There‘s been a tendency on the part of this administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there’s something a little shaky that’s taken place. I think the administration would be best served by coming clean on this. There doesn’t seem to be any national security issues involved with the U.S. Attorney… There doesn’t same to be any justification for not offering up some clear, plausible rationale for why these U.S. Attorneys were targeted when by all assessments they were doing an outstanding job.”

“I think the American people deserve to know what was going on,”

[lawgator1]

You mean both sides do it?

No way.

[utvolpj]

you mean firings and murder aren't equal?

no way

[lawgator1]

Wasn't that one over the firing of the attorneys general in some districts? I remember that --not sure that it compares but, as I say, both sides employing this tactic.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

you mean firings and murder aren't equal?

no way

Huh? What are you talking about?

[BearCat204]

Originally Posted by volinbham

It will hold. Holder will likely get a contempt charge although I don't know how the EP impacts that.

Politically, the WH must feel that something more embarrassing is in the documents than the suspicion that the EP raises. Given how politically crafted all the WH moves are that tells me something right there about the contents.

Thats what I have been thinking after seeing what has unfolded. I would be very, very interested in seeing what is in those documents

[gsvol]

Originally Posted by utvolpj

wow, clearly part of his transparent admin promise. Sad they can hide like this

If Obama wasn't involved (a blatant lie) before, he is involved up to his eyebrows now.

Originally Posted by volinbham

It's obvious that there is something in the documents. Interesting move by the POTUS. WH has repeatedly denied they had any contact with DoJ on this. This move certainly raises the specter of WH involvement.

I'm sure the Terry family is thrilled that the government is hiding the facts behind his death.

Clearly Obama is trying to delay until after the election.

Originally Posted by hndog609

Somebody needs to start keeping an eye on Sandy Berger. Just saying.

You mean Sandy Burglar?

Originally Posted by cd12

So if the DOJ issues subpoenas do they give the defendants these same privledges extended to them? Do defendants get to decide what is important to the DOJ's case?

Some animals are more equal than others.

DOJ Secretly Drops Terrorism Charges In Taliban Case | Judicial Watch

The Department of Justice (DOJ) refuses to explain why it has abruptly dropped terrorism charges against a member of a Middle Eastern family indicted in south Florida last year with providing material support for the Pakistani Taliban.

In all, six people were charged with sending tens of thousands of dollars to the terrorist organization, which is associated with Al-Qaeda and has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks against American interests, including a 2009 suicide bombing at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan. The ringleader in this case is a Pakistani imam (Hafiz Muhammed Sher Ali Khan) who ran a mosque in Miami. The others include his sons, daughter and grandson.

It's only fair, if the Obama administration is going to leak information about a Pakistani doctor who helped us locate bin Laden, then why should be prosecuting those who are assisting the talibanis kill and maim American servicement in Afghanistan.

I have to say, the admins is at least being consistent with it's message to the Americn people.

[BeecherVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

I am not sure that bringing this up by Romney in the debates is a great idea. Obama will be loaded for bear on it -- better to stick to the economy, imo.

Guy on CNBC made one of the most insightful comments yesterday. He pointed out that only 5-7 % of people haven't made up their minds by now. And his point was that the people in that group are as bystander as bystander gets when it comes to politics. As divided as things have become, as partisan, how can someone not have made up their mind at this point?

And so that group, it will almost solely be about, in the closing days, how do they feel about the economy and specifically their own situations.

I think that's true and in my mind its so close. On the one hand things are still a mess and Obama hasn't been able to deliver on his promises. On the other hand, Romney is open to attack about whether he is really the guy to create jobs.

Once you get past that issue, people in the 5-7 % just aren't going to listen.

Why does he need to reiterate that the economy sucks? Most realize that without Romney or anyone else telling them that. Romney doesn't have to bend and twist numbers to make that point. Thus he doesn't have to expend as much energy driving it home.

IMO thats Obama's problem right now. There is plenty of the obvious that is sticking out, he's gonna have to dodge darts from the less obvious from here on out.

To the last bold. I would agree. Obama's problem is that he has a record as the POTUS tho, (which even some of his followers thinks is less that stellar). Romney doesn't. That doesn't mean that it is a slam dunk that Romney is the savior at all, but from a campaign stand point he has less to defend than Obama.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by BeecherVol

Why does he need to reiterate that the economy sucks? Most realize that without Romney or anyone else telling them that. Romney doesn't have to bend and twist numbers to make that point. Thus he doesn't have to expend as much energy driving it home.

IMO thats Obama's problem right now. There is plenty of the obvious that is sticking out, he's gonna have to dodge darts from the less obvious from here on out.

To the last bold. I would agree. Obama's problem is that he has a record as the POTUS tho, (which even some of his followers thinks is less that stellar). Romney doesn't. That doesn't mean that it is a slam dunk that Romney is the savior at all, but from a campaign stand point he has less to defend than Obama.

I don't know about you, but most people I talk to are not at all convinced that the POTUS, whoever it might be, has much control over the current malaise. All they hear about on tv is the Greek crisis and the Eurozone is holding back the stock market. And as to housing, which is number one in their minds down this way, the lion's share of resentment is reserved for the mortgage industry.

I think that there is danger in trying to generalize the economic problems of voters. Because in the end we are talking about such a small percentage who will make the difference, and if they are so uninformed that they are undecided now, what line of thinking will work in late October?

[volinbham]

How can Bush be to blame with his "failed policies" if the POTUS doesn't have much control at all over the economy?

More seriously, the election is forward looking - people will be looking at who is better suited to move things in the right direction. Obama's biggest weakness is that his actions to date haven't made any appreciable difference in economic conditions but have and do appear to have had a big impact on the debt.

[volinbham]

Issa's committee just voted to forward contempt charges (23-17). Party line but maybe one D vote in favor (I think the committee is 22(R); 18(D))

EDIT: Committee is 22R; 16D - not sure where the 2 extra votes came from - perhaps Chair and ranking member?

[StoVol]

The vote was 23 to 17 , I loled at your point about the pres having no effect on the economy yet we hear blame bush every day. It is funny seeing less than brilliant people argue points they are dancing around that day... I caught the end and heard about 12 successive nays from the dems, then the lady said the ayes have it 23 to 17

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by volinbham

How can Bush be to blame with his "failed policies" if the POTUS doesn't have much control at all over the economy?

More seriously, the election is forward looking - people will be looking at who is better suited to move things in the right direction. Obama's biggest weakness is that his actions to date haven't made any appreciable difference in economic conditions but have and do appear to have had a big impact on the debt.

I place some blame on Bush due to the tax cuts, some dubious spending, deregulation of parts of the financing industry, and definitely the misplaced war in Iraq.

But as I've said on more than a few occasions, a lot of what we are seeing right now has to do with structural changes going on in industry and our economy caused by technology.

With things like scanning of documents, the cloud, voice recognition, symbol recognition, tracking, etc., basically an entire genre of jobs -- clerical assistants -- is being crushed almost out of existence.


Those changes, in my opinion, are inevitable and a substantial contributor to the current malaise.

[punkcat]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

What does that have to do with the issue at hand ?

The program was stupid. Despite the fact that it was developed under Bush, the GOP have politicized the terrible outcome and to lay it at the feet of an AG they hate because he is enforcing federal voting laws against them.

It is purely political and insulting to Terry for the GOP to use him this way.

Did a law enforcement officer die under those other programs? No. You are nothing more than a blabbering idiot. (typical attorney)

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by punkcat

Did a law enforcement officer die under those other programs? No. You are nothing more than a blabbering idiot. (typical attorney)

Holder did not kill anyone.