Democrats walk out of Holder contempt vote
 

As the vote was being held to decide whether or not to hold Eric Holder in contempt, many house democrats walked out. Reminds me of the state senate in Wisconsin, when all the senate democrats fled the state to prevent a vote they expected they would lose.

Here's the difference, in my observation, between republicans and democrats. When democrats controlled congress, Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Republicans obviously didn't like her, but they didn't have the votes to stop her nomination. So they showed up for her confirmation vote, and did their job, even though they knew they were going to lose.

Yesterday, house democrats acted like the bratty kid neighbor who takes his ball and goes home because he is losing at kickball. Knowing they were going to lose the vote, instead of representing their constituents anyway, they walked out.

If they aren't going to win, Democrats don't want to play. Instead of making the case for why Holder should not be held in contempt (which is their job), they yell "WAAAH!!!" and walk out.

Then, in predictable fashion, claimed Holder was the victim of racism. I'm sure that comes as a shock to the black congressmen who voted to hold him in contempt.

Then, Democrats said the republicans were on a political witch hunt. I'm sure that's a shock to the Democrats who voted to hold Holder in contempt.

When the democrat-led Senate voted to approve Obamacare, did the senate republicans walk out?

We have serious economic and national security issues facing our country. Democrats are telling us that when they don't get what they want, they won't take part in the debate. That's public service?

How long, O Lord??

Maybe Aerosmith can lend the Democratic party their hit sone for the convention.

They'll wobble, waddle and crawl in to the sounds of "Walk this Way"!


Whenever I hear a dem talk about whatever the "vote of the day" is, they try to sound like they are doing US a favor, when in reality they are just telling us "This is how we're going to screw you and you can't do a thing about it"

I bet that if our founding fathers were able to see what our government has mutated into, they would call for their heads!!!!

It seems like what we have is more a conglomeration of nepotistic crooks, cronies and crybabies than an actual working goverment.

Don't like to cut and paste but this is a good read.

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

Quite interesting...

Good to see Jim has made another massive miscalculation in just the span of one week! :hihi:

-spence

We should pool our money together for Jim to take another vacation to Truro
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I see you still have your habit of logging on, hurling an insult with no support, and scurrying off.

Spence, read my post. I didn't offer a single syllable about Fast & Furious. I made a few points in my original post...

(1) the dems walked out of the Holder contempt vote
(2) walking away when things aren't going your way, seems childish
(3) influential liberals have suggested that the GOP is going after because he is black, despite the fact that some blacks voted to hold him in contempt
(4) influential liberals have asuggested this is a partisan witch hunt, despite the fact that 15+ Democrats voted to hold Holder in contempt

Spence, where in those points did I make a "massive miscalculation"? Please be specific, so that I can benefit from your thoughtful and learned commentary.

I pointed out the irrefutable fact that Dems walked out of a vote. If that upsets you, maybe you shouldn't blame the messenger, but rather ask yourself why you want those people deciding how much of you hard-earned money you get to keep for you and your family.

The only person in this thread who seems upset is you Jim. But on 2nd thought, I'm starting to think that is your normal tone.

It is funny to hear you talk about "serious economic and national security issues facing our country" and sounding disappointed in the Dems for not doing something about it. Where were you when the Repub. leadership said that the most important thing that they had to accomplish was to get Obama out of office - not the economy, not the war, nothing but "get him out of office":biglaugh:

Paul, everytime I point out the absurd actions of democrats in general, or you in particular, you tell me I'm full of hate. That dog don't hunt.

To answer your question...I, and many other people motivated by common sense and economics 101, feel that the best thing we can do for our country's economy and national security, is to throw out Obama. I give him a C on national defense (I like his use of drones) and an F on the economy (and I only give him an F because I don't know of a lower grade).

The desire of conservatives to get rid of Obama is perfectly consistent with our desire to fix the economy and to keep us safe. Those desires are not mutually exclusive, despite your claims...

Your are explicitly stating that if I say I want to get rid of Obama, that means I'm not concerned with the economy or national security?? As usual, you could not be more wrong. It's precisely because of my valid concerns for the economy and national security, that I say we need to get rid of him

Paul, if I say "Obama has to go", please tell me WHY you therefore conclude that I cannot simultaneously be concerned with the economy or security of our nation?

oh

Just another example of the cons distorting reality for political gains. Get people fired up. The masses won't take a second look to find out the truth. Pathetic.

you constantly talk about "people" or "the masses" as though you somehow reside above them when it come to intellect and understanding...

Sen. Grassely's response:

June 28, 2012

Fortune magazine piece on Fast and Furious

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Reporters and Editors
Re: Fortune magazine piece on Fast and Furious
Da: Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Fortune magazine piece on Operation Fast and Furious is problematic in several respects. Sen. Chuck Grassley began investigating the circumstances of the death of border patrol agent Brian Terry 18 months ago after whistleblowers came to him with concerns. The following statement is from Grassley’s office. Supporting documents are available here.

“The Fortune piece conspicuously ignores the most important fact in this case: ATF encouraged cooperating dealers to sell guns to known traffickers. That fact is key to understanding how ATF made a strategic choice to track the guns instead of stop them. The central claim of the article, that there was nothing ATF could have done to stop the illegal sales, is simply incompatible with the evidence. If it is true that ATF could not interdict and seize weapons due to legal hurdles beyond its control, then ATF had no business telling gun dealers to go ahead with the sales.

“The Fortune article asks the reader to believe that sworn statements by whistleblowers who put their careers on the line to expose the truth for Brian Terry’s family are merely conspiratorial fabrications for the sole purpose of getting back at their boss. It asks the reader to believe that the ATF Director, the Attorney General, the White House, and Congress all fell victim to the fabrication and completely misinterpreted or misunderstood the thousands of pages of documents that corroborate the whistleblower allegations. The Justice Department retracted its previous denials of those allegations last December 2. If the Fortune article is accurate, the Justice Department’s December 2 retraction would itself be a false capitulation under political pressure aimed at protecting senior DOJ officials at the expense of ATF field office personnel in Arizona.

“The Fortune article inexplicably credits the self-serving statements of the supervisors in Arizona responsible for overseeing Fast and Furious. There is no explanation as to why, given their obvious motive to claim there was no gun-walking to save themselves from criticism and punishment. That’s why the written records, the interviews on the record, and obtaining and weighing all evidence is so important. We can only draw fair, informed conclusions from the facts.”

You're making a gross generalization not backed by reality Republicans have in fact walked out on votes in protest many times over similar contempt charges.

A quick Google and it looks like they did it several times in 2008 alone, choosing partisan politics instead of representing their constituents as they were elected to do.

Shameful.

People have been saying this has been a witch hunt and if the CNN piece rings true that might just be the case.

As for scurrying off, that also is not backed by facts. I had to get some work done, sweat a little (nobody saw me) and get my older son from camp. It was a lucid experience if anything...not at all a scurry.

-spence

Paul -

"But your constantly pointing out minor thinks that you don't like but don't recognize the Repub. do the same thing "

When did Republicans walk out on a vote? When did Republicans label every single George Bush critic as a racist? Please provide examples?

"Where where you when a reporter kept interupting the Pres.? Where were you when Romney supporters were showing up at Obama speaches and honking car horns"

One reporter acting disrespectful (and he was) is not the same as Congress walking out on the job, and accusing the other side of racism (which is funny given that the other side includes some blacks, but you won't comment on that, I wonder why). That reporter is not elected to represent the best interests of the citizenry. And as for the car honking thing, I don't know what you are referring to. But Bush wasn't always treated respectfully, either.

I'm talking about a large number of United States congressmen, who get paid a ton of money to represent their constituents, refusing to participate in important public policy debates, because they sensed they were getting beat in a perfectly fair fight. If you can provide a recent example of house republicans doing the same thing, I'll admit that neither side has a monopoly on bratty behavior. But if you coulda done that, you woulda done that.

Once again, it's ironic that a man who refers to tea partiers as tea bagging racists feels justified in lecturing me about civil debate. Do it all you want, but we all know that you only do that, because you cannot begin to respond to the merits of my original post.

"People have been saying this has been a witch hunt and if the CNN piece rings true that might just be the case."

Wrong. The Holder contempt vote has nothing to do with the subject matter in the CNN article. The contempt hearings have to do wih (1) the possibility that Holder lied under oath, and (2) Congress' request for documents that reveal who knew what, and when. This would all have been avoided if Holder and Obama handed over the documents. They didn't. That doesn't sound like the "transparency" that a certain megalomaniac presidential candidate promised.

"As for scurrying off, that also is not backed by facts."

It's not? You said a made a huge mistake, but offered not one syllable to support that. You still haven't. As usual.

Spence, does your side NEVER get tired of labeling everyone who disagrees with them about anything, as a racist?

The Dems walked out not b/c they thought they were going to lose but b/c they recognized that it was a political vote. You seem to be saying the Repubs never walked out on a vote - Is that correct? Was the vote really an "important public debate"? Do the Repubs really want to have important public debate when their leaders say that isn't the most important thing?

I know that teabagger thing gets you all worked up. I save it for your posts. I'm just responding to the hate you demonstrate in the vast majority of your posts.

huh?

Dem Congressmen Walz and Peterson join Republicans in Holder contempt vote

By Joe Kimball | 10:32 am

Minnesota Congressmen Tim Walz and Collin Peterson were among the 17 Democrats who voted with the Republican majority Thursday to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress in the investigation of the "Fast and Furious" gun trafficking scandal.

They probably watched the report on FOX News.

-spence

I believe that the Congressmen who walked out on the vote would have voted for contempt but because it was a political vote walked out to save face rather than voting their conscience.

The vote wasn't about Fast and Furious, but rather a matter of the Attorney General complying with a Lawful Order to provide documents to and his testimony before the US Congress. Another Domestic Enemy of the Constitution. Ben Franklin warned us in September, 1787. I just hope we can survive as a nation...

"The Dems walked out not b/c they thought they were going to lose..."

Paul, how do you know this, exactly?

" but b/c they recognized that it was a political vote."

Oh, I see. So if it was purely political, why did 15+ Democrats decide to vote to hold Holder in contempt?

"Was the vote really an "important public debate"?"

If the attorney general lied under oath? Yes, I'd call that important. How about a president who promised "transparency", invoking executive priviledge about something that clearly is a domestic matter, not something with national security implications?

"I'm just responding to the hate you demonstrate in the vast majority of your posts"

You keep saying that. Paul, you are confusing hate with common sense. Every time you (or any liberal) backs themself into an intellectual corner from which there is no escape, you call me a hate-monger. I point out one of the many irrefutable facts that makes your side's platform look absurd, and you go back to "racist tea baggers".

You don't fall back on that "teabag" line when I spew hate, you do it when you are in a no-win situation, which is almost every single time. And like so many liberals, instead of admitting your position is indefensible, you lash out. You do it again and again and again. Everyone knows it.

Bingo. Spence, read this post. The details of the operation have nothing to do with the contempt vote. The strong possibility that Holder lied, regardless of the subject matter, is what prompted the vote.

Spence, what's your snarky comeback to that? That I'm a racist?

There's a big difference between possibility and actual perjury. I've yet to see any evidence that Holder did lie. Just that the information was out there and he could have known about it.

The evidence right now seems to indicate that Holder should have known about it but not that he did know about it. Holding someone in contempt is a pretty serious thing you don't just do for the heck of it. If they don't have the evidence then why do it? Oh yea, politics...

-spence

"There's a big difference between possibility and actual perjury."

Yes there is. That's why we have things called "investigations". Yet when we have that investigation to see if there was actual perjury, you call it a political witch hunt.

"I've yet to see any evidence that Holder did lie. "

Spence, you really are precious. Maybe, just maybe, the reason that none of us has seen any hard evidence of perjury, is because Holder is refusing to hand over certain documents that the congress asked for.

Spence, if the documents show that Holder is NOT lying, then why not turn over those documents? That would show the world that Holder was right, and that would make Darrell Issa look bad. The most likely explanation as to why Holder is withholding those documents, is that there is something in those documents that he/Obama don't want the Republicans to see.

"If they don't have the evidence then why do it?"

Holder is withholding the evidence. Are you saying that's the same thing as evidence not existing? Spence, when Scooter Libby was questioned, and he refused to talk, would you therefore conclude no crime had been committed?

Spence, if no evidence of guilt exists, that's one thing. If the accused refuses to hand over what the accuser asks for, that'/s something else.

So, Spence thinks Holder's refusal to turn over evidence is identical to a scenario where no evidence exists. Brilliant, simply brilliant.

Have fun responsing to that one. Spence is literally saying that Holder's refusal to turn over documents is suggestive that Holder did nothing wrong.

Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. Spence, you're making this way too easy for me.

Because an investigation is being performed doesn't give the investigator carte blanche to ask for any information they may seek. Sensitive documents could contain information unrelated to the case that could prove embarrassing especially if used for political reasons.

There should be no doubt that Issa is seeking payback for how the Democratically controlled House treated the Bush Administration with multiple contempt votes, including where the GOP walked out.

If you want to get into a discussion about Attorney Generals misleading Congress, I'd love to bring up Gonzales.

So keep the accusations to where they should be and with the facts that we do know. The initial assertion that Republicans are somehow more responsible to their constituents is laughable.

-spence

"Because an investigation is being performed doesn't give the investigator carte blanche to ask for any information they may seek."

That's true. If congress asked Holder if he ever belonged to the Black Panthers, that would be an irrelevent witch hunt. If Holder has blatantly contradicted himself on the record, and congress asks for evidence to see what the truth is, that's something else. And that, the latter, is what happened. Spence, your automatic let's-paint-this-in-the-most-favorable-possible-light-for-liberals, is made-up, not supported by what took place.

"There should be no doubt that Issa is seeking payback for how the Democratically controlled House treated the Bush Administration with multiple contempt votes"

Really? Really? THAT'S THE BEST YOU'VE GOT? Please, please, please Spence...if what you say is true (and it isn't), why did 15+ Democrats vote to hold Holder in contempt. Issa isn't acting unilaterally on this...you go ahead and try responsing to that in a way that doesn't sound preposterous.

"keep the accusations to where they should be and with the facts that we do know"

In other words, according to you, if Holder withholds documents, then we can't talk about the subject matter in those documents. If Holder chooses to only turn over letters that contain his fan mail, then according to you, we can't talk about anything else. You want to reward Holder for refusing to hand over those documents.

Unbelievable, Spence. Simply unbelievable.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;946733]

In other words, according to you, if Holder withholds documents, then we can't talk about the subject matter in those documents. [QUOTE]

Transparency, transparency, where is the promised transparency?
Just sayin.

[QUOTE=justplugit;946748][QUOTE=Jim in CT;946733]

In other words, according to you, if Holder withholds documents, then we can't talk about the subject matter in those documents. You're damn right. But you must be a tea bagging racist for wondering what happened to empty promises of transparency.

But according to Spence, we cannot talk about that. We can only talk about the evidence we have. In other words, we should only talk about what Holder wanted congress to know, and we shouldn't even speculate on whether or not the withheld documents are worth discussing.

Now that's brainwashed worshipping, boy...

:rotf2:

Paul S -

"Are both parties suppose to vote in lock step w/their leaders? Didn't a few repub vote not to hold him in contempt? "

I don't know if any Republicans voted not to hold him in contempt. I do know that more than 15 Democrats did vote to hold him in contempt. To me, that seems like irrefutable evidence that something more than partisan politics is at play.

" Do we know that (that Holder lied under oath)?"

No, we don't. According to the congressional, committee, the only reason why we don't know whether or not he lied, is because Holder/Obama refuse to hand over the documents. If those documents showed conculsively that there was no wrongdoing, why not release them? To me, it seems extremely likely that if Holder and Obama are going to such great lengths to keep some documents hidden, that there must be a reason . All they have to do is hand them over (which would be the transparency we were promised by Obama, by the way, but you don't care about that), and it would be out in the open. All this effort is necessary only because the Democrats won't cooperate.

"I thought more docs. where given to the Issa that morning."

I don't know what was offered. What I know is this...despite what Holder offered, 15+ Democrats voted to hold Holder in contempt.

"your always right "

I never said I was always right. I just admitted this week how wroing I was about the Supreme Court and ObamaCare. But I'm right a hell of a lot more often than you and your liberal ilk.

"Someday I'll tell you what people say about you in conversations. "

I'll try to soldier on, somehow. During the Civil Rights battles in the segregated south, Civil Rights leaders used to have a saying..."as long as the Klan is shooting at us, that means we must me doing something right".

Same thing holds here. If liberals (who support the slaughter of 4,000 unborn babies a day, who call everyone else a racist to stop the discussion, who say that conservatives hate old people and poor people, who have spent all of my generation's future tax payments and are now borrowing against my kids' futures) say less-than-flattering things about me, I know I'm on the right side. I mean, common sense makes it obvious that I'm on the right side of these issues, but if I'm getting under your skin at the same time, that's the icing on the cake.

I'm sure it's frustrating to be revealed time and time again as the hatemonger you try to paint me as.

I don't "hate" you or anyone on this forum. But your practice of calling me a teabagging racist and then lecturing me about civility, is beneath contempt. The fact that you have concluded that tea partiers are racist, simply because you have seen a few signs, is laughable. To your liberal ilk, all Catholics are pedophiles, all tea partiers are racist. You desperately try to paint us in this way, specifically because you know you cannot begin to debate us on the merits of our positions.

:biglaugh:

Seriously, how about both of you taking a step back....again....and relax. keep it civil

There's so much more than is reported in that one fortune article. In a title wave of misconduct, the article does nothing but grasp at straws to help save face for Holder and the Obama administration.

Fortune's "investigation" is quickly made inaccurate by the number of firearm sellers that tried not to sell guns to people because they were obvious straw purchases. Specifically, I remember reading about a .50 cal rifle that a dealer didn't want to sell but was encouraged by the ATF to allow the sale to go through.

Here's one specific gun store owner speaking out:
Fast and Furious: Gun store owner opens up - latimes.com
So, we have multiple accounts of ATF wrong-doing, a gun store owner speaking out about being pushed by the ATF to allow straw purchases, the Dept. of Justice hiding behind the sham that is Executive Privilege and refusing to release all the documents, and not to mention a Border Patrol Agent killed by one of the very guns the ATF allowed to be illegally sold.... But, one cover-up article in Fortune invalidates all of that?

Yes, unless you are a racist...

I'd guess you'd know a racist, right?

In accordance with TDF's request, I shall refrain from responding in kind. You have revealed much of yourself with that statement...

seems like you already ignored the request.

Paul, if it's not too difficult...instead of just claiming that I ignored TDF's request...could you please tell me (tell all of us) what was uncivilized about the one post I made after TDF asked us to calm down?

Sure Jim, John made some points and said that the fortune article "invalidates all of that". Your reply to that statement was "unless your a racist". That implies everyone who believes the article has merit is a racist - see, you can't help it with your hate.

That's what I thought you were referring to, just wanted to clarify.

Paul, have you ever in your life heard of "sarcasm"? I was not saying that everyone who believes in teh article is a racist. I was poking fun at the fact (irrefutable fact) that many influential liberals are saying those opposed to Holder (and Obama) are racist.

In other words, I was telling Johnny that he must be a racist if he discounted the pro-Holder article.

Paul, one ideological side has an annoying habit of playing the race card when things don't go their way. That would be the liberal side. Your side.

Paul, I often use sarcasm and hyperbole to make my points. Because you didn't realize that, let me clarify...I was most certainly not calling anyone a racist. I was pointing out how absurd it is to label those who disagree with you as "racists". You seem to agree it's absurd to call those who disagree with you a racist. And it's what liberals do all the time. It's exactly what you do with tea partiers.

Paul, you said it was hateful for me to assume those who disagree with me are racists. That's NOT what I was doing, but I agree that would be hate-mongering. Yet that's precisely what you do, when you call tea partiers racists. So why am I hate mongering if I inaccurately call someone a racist, but it's OK for you to do it? Please enlighten me as to why you, and only you, have been bestowed with this right?

I'm not bestowed w/any right here other than what John and Kevin allow. Show me where I've called/implied anyone is a racist or gotten into any discussions about race (other than above). And as I've said previously, the times I bring up the tea party is when you assign a view/action that you don't like to everyone on the left and imply or state that everyone on the left thinks/feels the same way. In response I state something along the lines of "so does that mean if a teabagger has XXXX feeling, all do"