Democrats walk out of Holder contempt vote

[Fishpart]

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

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. ..

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.