Democrats walk out of Holder contempt vote

[Jim in CT]

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??

[FishermanTim]

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.

[sokinwet]

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

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

[spence]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

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!

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Quite interesting...

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

-spence

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

"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?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

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

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.”

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by sokinwet

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

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

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

In the fall of 2009, ATF agents installed a secret phone line and hidden cameras in a ceiling panel and wall at Andre Howard's Lone Wolf gun store. They gave him one basic instruction: Sell guns to every illegal purchaser who walks through the door.

When Howard heard nothing about any arrests, he questioned the agents. Keep selling, they told him. So hundreds of thousands of dollars more in weapons, including .50-caliber sniper rifles, walked out of the front door of his store in a Glendale, Ariz., strip mall.

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

But, one cover-up article in Fortune invalidates all of that?

Yes, unless you are a racist...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yes, unless you are a racist...

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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...

[Redsoxticket]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Redsoxticket

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

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.

[PaulS]

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"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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"

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?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.But your constantly pointing out minor thinks that you don't like but don't recognize the Repub. do the same thing - 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? (I guess I can post when those things happen but then I'd feel petty)You have even stated you "detest" the Pres. I'll tell you, that is not a mainstream reaction of the vast majority of the population - just the 2 extremes. If that is you fine.

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...But you didn't say that - you tried to link the vote to the econ./security.

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?? Show me where I said that? 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? If you feel that way fine, post why (but you didn't just do that you tried to link the walking out of a vote w/the econ. and the security. But don't come up with the example of when some rank and file Dems. walk out on a vote that they think was rushed and political and forget when the Rep. LEADERSHIP said that the most import. thing they can do is get the Pres out of office. And how can you link the walking out of a vote that had nothing to do w/econ. or security with the econ. or national security - nice try.

oh

[PaulS]

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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. .

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

"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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

Paul, how do you know this, exactly?And how do you know that wasn't the case - I heard the Dems say that. They compared it to Meirs where there was no rush to a vote and they continued to negot. for I believe a year. Why a vote after like a week? What is the hurry

" 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?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 know some of the 1st term Repubs. say they shouldn't compromise on anything and should vote in lock step. I disagree w/that and apparently some Repubs. like Lugar and Snow do also.

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

If the attorney general lied under oath? Do we know that? Why not continue down the path of negotiating? I thought more docs. where given to the Issa that morning.
"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-mongerNo, it is when your tone lacks civility - which has been lacking more and more in this forum for the last 2 years or so. Redsox makes an obvious joke and you say that he's upset - ignore it and go on.. I point out one the many irrefutable facts that makes your side's My side? I voted for both Bushs 1st time they ran. The repub. left me a long time ago. platform look absurd, and you go back to "racist tea baggers". Did I do that? I save it for you to point out how absurd some of your statement are - usually when you give the example of something you don't like from a Dem and assign it to all Dems.

You don't fall back on that "teabag" line when I spew hate, you do it when you are in a no-win situationwrong again. I've told you when I do it. , which is almost every single time. yup, your always right And like so many liberals, instead of admitting your position is indefensible, you lash out. You do it again and again and again. As I've said I only do it when you make assign something you don't like to all Dems. Everyone knows it.Someday I'll tell you what people say about you in conversations.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

[spence]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[justplugit]

[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.