"On June 7 Attorney General Eric Holder told the U.S. House of Representatives??? Judiciary Committee: ???We???ve looked at 240 custodians, processed millions of electronic records and reviewed over 140,000 documents and produced to you about 7,600.???
I think I know where you're going with this, but I have to ask, are you familiar with the rules of discovery?
Does it involve not lying or knowingly providing inaccurate info??
Yes, my grasps of facts are robotic in there accuracy.
Grammar is not a robotic skill of mine 100% of the time. Living in reality isn't a skill of yours 90% of the time. I'll take my flaw over yours any day of the week.
Thanks.
edit--it should also say grasp, not grasps. See how I can own up to my mistakes?
Unsolicited grammatical advice:
"Yes, my grasp of facts is robotic in its accuracy."
Subject verb agreement. The subject "grasp" is singular, so the verb should be singular as well ("is" as opposed to the plural "are") and the pronoun referring to that subject should also be singular ("its" as opposed to "their").
"On June 7 Attorney General Eric Holder told the U.S. House of Representatives??? Judiciary Committee: ???We???ve looked at 240 custodians, processed millions of electronic records and reviewed over 140,000 documents and produced to you about 7,600.???
I think I know where you're going with this, but I have to ask, are you familiar with the rules of discovery?
Does it involve not lying or knowingly providing inaccurate info??
No. If you lie or knowingly provide inaccurate information, particularly in a Congressional investigation, it would potentially be a crime. It's more to do with not all documents are relevant. Those that aren't relevant and wouldn't lead to relevant discoverable information don't have to be disclosed. No sense getting bogged down in the 140,000 or "millions" figures.
There's no evidence that Holder or Obama knew about FF before the shit went bad, so to blame them is unfair, in my view. To cast the President as complicit in murder as Harvey seems to do, is outrageous.
Blaming the people in charge is never unfair, in my view.
I believe that the people in charge should be accountable.
That is why I can't understand why this was not stopped and people fired sooner.
Besides, why are we talking about Fast and Furious?
No one here cares, everyone here supports Obama 100% and hates Bush 100%.
Yes, my grasps of facts are robotic in there accuracy.
Grammar is not a robotic skill of mine 100% of the time. Living in reality isn't a skill of yours 90% of the time. I'll take my flaw over yours any day of the week.
Thanks.
edit--it should also say grasp, not grasps. See how I can own up to my mistakes?
Unsolicited grammatical advice:
"Yes, my grasp of facts is robotic in its accuracy."
Subject verb agreement. The subject "grasp" is singular, so the verb should be singular as well ("is" as opposed to the plural "are") and the article referring to that subject should also be singular ("its" as opposed to "their").
There's no evidence that Holder or Obama knew about FF before the shit went bad, so to blame them is unfair, in my view. To cast the President as complicit in murder as Harvey seems to do, is outrageous.
Blaming the people in charge is never unfair, in my view.
It is if the person in charge had no knowledge of what was happening, and those that did said nothing about it. You can blame them for trusting the wrong people, in hindsight, sure, but to hold them accountable for actions they weren't told about is wrong.
There's no evidence that Holder or Obama knew about FF before the shit went bad, so to blame them is unfair, in my view. To cast the President as complicit in murder as Harvey seems to do, is outrageous.
Blaming the people in charge is never unfair, in my view.
It is if the person in charge had no knowledge of what was happening, and those that did said nothing about it. You can blame them for trusting the wrong people, in hindsight, sure, but to hold them accountable for actions they weren't told about is wrong.
Right. So even if Nixon didn't know about the Watergate break-in in advance he was involved in the cover-up, and that's what he was (sort of) held accountable for.
Yep. Where's that one Strutter that gets angry about these things? He's due for a pop-in.
There's no evidence that Holder or Obama knew about FF before the shit went bad, so to blame them is unfair, in my view. To cast the President as complicit in murder as Harvey seems to do, is outrageous.
Blaming the people in charge is never unfair, in my view.
It is if the person in charge had no knowledge of what was happening, and those that did said nothing about it. You can blame them for trusting the wrong people, in hindsight, sure, but to hold them accountable for actions they weren't told about is wrong.
You certainly can't blame anyone for not reading memos that were sent to them.....especially when the Justice Department confirms that they were never read...most folks are too busy to be bogged down by such trivial BS as reading memos from the head of the National Drug Intelligence Center.....and mis-speaking at a Congressional hearing is understandable, imagine the pressure you're under at such an inquiry....and Fast & Furious was a movie so why would anyone tie it to something as ridiculous as "gunwalking"......nothing to see here, move on.
"Holder has answered Congressional questions on Fast and Furious at nine hearings. On May 3, 2011 he told a Judiciary Committee hearing, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks." Yet documents show that at least ten months before the hearing, frequent memos discussing Fast and Furious were addressed to Holder. There were memos dating as far back as July 2010 to Holder from Breuer and the head of the National Drug Intelligence Center. However, the Justice Department says Holder didn't read the memos, and that any mention of Fast and Furious did not discuss the controversial gunwalking tactics. The Justice Department also said that Holder misunderstood the question at the May 3, 2011 hearing and that, while he heard of Fast and Furious much earlier than he'd stated, he meant to say that he hadn't heard specifically about any gunwalking".
any mention of Fast and Furious did not discuss the controversial gunwalking tactics. The Justice Department also said that Holder misunderstood the question at the May 3, 2011 hearing and that, while he heard of Fast and Furious much earlier than he'd stated, he meant to say that he hadn't heard specifically about any gunwalking".[/i][/b]
Not sure what the problem is. Would you care to explain it?
Never misunderstood a question, Rock? it seems that at least the DOJ made a clarification. How often do you do that after the fact?
If your issue is that the AG isn't perfect, well....
any mention of Fast and Furious did not discuss the controversial gunwalking tactics. The Justice Department also said that Holder misunderstood the question at the May 3, 2011 hearing and that, while he heard of Fast and Furious much earlier than he'd stated, he meant to say that he hadn't heard specifically about any gunwalking".[/i][/b]
Not sure what the problem is. Would you care to explain it?
Never misunderstood a question, Rock? it seems that at least the DOJ made a clarification. How often do you do that after the fact?
Dude......If I ever murder someone I sure as hell will hire you to defend me.
any mention of Fast and Furious did not discuss the controversial gunwalking tactics. The Justice Department also said that Holder misunderstood the question at the May 3, 2011 hearing and that, while he heard of Fast and Furious much earlier than he'd stated, he meant to say that he hadn't heard specifically about any gunwalking".[/i][/b]
Not sure what the problem is. Would you care to explain it?
Never misunderstood a question, Rock? it seems that at least the DOJ made a clarification. How often do you do that after the fact?
Dude......If I ever murder someone I sure as hell will hire you to defend me.
How flattering. What a nice compliment to pay me. Thanks. I find that it's easier to keep people out of trouble than clean up a mess. So, I would advise that you not murder anyone.
any mention of Fast and Furious did not discuss the controversial gunwalking tactics. The Justice Department also said that Holder misunderstood the question at the May 3, 2011 hearing and that, while he heard of Fast and Furious much earlier than he'd stated, he meant to say that he hadn't heard specifically about any gunwalking".[/i][/b]
Not sure what the problem is. Would you care to explain it?
Never misunderstood a question, Rock? it seems that at least the DOJ made a clarification. How often do you do that after the fact?
If your issue is that the AG isn't perfect, well....
I agree with you that F&F is not that big of a deal and that Holder cooperated with congress as much as he was required.
I disagree that the AG is not responsible for what happens at the DOJ.
I disagree that it is ok for the AG not to know about a major operation at the DOJ.
I disagree that it is ok for the AG not to know when an operation is going poorly.
I disagree that it is ok for the AG to wait for the results of an investigation that was only undertaken because of pressure from congress to do something about it.
I disagree with your argument that the president is not responsible for the AG and what happens at the DOJ.
I believe that the President and the AG set the tone.
One example, when Clinton was told about the likely hood of a terrorist attack around new years 2000, he put the country on high alert. The result was that some of the millennium bombers were stopped at the boarder.
By contrast when Bush was told that a terrorists attack using planes against the US was imminent...
I don't think you can defend Holder and Obama here but hold Bush responsible there.
I don't think you can defend Bush there and hold Holder and Obama responsible here.
any mention of Fast and Furious did not discuss the controversial gunwalking tactics. The Justice Department also said that Holder misunderstood the question at the May 3, 2011 hearing and that, while he heard of Fast and Furious much earlier than he'd stated, he meant to say that he hadn't heard specifically about any gunwalking".[/i][/b]
Not sure what the problem is. Would you care to explain it?
Never misunderstood a question, Rock? it seems that at least the DOJ made a clarification. How often do you do that after the fact?
If your issue is that the AG isn't perfect, well....
I agree with you that F&F is not that big of a deal and that Holder cooperated with congress as much as he was required.
I disagree that the AG is not responsible for what happens at the DOJ.
I disagree that it is ok for the AG not to know about a major operation at the DOJ.
I disagree that it is ok for the AG not to know when an operation is going poorly.
I disagree that it is ok for the AG to wait for the results of an investigation that was only undertaken because of pressure from congress to do something about it.
I disagree with your argument that the president is not responsible for the AG and what happens at the DOJ.
I believe that the President and the AG set the tone...
Reasonable minds can certainly differ but, FF was not a major operation. If it was,the AG would have been aware of it. The AG didn't know it was going poorly, because he didn't know about. None of the higher ups in the DOJ authorized it. Holder did find out about it until early 2011. Should he have known? Why should he have known things his people weren't telling him? Since when is it fair to blame a guy for not having ESP? Fault him for trusting the wrong guys, sure, but not having telepathy? No.
Holder didn't authorize it, and neither did the President, which underlines how non-major it was.
Holder didn't authorize it, and neither did the President, which underlines how non-major it was.
The fact is you have no way of knowing this one way or the other. Both Holder and Obama were in a position to withhold anything that would implicate them - maybe you believe that it's impossible that they would ever do such a thing, but I don't.
And it was so 'non-major' that there only 140,000 documents pertaining to it - and most of them are too top-secret to be shared with congress even years after the operation was shut down.
Realistically, it is doubtful Obama would be informed about something like this (though he might have been), but the idea that Holder was out of the loop defies all credibility, imo.
No, it's not hugely important in the scale of things, but if this happened under Bush the Soul Strut massif would be crying bloody murder.
Unfortunately, because of our electoral infrastructure 3rd parties start with sever (if almost insurmountable) limitations.
Yeah, they're called the Democrats and Republicans.
No, both parties are the symptom of a system, not the cause. If the democrats and republicans disappeared overnight there would be a brief 5-6 year battle to fill the void and then there would be two parties again, they would just have two different names.
I will agree with you that both parties use their position within the existing infrastructure to inhibit or kill the competition. They would be crazy not to (I am not saying this is right or healthy for our democracy, I am merely pointing out the state of the playing field).
Rockadelic said:
Saracenus said:
BTW, still waiting for your reasons you believe that in-person voter fraud is a real and present danger to our political system and why its worth the cost of implementing and suppressing the vote.
You apparently didn't see this
Rockadelic said:
I'd be cool with this.....and it's not like I am a big advocate for Voter ID....but if we have a problem with voter suppression and voter fraud it seems like there should be a solution that would address them both in one fell swoop.
I don't think the anti-voter suppression folks I've heard speak would buy into your solution above because it would discriminate against the homeless.
Your answer assumes that there is a legitimate in-person voter fraud problem.
However, News21, a nonpartisan investigative news project funded by the Carnegie and Knight foundations, found that this form of voter fraud is "virtually non-existent,"according to the extensive public-records search going back to 2000. Researchers filed more than 2,000 public-records requests and reviewed nearly 5,000 court documents, official records and media reports to get their information.
"[News21] identified 2,068 alleged cases of voter fraud since the year 2000, a period during which there have been more than 600 million votes cast in presidential elections alone. That, the study noted, is an "infinitesimal amount." It also showed a total of 10 cases of in-person voter fraud during that period."
10 cases, nation wide, in the past 12 years. That translates into 0.000000016% of all votes in the past 12 years was the result of in-person voter fraud. There was actually more fraud from false registrations and mail in ballots but News21 shows that even that type is very rare finding the "analysis shows 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases of registration fraud. A required photo ID at the polls would not have prevented these cases."
So, we come back to my side of the issue which is adding in Voter ID requirements at polling places places a burden on voters (paying for ID they don't normally need, which is basically a backdoor poll-tax). In Pennsylvania they are estimating that 750k to a million voters would be unable to vote. How is the solution remotely democratic? How is the cost to the state and persons wishing to vote justified by the actual numbers of fraud cases in the past 12 years?
So again, do you really believe there is a problem of in-person voter fraud that justifies all the people that will be discouraged or prevented from voting in the numbers we are going to see?
You are a science guy Rock. You understand better than most statistical analysis and if you do budgeting you probably know cost analysis as well. Do the numbers match up here justifying the cost to voter rights and the pocketbooks of voters?
Facts, math, and common sense. That is the issue here, not some false equivalency between sides.
Good morning,
I voted libertarian last election. Now I am sippin' on some coffee in a red "Romney" cup compliments of 7-11. I felt guilty just taking it, until I saw how many Obama cups had been taken.
Holder didn't authorize it, and neither did the President, which underlines how non-major it was.
The fact is you have no way of knowing this one way or the other. Both Holder and Obama were in a position to withhold anything that would implicate them - maybe you believe that it's impossible that they would ever do such a thing, but I don't.
This is true, I don't "know". I have no first hand knowledge, I wasn't in the rooms when it was or was not discussed, and I haven't personally read the thousands upon thousands of documents. The DOJ investigation made this conclusion, and I have no reason to think it's untrue.
And, it's not that I don't think it's possible that H and O corrupted the investigation. Of course it's "possible". It's just that it's highly unlikely, IMO. There is nothing (beyond baseless speculation) to suggest that it occured, and there's nothing in either one of their backrounds to suggest that they would engage in that kind of serious criminal activity (impeding a federal investigation). Nada, zilch, zip.
Let me add that I think being sceptical is a generally a good thing. However, being sceptical for the sake of being sceptical, for no reason, is just being paranoid.
Holder didn't authorize it, and neither did the President, which underlines how non-major it was.
And it was so 'non-major' that there only 140,000 documents pertaining to it - and most of them are too top-secret to be shared with congress even years after the operation was shut down.
As to this, I don't think that the 140,000 documents pertain to FF prior to it being shut down? Most of the documents are post-shutdown, and involve internal Executive branch/DOJ investigation and deliberation, which are protected under Executive Priviledge. Also, a "document" could be a 3 sentence e-mail.
any mention of Fast and Furious did not discuss the controversial gunwalking tactics. The Justice Department also said that Holder misunderstood the question at the May 3, 2011 hearing and that, while he heard of Fast and Furious much earlier than he'd stated, he meant to say that he hadn't heard specifically about any gunwalking".[/i][/b]
Not sure what the problem is. Would you care to explain it?
Never misunderstood a question, Rock? it seems that at least the DOJ made a clarification. How often do you do that after the fact?
If your issue is that the AG isn't perfect, well....
I agree with you that F&F is not that big of a deal and that Holder cooperated with congress as much as he was required.
I disagree that the AG is not responsible for what happens at the DOJ.
I disagree that it is ok for the AG not to know about a major operation at the DOJ.
I disagree that it is ok for the AG not to know when an operation is going poorly.
I disagree that it is ok for the AG to wait for the results of an investigation that was only undertaken because of pressure from congress to do something about it.
I disagree with your argument that the president is not responsible for the AG and what happens at the DOJ.
I believe that the President and the AG set the tone...
Reasonable minds can certainly differ but, FF was not a major operation. If it was,the AG would have been aware of it. The AG didn't know it was going poorly, because he didn't know about. None of the higher ups in the DOJ authorized it. Holder did find out about it until early 2011. Should he have known? Why should he have known things his people weren't telling him? Since when is it fair to blame a guy for not having ESP? Fault him for trusting the wrong guys, sure, but not having telepathy? No.
Holder didn't authorize it, and neither did the President, which underlines how non-major it was.
First your questions:
Should he have known? Yes. As AG it was his responsibility to know.
Why should he have known things his people weren't telling him? See above.
Since when is it fair to blame a guy for not having ESP?
No one is blaming him for not having ESP. He is being blamed for not knowing things he is responsible for.
Fault him for trusting the wrong guys, sure, but not having telepathy?
Fault him for not asking the right guys the right questions.
Fault him for not having the right guys working for him.
Fault him for not having the loyalty of his employees.
If he was the manager he should have been he wouldn't have needed telepathy.
I also blame him for not moving swiftly enough to condemn the program when it came to light and to discipline, fire, those responsible right away. If he had done that there would have been no congressional investigation and the right wing talk shows would have had to find some other loony issue to talk about.
Since I also blame Obama I will say that Obama is to blame for having picked an AG who failed him in regard to FF.
FF became a major operation when guns were lost and were subsequently used in major crimes. Agreed?
I agree with LMJ that it is not a major presidential issue beyond right wing talk radio and that the congressional committee played it for political gain. I also agree with Gatortoof, there is a plant.
Lol. The poem is dark comedy about consumers leaving nothing behind. Save a leaf now and have leaveS tomorrow. That is why I voted for the petting zoo in the SLSTRT PARC and why I have the name GatorToof. Gators are nearly extinct now and I like them.
First your questions:
Should he have known? Yes. As AG it was his responsibility to know.
Why should he have known things his people weren't telling him? See above.
Since when is it fair to blame a guy for not having ESP?
No one is blaming him for not having ESP. He is being blamed for not knowing things he is responsible for.
Fault him for trusting the wrong guys, sure, but not having telepathy?
Fault him for not asking the right guys the right questions.
Fault him for not having the right guys working for him.
Fault him for not having the loyalty of his employees.
If he was the manager he should have been he wouldn't have needed telepathy.
I also blame him for not moving swiftly enough to condemn the program when it came to light and to discipline, fire, those responsible right away. If he had done that there would have been no congressional investigation and the right wing talk shows would have had to find some other loony issue to talk about.
Since I also blame Obama I will say that Obama is to blame for having picked an AG who failed him in regard to FF.
FF became a major operation when guns were lost and were subsequently used in major crimes. Agreed?
I agree with LMJ that it is not a major presidential issue beyond right wing talk radio and that the congressional committee played it for political gain. I also agree with Gatortoof, there is a plant.
As I said, reasonable minds can differ. With the exception of no Congressional investigation (this is the GOP we're talmbout here, they have been looking for ANYTHING to have hearings on), nothing you mention is really unfair.
Holder didn't authorize it, and neither did the President, which underlines how non-major it was.
And it was so 'non-major' that there only 140,000 documents pertaining to it - and most of them are too top-secret to be shared with congress even years after the operation was shut down.
As to this, I don't think that the 140,000 documents pertain to FF prior to it being shut down? Most of the documents are post-shutdown, and involve internal Executive branch/DOJ investigation and deliberation, which are protected under Executive Priviledge. Also, a "document" could be a 3 sentence e-mail.
The number of documents is the sort of detail a nitwit like Issa throws out in order to make his vendetta look like a holy war. It's meaningless.
After the Grenada invasion the CIA went in and collected 35,000 POUNDS of documents in an attempt to justify the "adventure." Bureaucracies create documents. It's what they do. And most of them are just instant trash.
First your questions:
Should he have known? Yes. As AG it was his responsibility to know.
Why should he have known things his people weren't telling him? See above.
Since when is it fair to blame a guy for not having ESP?
No one is blaming him for not having ESP. He is being blamed for not knowing things he is responsible for.
Fault him for trusting the wrong guys, sure, but not having telepathy?
Fault him for not asking the right guys the right questions.
Fault him for not having the right guys working for him.
Fault him for not having the loyalty of his employees.
If he was the manager he should have been he wouldn't have needed telepathy.
I also blame him for not moving swiftly enough to condemn the program when it came to light and to discipline, fire, those responsible right away. If he had done that there would have been no congressional investigation and the right wing talk shows would have had to find some other loony issue to talk about.
Since I also blame Obama I will say that Obama is to blame for having picked an AG who failed him in regard to FF.
FF became a major operation when guns were lost and were subsequently used in major crimes. Agreed?
I agree with LMJ that it is not a major presidential issue beyond right wing talk radio and that the congressional committee played it for political gain. I also agree with Gatortoof, there is a plant.
As I said, reasonable minds can differ. With the exception of no Congressional investigation (this is the GOP we're talmbout here, they have been looking for ANYTHING to have hearings on), nothing you mention is really unfair.
I feel you on the whole congressional investigation witch hunt thing.
I just think you are over the top in your defense.
I have no interest in making a big issue out of FF.
I was in Europe when the 47% thing broke.
Have you all talked about that much?
I thought it was a little overplayed, because I had already heard the 'half of all 'merkins don't pay taxes and victim thing and didn't consider it big news.
I thought his comments about the Middle East were bigger news.
The 47% thing seems to have had more legs than fast and furious.
One reason is that FF proves what people already know. Sometimes law enforcement screws up.
47% proves what a lot of people were denying. Romney is complete out of touch and only cares about the extremely wealthy.
Why people had such a hard time realizing this I don't know.
Romney's voting base is working class people, hoping to get a tax rebate every year, and seniors, who don't pay taxes on SS and rely on JohnsonCare. These people do not want to be lumped with welfare queens. They want a president who has some understanding of their life.
538.com (Essential reading) has an interesting graph today.
So are we going to live post during the debate next Wednesday? I know we did during the 2008 campaign. I won't be able to watch it live (previous commitment) but I was wondering if folks are interested in seeing these guys debate the economy?
I am actually far more interested in the Biden/Ryan debate. The gaffenator vs. "the smartest guys on the hill." I will be making popcorn for that one.
Debates are going to be the most staged and canned ever.
Only 2 debates, no Gary Johnson or other 3rd party candidates, topics supplied to the candidates ahead of time.
All answer should be well rehearsed stump speech outtakes.
Comments
Does it involve not lying or knowingly providing inaccurate info??
"Yes, my grasp of facts is robotic in its accuracy."
Subject verb agreement. The subject "grasp" is singular, so the verb should be singular as well ("is" as opposed to the plural "are") and the pronoun referring to that subject should also be singular ("its" as opposed to "their").
No. If you lie or knowingly provide inaccurate information, particularly in a Congressional investigation, it would potentially be a crime. It's more to do with not all documents are relevant. Those that aren't relevant and wouldn't lead to relevant discoverable information don't have to be disclosed. No sense getting bogged down in the 140,000 or "millions" figures.
Blaming the people in charge is never unfair, in my view.
I believe that the people in charge should be accountable.
That is why I can't understand why this was not stopped and people fired sooner.
Besides, why are we talking about Fast and Furious?
No one here cares, everyone here supports Obama 100% and hates Bush 100%.
Thank you so much.
It is if the person in charge had no knowledge of what was happening, and those that did said nothing about it. You can blame them for trusting the wrong people, in hindsight, sure, but to hold them accountable for actions they weren't told about is wrong.
Yep. Where's that one Strutter that gets angry about these things? He's due for a pop-in.
You certainly can't blame anyone for not reading memos that were sent to them.....especially when the Justice Department confirms that they were never read...most folks are too busy to be bogged down by such trivial BS as reading memos from the head of the National Drug Intelligence Center.....and mis-speaking at a Congressional hearing is understandable, imagine the pressure you're under at such an inquiry....and Fast & Furious was a movie so why would anyone tie it to something as ridiculous as "gunwalking"......nothing to see here, move on.
"Holder has answered Congressional questions on Fast and Furious at nine hearings. On May 3, 2011 he told a Judiciary Committee hearing, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks." Yet documents show that at least ten months before the hearing, frequent memos discussing Fast and Furious were addressed to Holder. There were memos dating as far back as July 2010 to Holder from Breuer and the head of the National Drug Intelligence Center. However, the Justice Department says Holder didn't read the memos, and that any mention of Fast and Furious did not discuss the controversial gunwalking tactics. The Justice Department also said that Holder misunderstood the question at the May 3, 2011 hearing and that, while he heard of Fast and Furious much earlier than he'd stated, he meant to say that he hadn't heard specifically about any gunwalking".
Not sure what the problem is. Would you care to explain it?
Never misunderstood a question, Rock? it seems that at least the DOJ made a clarification. How often do you do that after the fact?
If your issue is that the AG isn't perfect, well....
Dude......If I ever murder someone I sure as hell will hire you to defend me.
How flattering. What a nice compliment to pay me. Thanks. I find that it's easier to keep people out of trouble than clean up a mess. So, I would advise that you not murder anyone.
That's free advice.
I agree with you that F&F is not that big of a deal and that Holder cooperated with congress as much as he was required.
I disagree that the AG is not responsible for what happens at the DOJ.
I disagree that it is ok for the AG not to know about a major operation at the DOJ.
I disagree that it is ok for the AG not to know when an operation is going poorly.
I disagree that it is ok for the AG to wait for the results of an investigation that was only undertaken because of pressure from congress to do something about it.
I disagree with your argument that the president is not responsible for the AG and what happens at the DOJ.
I believe that the President and the AG set the tone.
One example, when Clinton was told about the likely hood of a terrorist attack around new years 2000, he put the country on high alert. The result was that some of the millennium bombers were stopped at the boarder.
By contrast when Bush was told that a terrorists attack using planes against the US was imminent...
I don't think you can defend Holder and Obama here but hold Bush responsible there.
I don't think you can defend Bush there and hold Holder and Obama responsible here.
Sometimes I wonder if Obama even writes his speeches as opposed to winging it. I think that Romney plans what he is going to say and do.
Cheers!
Reasonable minds can certainly differ but, FF was not a major operation. If it was,the AG would have been aware of it. The AG didn't know it was going poorly, because he didn't know about. None of the higher ups in the DOJ authorized it. Holder did find out about it until early 2011. Should he have known? Why should he have known things his people weren't telling him? Since when is it fair to blame a guy for not having ESP? Fault him for trusting the wrong guys, sure, but not having telepathy? No.
Holder didn't authorize it, and neither did the President, which underlines how non-major it was.
The fact is you have no way of knowing this one way or the other. Both Holder and Obama were in a position to withhold anything that would implicate them - maybe you believe that it's impossible that they would ever do such a thing, but I don't.
And it was so 'non-major' that there only 140,000 documents pertaining to it - and most of them are too top-secret to be shared with congress even years after the operation was shut down.
Realistically, it is doubtful Obama would be informed about something like this (though he might have been), but the idea that Holder was out of the loop defies all credibility, imo.
No, it's not hugely important in the scale of things, but if this happened under Bush the Soul Strut massif would be crying bloody murder.
I will agree with you that both parties use their position within the existing infrastructure to inhibit or kill the competition. They would be crazy not to (I am not saying this is right or healthy for our democracy, I am merely pointing out the state of the playing field).
Your answer assumes that there is a legitimate in-person voter fraud problem.
However, News21, a nonpartisan investigative news project funded by the Carnegie and Knight foundations, found that this form of voter fraud is "virtually non-existent,"according to the extensive public-records search going back to 2000. Researchers filed more than 2,000 public-records requests and reviewed nearly 5,000 court documents, official records and media reports to get their information.
"[News21] identified 2,068 alleged cases of voter fraud since the year 2000, a period during which there have been more than 600 million votes cast in presidential elections alone. That, the study noted, is an "infinitesimal amount." It also showed a total of 10 cases of in-person voter fraud during that period."
10 cases, nation wide, in the past 12 years. That translates into 0.000000016% of all votes in the past 12 years was the result of in-person voter fraud. There was actually more fraud from false registrations and mail in ballots but News21 shows that even that type is very rare finding the "analysis shows 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud and 400 cases of registration fraud. A required photo ID at the polls would not have prevented these cases."
So, we come back to my side of the issue which is adding in Voter ID requirements at polling places places a burden on voters (paying for ID they don't normally need, which is basically a backdoor poll-tax). In Pennsylvania they are estimating that 750k to a million voters would be unable to vote. How is the solution remotely democratic? How is the cost to the state and persons wishing to vote justified by the actual numbers of fraud cases in the past 12 years?
So again, do you really believe there is a problem of in-person voter fraud that justifies all the people that will be discouraged or prevented from voting in the numbers we are going to see?
You are a science guy Rock. You understand better than most statistical analysis and if you do budgeting you probably know cost analysis as well. Do the numbers match up here justifying the cost to voter rights and the pocketbooks of voters?
Facts, math, and common sense. That is the issue here, not some false equivalency between sides.
Good night and good luck.
That is a scream. I need to work on my addition. Here is a common sense poem for you.
There was a land.
On the land there was a plant.
On the plant there was a leaf.
The dude without a voter ID ate the leaf.
I voted libertarian last election. Now I am sippin' on some coffee in a red "Romney" cup compliments of 7-11. I felt guilty just taking it, until I saw how many Obama cups had been taken.
This is true, I don't "know". I have no first hand knowledge, I wasn't in the rooms when it was or was not discussed, and I haven't personally read the thousands upon thousands of documents. The DOJ investigation made this conclusion, and I have no reason to think it's untrue.
And, it's not that I don't think it's possible that H and O corrupted the investigation. Of course it's "possible". It's just that it's highly unlikely, IMO. There is nothing (beyond baseless speculation) to suggest that it occured, and there's nothing in either one of their backrounds to suggest that they would engage in that kind of serious criminal activity (impeding a federal investigation). Nada, zilch, zip.
Let me add that I think being sceptical is a generally a good thing. However, being sceptical for the sake of being sceptical, for no reason, is just being paranoid.
As to this, I don't think that the 140,000 documents pertain to FF prior to it being shut down? Most of the documents are post-shutdown, and involve internal Executive branch/DOJ investigation and deliberation, which are protected under Executive Priviledge. Also, a "document" could be a 3 sentence e-mail.
First your questions:
Should he have known? Yes. As AG it was his responsibility to know.
Why should he have known things his people weren't telling him? See above.
Since when is it fair to blame a guy for not having ESP?
No one is blaming him for not having ESP. He is being blamed for not knowing things he is responsible for.
Fault him for trusting the wrong guys, sure, but not having telepathy?
Fault him for not asking the right guys the right questions.
Fault him for not having the right guys working for him.
Fault him for not having the loyalty of his employees.
If he was the manager he should have been he wouldn't have needed telepathy.
I also blame him for not moving swiftly enough to condemn the program when it came to light and to discipline, fire, those responsible right away. If he had done that there would have been no congressional investigation and the right wing talk shows would have had to find some other loony issue to talk about.
Since I also blame Obama I will say that Obama is to blame for having picked an AG who failed him in regard to FF.
FF became a major operation when guns were lost and were subsequently used in major crimes. Agreed?
I agree with LMJ that it is not a major presidential issue beyond right wing talk radio and that the congressional committee played it for political gain. I also agree with Gatortoof, there is a plant.
Lol. The poem is dark comedy about consumers leaving nothing behind. Save a leaf now and have leaveS tomorrow. That is why I voted for the petting zoo in the SLSTRT PARC and why I have the name GatorToof. Gators are nearly extinct now and I like them.
As I said, reasonable minds can differ. With the exception of no Congressional investigation (this is the GOP we're talmbout here, they have been looking for ANYTHING to have hearings on), nothing you mention is really unfair.
Issa is such a choad.
I feel you on the whole congressional investigation witch hunt thing.
I just think you are over the top in your defense.
I have no interest in making a big issue out of FF.
I was in Europe when the 47% thing broke.
Have you all talked about that much?
I thought it was a little overplayed, because I had already heard the 'half of all 'merkins don't pay taxes and victim thing and didn't consider it big news.
I thought his comments about the Middle East were bigger news.
The 47% thing seems to have had more legs than fast and furious.
One reason is that FF proves what people already know. Sometimes law enforcement screws up.
47% proves what a lot of people were denying. Romney is complete out of touch and only cares about the extremely wealthy.
Why people had such a hard time realizing this I don't know.
Romney's voting base is working class people, hoping to get a tax rebate every year, and seniors, who don't pay taxes on SS and rely on JohnsonCare. These people do not want to be lumped with welfare queens. They want a president who has some understanding of their life.
538.com (Essential reading) has an interesting graph today.
I am actually far more interested in the Biden/Ryan debate. The gaffenator vs. "the smartest guys on the hill." I will be making popcorn for that one.
Only 2 debates, no Gary Johnson or other 3rd party candidates, topics supplied to the candidates ahead of time.
All answer should be well rehearsed stump speech outtakes.
I will be watching.