Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Tick-Tock: Some Democrats will follow the NRA's request, support Contempt of Congress charges against AG Holder   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 260
    More: Interesting, contempt of Congress, NRA, Democrats, House Oversight, executive privilege, contempt, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, border states  
•       •       •

1912 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2012 at 11:38 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



260 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-27 01:12:42 AM  

Fark It: Corvus: Yes they are different. SO WHAT?

I never said it was the same operation. The tactic began under Bush that's what I said. Did they mess up when it was under Obama? Yes?

You said it was the same tactic. It was not. In Wide Receiver, the tactic was to let the guns into Mexico and allow American ATF in Mexico and the Mexican government to track the guns to the cartels. In Fast and Furious, the tactic was to let the guns into Mexico.

But just because some law enforcement messes up doesn't mean people go to jail.

They provided 2,000 weapons to violent organized crime syndicates. Then they lied to Congress about it.

AND THE NRA IS SAYING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD GO TO JAIL BECAUSE THEY HOLD A DIFFERENT POLITICAL OPINION THEN THEM.

Is that fair?

Are you stoned? What NRA statement are you talking about? You do know that if Holder is held in contempt the next step is merely the appointment of a special prosecutor, correct?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.[10]
 
2012-06-27 01:12:45 AM  

Corvus: OgreMagi: Refusing to cooperate with a congressional committee investigating wrong-doings is, by definition, a farking cover up.

Really?

Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10]

So is Bush a criminal and should be put in jail too?

Yes or no?

Or it only matter when it's Obama?


Bush should have been investigated, especially once the Democrats regained control of Congress.

We have Nancy Pelosi to thank for taking criminal investigations off the table.

/as a liberal, this whole thing is extra sickening, because I always thought we were supposed to have the moral/ethical high ground
//nice try at deflection, but this is about Eric Holder being in contempt of Congress
 
2012-06-27 01:15:02 AM  
Jesus Christ, Corvus. You're bonkers.
 
2012-06-27 01:15:08 AM  
I really can't wrap my head around this (the document demand that's being contested), and I'm usually pretty good with stuff like this. To me it seems analogous to a criminal trial in which the prosecution can't find what they're looking for in the evidence, so they try to get access to all the notes made by the defense attorney/investigator during trial preparation.
 
2012-06-27 01:15:35 AM  

Fark It: Are you stoned? What NRA statement are you talking about? You do know that if Holder is held in contempt the next step is merely the appointment of a special prosecutor, correct?


Oh so, it's ok to give someone a trial to put him in jail because you disagree with his political beliefs then?
 
2012-06-27 01:17:48 AM  

apoptotic: I really can't wrap my head around this (the document demand that's being contested), and I'm usually pretty good with stuff like this. To me it seems analogous to a criminal trial in which the prosecution can't find what they're looking for in the evidence, so they try to get access to all the notes made by the defense attorney/investigator during trial preparation.


Actually that is exactly what is happening. They find no evidence when they ask for the documents so they scream "cover up" and ask for more and more evidence because they know at some point it's going to be refused and then say "They are in contempt!".


You have it exactly right.
 
2012-06-27 01:20:49 AM  

cepson: [lots of good stuff]


You sound exactly right and that's what the evidence supports. But since it's an election year they are trying to turn some inept operation by some ATF agents into some BS scandal for the Obama administration.
 
2012-06-27 01:20:56 AM  

apoptotic: I really can't wrap my head around this (the document demand that's being contested), and I'm usually pretty good with stuff like this. To me it seems analogous to a criminal trial in which the prosecution can't find what they're looking for in the evidence, so they try to get access to all the notes made by the defense attorney/investigator during trial preparation.


That analogy doesn't really work. Congress has the right to the documents because the ATF operates with Congressional oversight. Now documents between Obama and Holder might be considered private and protected by executive privilege, but documents between Holder and ATF agents are most definitely NOT given this protection (the Ipsy case settled that a long time ago).
 
2012-06-27 01:22:12 AM  

Corvus: Fark It: Corvus: Yes they are different. SO WHAT?

I never said it was the same operation. The tactic began under Bush that's what I said. Did they mess up when it was under Obama? Yes?

You said it was the same tactic. It was not. In Wide Receiver, the tactic was to let the guns into Mexico and allow American ATF in Mexico and the Mexican government to track the guns to the cartels. In Fast and Furious, the tactic was to let the guns into Mexico.

But just because some law enforcement messes up doesn't mean people go to jail.

They provided 2,000 weapons to violent organized crime syndicates. Then they lied to Congress about it.

AND THE NRA IS SAYING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD GO TO JAIL BECAUSE THEY HOLD A DIFFERENT POLITICAL OPINION THEN THEM.

Is that fair?

Are you stoned? What NRA statement are you talking about? You do know that if Holder is held in contempt the next step is merely the appointment of a special prosecutor, correct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.[10]


Criminal Offense being the operative term there, sparky. Even if the measure passes the full house it has to go to a grand jury before jail time even becomes a remote possibility.
 
2012-06-27 01:23:08 AM  

OgreMagi: apoptotic: I really can't wrap my head around this (the document demand that's being contested), and I'm usually pretty good with stuff like this. To me it seems analogous to a criminal trial in which the prosecution can't find what they're looking for in the evidence, so they try to get access to all the notes made by the defense attorney/investigator during trial preparation.

That analogy doesn't really work. Congress has the right to the documents because the ATF operates with Congressional oversight. Now documents between Obama and Holder might be considered private and protected by executive privilege, but documents between Holder and ATF agents are most definitely NOT given this protection (the Ipsy case settled that a long time ago).



Psst that is what congress is asking for now.


Also why can't you answer this:



Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10]


So is Bush a criminal and should be put in jail too?
 
2012-06-27 01:23:10 AM  

Corvus: Holy shiat did you read the article?

The NRA says they will count against the people who do not vote to put holder in jail.

FTA: The NRA said it supports the contempt resolution and will keep a record of how members vote.

Can you read? They said they want them to send Holder to jail just because he holds a politicial position they do not like.

You implied you are not for this. Now can you answer my question instead of weaseling out of it?



1) Any lobbyist group would keep track of how members of Congress vote.

2) Where does the article say that the NRA wants Holder in jail because of his views on gun control? Oh that's right, it doesn't.
 
2012-06-27 01:24:30 AM  

Fark It: Criminal Offense being the operative term there, sparky. Even if the measure passes the full house it has to go to a grand jury before jail time even becomes a remote possibility.


So then putting someone on trial (not in jail directly) because you don't like their political views is ok?
 
2012-06-27 01:25:11 AM  

Corvus: Fark It: Are you stoned? What NRA statement are you talking about? You do know that if Holder is held in contempt the next step is merely the appointment of a special prosecutor, correct?

Oh so, it's ok to give someone a trial to put him in jail because you disagree with his political beliefs then?


This isn't about Holder's political beliefs, this is about stonewalling Congress. Contempt.
 
2012-06-27 01:25:17 AM  

cepson: I also highly doubt that Holder had anything to do with Fast and Furious other than making sure it was shut down and that it never happens again. The Justice Department includes not only ATF, but also the FBI, the DEA, federal prosecutors throughout the U.S. and its territories, and who knows how many other little sub-agencies. The Attorney General is not going to be familiar with every single investigation dreamed up by the clowns--I mean law enforcement professionals--that work under him. Obviously, if he actively tried to hide it, that's bad and he should be held accountable. And in the unlikely event he actually knowingly approved of it, then he's an idiot and has no business being where he is. But I doubt it, and it's obvious that the focus on Eric Holder is pure politics.


If he did make sure it was shut down then I would think he'd want the documents that prove that in the hands of the committee to clear his name. I can't think of any legitimate reason to withhold the documents. That leaves me with the feeling that he knew more than he is willing to admit. However, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until the specific documents demanded by the committee are revealed, but refusing to cooperate is simply not acceptable.

To quote law enforcement agents, what is he afraid of if he has nothing to hide?
 
2012-06-27 01:26:58 AM  

The_Sponge: Corvus: Holy shiat did you read the article?

The NRA says they will count against the people who do not vote to put holder in jail.

FTA: The NRA said it supports the contempt resolution and will keep a record of how members vote.

Can you read? They said they want them to send Holder to jail just because he holds a politicial position they do not like.

You implied you are not for this. Now can you answer my question instead of weaseling out of it?


1) Any lobbyist group would keep track of how members of Congress vote.

2) Where does the article say that the NRA wants Holder in jail because of his views on gun control? Oh that's right, it doesn't.


The_Sponge: Corvus: Holy shiat did you read the article?

The NRA says they will count against the people who do not vote to put holder in jail.

FTA: The NRA said it supports the contempt resolution and will keep a record of how members vote.

Can you read? They said they want them to send Holder to jail just because he holds a politicial position they do not like.

You implied you are not for this. Now can you answer my question instead of weaseling out of it?


1) Any lobbyist group would keep track of how members of Congress vote.

2) Where does the article say that the NRA wants Holder in jail because of his views on gun control? Oh that's right, it doesn't.


So why would an organization like the NRA be concerned about a criminal matter?

Is the NRA now an organization that is concerned about contempt of court rulings? Is that part of the NRA?
 
2012-06-27 01:27:56 AM  
I'm curious how this is playing out in the Mexican media. Anyone with at least half a brain (thus excluding Corvus) have any insight?
 
2012-06-27 01:28:04 AM  

Fark It: Corvus: Fark It: Are you stoned? What NRA statement are you talking about? You do know that if Holder is held in contempt the next step is merely the appointment of a special prosecutor, correct?

Oh so, it's ok to give someone a trial to put him in jail because you disagree with his political beliefs then?

This isn't about Holder's political beliefs, this is about stonewalling Congress. Contempt.


SO the NRA is an organization that fights against stonewalling congress? Did they do it when Bush did?

Why not?
 
2012-06-27 01:29:00 AM  

Corvus: So why would an organization like the NRA be concerned about a criminal matter?

Is the NRA now an organization that is concerned about contempt of court rulings? Is that part of the NRA?



Move the goal posts much?
 
2012-06-27 01:29:21 AM  

OgreMagi: I'm curious how this is playing out in the Mexican media. Anyone with at least half a brain (thus excluding Corvus) have any insight?


Sorry did you answer this?


Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10]


So is Bush a criminal and should be put in jail too?

Why can't you answer this simple question? You said doing this you should go to jail.


Are you being inconsistent?
 
2012-06-27 01:30:25 AM  
The thing is, in politics it's never the actual BS that gets you, it's the coverup that farks you in the end.

www.investors.com

So bend over Mr. Withholder, and it appears they're all out of lube.
 
2012-06-27 01:31:03 AM  

The_Sponge: Corvus: So why would an organization like the NRA be concerned about a criminal matter?

Is the NRA now an organization that is concerned about contempt of court rulings? Is that part of the NRA?


Move the goal posts much?


Funny I thought you said the NRA cares because it's a criminal matter.

Ok fine. Why does the NRA think Holder should go to jail (or be put on trial) then? You said it's not for his political beliefs. So why is it?
 
2012-06-27 01:31:37 AM  

The_Sponge: Corvus: So why would an organization like the NRA be concerned about a criminal matter?

Is the NRA now an organization that is concerned about contempt of court rulings? Is that part of the NRA?

Move the goal posts much?


A GIS found this picture of Corvus and his evil twin.

premierskills.britishcouncil.org
 
2012-06-27 01:32:21 AM  

OgreMagi: cepson: I also highly doubt that Holder had anything to do with Fast and Furious other than making sure it was shut down and that it never happens again. The Justice Department includes not only ATF, but also the FBI, the DEA, federal prosecutors throughout the U.S. and its territories, and who knows how many other little sub-agencies. The Attorney General is not going to be familiar with every single investigation dreamed up by the clowns--I mean law enforcement professionals--that work under him. Obviously, if he actively tried to hide it, that's bad and he should be held accountable. And in the unlikely event he actually knowingly approved of it, then he's an idiot and has no business being where he is. But I doubt it, and it's obvious that the focus on Eric Holder is pure politics.

If he did make sure it was shut down then I would think he'd want the documents that prove that in the hands of the committee to clear his name. I can't think of any legitimate reason to withhold the documents. That leaves me with the feeling that he knew more than he is willing to admit. However, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until the specific documents demanded by the committee are revealed, but refusing to cooperate is simply not acceptable.

To quote law enforcement agents, what is he afraid of if he has nothing to hide?


The main sticking point is an email from Ken Melson that supposedly references sealed wiretap applications that contradict the Justice Department's original claim that "gunwalking" was not a tactic of Fast and Furious, a full 8 months before Holder retracted his claim to Congress. The wiretap applications also allegedly show that high-ranking Justice Department officials knew about the tactics being employed during F&F.

This email could also completely exonerate Holder and his underlings from wrongdoing, but they aren't giving up that email.
 
2012-06-27 01:32:40 AM  

The_Sponge: Corvus: So why would an organization like the NRA be concerned about a criminal matter?

Is the NRA now an organization that is concerned about contempt of court rulings? Is that part of the NRA?


Move the goal posts much?


You were the one that said the NRA is doing this because it's a criminal matter not I.

So then why is the NRA doing it if it's not because it's a criminal matter and it's not because they disagree with Holders political views?
 
2012-06-27 01:32:55 AM  
"I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks."

www1.pictures.zimbio.com
 
2012-06-27 01:34:17 AM  

OgreMagi: apoptotic: I really can't wrap my head around this (the document demand that's being contested), and I'm usually pretty good with stuff like this. To me it seems analogous to a criminal trial in which the prosecution can't find what they're looking for in the evidence, so they try to get access to all the notes made by the defense attorney/investigator during trial preparation.

That analogy doesn't really work. Congress has the right to the documents because the ATF operates with Congressional oversight. Now documents between Obama and Holder might be considered private and protected by executive privilege, but documents between Holder and ATF agents are most definitely NOT given this protection (the Ipsy case settled that a long time ago).


Wait, I thought the ATF is under the Department of Justice, and that the DoJ is under the Executive branch? Is that not right? (No, I never took US Government in school, I'm Canadian) Or is it normal that if Congress accuses a department of the Executive branch of something that department has to disclose all quasi-related communications including its defense strategy to its accusers?
 
2012-06-27 01:34:20 AM  

OgreMagi: The_Sponge: Corvus: So why would an organization like the NRA be concerned about a criminal matter?

Is the NRA now an organization that is concerned about contempt of court rulings? Is that part of the NRA?

Move the goal posts much?

A GIS found this picture of Corvus and his evil twin.

[premierskills.britishcouncil.org image 483x272]


Not moving goal posts I have asked you this and you refuse to answer:



Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10]


So is Bush a criminal and should be put in jail too?


I have asked you this many times. Why can't you answer?
 
2012-06-27 01:36:45 AM  

edmo: But we can't just let a bunch of Mexican criminals go around killing other Mexican criminals American Border Patrol Agents with American guns. That would be wrong.


You're welcome.
 
2012-06-27 01:38:08 AM  

Corvus: OgreMagi: The_Sponge: Corvus: So why would an organization like the NRA be concerned about a criminal matter?

Is the NRA now an organization that is concerned about contempt of court rulings? Is that part of the NRA?

Move the goal posts much?

A GIS found this picture of Corvus and his evil twin.

[premierskills.britishcouncil.org image 483x272]

Not moving goal posts I have asked you this and you refuse to answer:



Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10]

So is Bush a criminal and should be put in jail too?

I have asked you this many times. Why can't you answer?


"Bush" is as relevant now as "Clinton" was during the Bush administration. Get your farking head out of your ass.
 
2012-06-27 01:38:25 AM  

Fark It: OgreMagi: cepson: I also highly doubt that Holder had anything to do with Fast and Furious other than making sure it was shut down and that it never happens again. The Justice Department includes not only ATF, but also the FBI, the DEA, federal prosecutors throughout the U.S. and its territories, and who knows how many other little sub-agencies. The Attorney General is not going to be familiar with every single investigation dreamed up by the clowns--I mean law enforcement professionals--that work under him. Obviously, if he actively tried to hide it, that's bad and he should be held accountable. And in the unlikely event he actually knowingly approved of it, then he's an idiot and has no business being where he is. But I doubt it, and it's obvious that the focus on Eric Holder is pure politics.

If he did make sure it was shut down then I would think he'd want the documents that prove that in the hands of the committee to clear his name. I can't think of any legitimate reason to withhold the documents. That leaves me with the feeling that he knew more than he is willing to admit. However, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until the specific documents demanded by the committee are revealed, but refusing to cooperate is simply not acceptable.

To quote law enforcement agents, what is he afraid of if he has nothing to hide?

The main sticking point is an email from Ken Melson that supposedly references sealed wiretap applications that contradict the Justice Department's original claim that "gunwalking" was not a tactic of Fast and Furious, a full 8 months before Holder retracted his claim to Congress. The wiretap applications also allegedly show that high-ranking Justice Department officials knew about the tactics being employed during F&F.

This email could also completely exonerate Holder and his underlings from wrongdoing, but they aren't giving up that email.


If he had simply cooperated with the committee, this mess would have probably blown over by now and be old news that is forgotten by the time the election rolls around. As it stands, F&F and his contempt are going to be on people's minds when they vote. I doubt he can stonewall until after the election and the higher up the person ultimately responsible, the more it will hurt Obama's reelection chances. This is a phenomenally stupid tactic.
 
2012-06-27 01:39:03 AM  

OgreMagi: Refusing to cooperate with a congressional committee investigating wrong-doings is, by definition, a farking cover up.


So is Bush a criminal and should be put in jail too?

Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10]


Why won't you answer?

3.bp.blogspot.com

Bawk! Bawk! Bawk!
 
2012-06-27 01:40:28 AM  

apoptotic: OgreMagi: apoptotic: I really can't wrap my head around this (the document demand that's being contested), and I'm usually pretty good with stuff like this. To me it seems analogous to a criminal trial in which the prosecution can't find what they're looking for in the evidence, so they try to get access to all the notes made by the defense attorney/investigator during trial preparation.

That analogy doesn't really work. Congress has the right to the documents because the ATF operates with Congressional oversight. Now documents between Obama and Holder might be considered private and protected by executive privilege, but documents between Holder and ATF agents are most definitely NOT given this protection (the Ipsy case settled that a long time ago).

Wait, I thought the ATF is under the Department of Justice, and that the DoJ is under the Executive branch? Is that not right? (No, I never took US Government in school, I'm Canadian) Or is it normal that if Congress accuses a department of the Executive branch of something that department has to disclose all quasi-related communications including its defense strategy to its accusers?


Yes, the ATF is part of the executive branch, but it operates with Congressional oversight. Congress has the right to documents related to investigations of wrong-doing. See the Ipsy case (google) for the legal reasons why.
 
2012-06-27 01:42:23 AM  

Fark It: Corvus: OgreMagi: The_Sponge: Corvus: So why would an organization like the NRA be concerned about a criminal matter?

Is the NRA now an organization that is concerned about contempt of court rulings? Is that part of the NRA?

Move the goal posts much?

A GIS found this picture of Corvus and his evil twin.

[premierskills.britishcouncil.org image 483x272]

Not moving goal posts I have asked you this and you refuse to answer:



Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10]

So is Bush a criminal and should be put in jail too?

I have asked you this many times. Why can't you answer?

"Bush" is as relevant now as "Clinton" was during the Bush administration. Get your farking head out of your ass.


Sure it is if you throw people in jail for something under the Obama administration but not under the Bush administration. It shows this is purely politically motivated.

You think laws should be enforced different depending on who is president and what party they belong to?
 
2012-06-27 01:43:35 AM  

Fark It: Corvus: OgreMagi: The_Sponge: Corvus: So why would an organization like the NRA be concerned about a criminal matter?

Is the NRA now an organization that is concerned about contempt of court rulings? Is that part of the NRA?

Move the goal posts much?

A GIS found this picture of Corvus and his evil twin.

[premierskills.britishcouncil.org image 483x272]

Not moving goal posts I have asked you this and you refuse to answer:



Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10]

So is Bush a criminal and should be put in jail too?

I have asked you this many times. Why can't you answer?

"Bush" is as relevant now as "Clinton" was during the Bush administration. Get your farking head out of your ass.


So you are saying things that were not considered illegal under Bush should be considered illegal under Obama because he is a democrat is ok?
 
2012-06-27 01:44:38 AM  
How is this being politicized down party lines?

Either the man is guilty of something or he isnt, your beliefs and leanings should not enter the equation.

They should all be asamed.
 
2012-06-27 01:45:44 AM  

OgreMagi: If he had simply cooperated with the committee, this mess would have probably blown over by now and be old news that is forgotten by the time the election rolls around. As it stands, F&F and his contempt are going to be on people's minds when they vote. I doubt he can stonewall until after the election and the higher up the person ultimately responsible, the more it will hurt Obama's reelection chances. This is a phenomenally stupid tactic.


It's something that surprises me about Obama. He should be smarter than this, unless he thinks he can successfully keep Congress at bay and convince the public via administration talking points that this is a partisan witch hunt. The Republicans are partly to blame for this, they've been crying wolf non-stop since January 2009. If most people (myself included) weren't already sick of their shiat then this scandal would have people a bit more fired up.

The only other explanation is that he's playing this like he played the birth certificate non issue, and he's going to reverse course and get egg all over conservative's faces by showing that their claims had no merit. The problem is that the birth certificate thing was never a legitimate scandal/controversy, so gamesmanship isn't really a bad thing. This, however, is serious shiat. People died, laws (at least the ones that they write for us little people) were broken.
 
2012-06-27 01:46:04 AM  

Corvus: OgreMagi: Refusing to cooperate with a congressional committee investigating wrong-doings is, by definition, a farking cover up.

So is Bush a criminal and should be put in jail too?

Further, on June 28, 2007, Bush invoked executive privilege in response to congressional subpoenas requesting documents from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor,[10]


Why won't you answer?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x354]

Bawk! Bawk! Bawk!


www.funny-potato.com

Wow chicken little, your partisan hypocrisy is deafening.

People under Obama should go to jail but under Bush? You'll just ignore it.
 
2012-06-27 01:47:35 AM  
NRA's just jealous because they weren't profiting directly from the sale.
 
2012-06-27 01:49:07 AM  

Corvus: So you are saying things that were not considered illegal under Bush should be considered illegal under Obama because he is a democrat is ok?


I can't decide if this is a bigger English grammar trainwreck or a bigger logic trainwreck.
 
2012-06-27 01:53:46 AM  

OgreMagi: Yes, the ATF is part of the executive branch, but it operates with Congressional oversight. Congress has the right to documents related to investigations of wrong-doing. See the Ipsy case (google) for the legal reasons why.


My google skills have apparently left the building, because I can't find anything law related under Ipsy (whether that's an upper case i or a lower case L, word or acronym). Do you happen to have a full case name or a link?
 
2012-06-27 01:53:56 AM  
The chief Democratic House head counter, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, declined to tell reporters how many defections he expected, but acknowledged that some in his party would consider heeding the NRA's call for a "yes" vote.

In other words, conservative Blue Dog types who should probably be either voted out of office or better yet, forced out of the Democratic Party.

They've already let this administrtaion down when we had the so-called "supermajority" by voting like Republicans.

in the old days they would have been censured. Of course now, since politics has taken an insane number of steps to the right, the Democratic Party doesn't make waves/
 
2012-06-27 01:58:32 AM  

coeyagi: NRA's just jealous because they weren't profiting directly from the sale.


How does the NRA profit from gun sales?
 
2012-06-27 02:00:25 AM  

Fark It: coeyagi: NRA's just jealous because they weren't profiting directly from the sale.

How does the NRA profit from gun sales?


Are you f*cking kidding?
 
2012-06-27 02:01:17 AM  

Fark It: Corvus: So you are saying things that were not considered illegal under Bush should be considered illegal under Obama because he is a democrat is ok?

I can't decide if this is a bigger English grammar trainwreck or a bigger logic trainwreck.


Ah yes. it's the personal attack time.


By the way what is a "trainwreck"? I love people who correct others and get it wrong.


Why do you think something that wasn't criminal under Bush should now be criminal under Obama? Other than partisan politics?
 
2012-06-27 02:07:22 AM  

BuckTurgidson: Fark It: coeyagi: NRA's just jealous because they weren't profiting directly from the sale.

How does the NRA profit from gun sales?

Are you f*cking kidding?


The NRA is a user group. It's not an industry group. They're also a not-for-profit. It's grassroots (unlike, say, the Brady Campaign), which means most of its funding comes from small, individual donations.

How does the NRA profit from gun sales?
 
2012-06-27 02:09:21 AM  
Well I should really be asleep, but I haven't been commenting in a while. Disclaimer - Endowment Life NRA member. Who voted for Obama and probably will again, despite the right-wing NRA stuff I get all the time. I care about gun rights, not which party claims to embrace them.

This is about accountability. The F&F program was designed to push guns into the SW gun market to see where they ended up, and some of those guns killed US law enforcement agents. Certainly wingnuts like Pelosi or Feinstein use any gun crime as an excuse to dredge up their personal agendas, but this isn't about an agenda. The top lawyer in the U.S. assisted in circumventing laws, and Congress has a right to know about what he was told to do, and who told him. Like with Watergate and the Clinton B.J. - it's not the crime, it's the coverup. Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice - ordering destruction of emails, not for getting a b.j. This appears to be obstruction of justice. This program isn't black ops or involving national security - they screwed up on an ill-conceived operation and they are obstructing inquiries into that screwup.

I probably shouldn't even humour the trolls who say 'F*ck the NRA' or variants on that theme. If you agree fully with every position that some organization promotes, then you are probably either insane or your organization has three members that meet every week in somebody's basement. Politics will always be about compromise if you want to accomplish anything. Fortunately for passionate souls, these threads provide a vent for extreme views.

I certainly don't agree with stuff associated with the NRA, but as an example, my state is the only one without a concealed carry permit option. The Democratic assbags in Chicago argue that it will basically turn our state into GTA IV: Chicago despite every other state in the Union having a CC permit option. The NRA is supporting the lawsuit to challenge this.

So politics is about compromise. I want to support legal concealed carry, but Republicans are mysteriously apeshiat over birth control this election cycle, which I think is offensive even though I'm male. So I want to reform anti-gun Democrats, like this jerk.

Some people hate/fear guns and most of them are Democrats. But I can't just blank-vote Republican because the religious influence on the Republicans is out of control, especially 50+ men discussing birth control issues. I support the NRA because, for the most part, they focus on influencing gun issues and not vaginal wands or gay marriage or NASA funding or holding Americans without charges/habeus corpus or any of the many other positions that I care about. I support the NRA to get lawmakers to take the second article of the bill of rights as literally as possible.
 
2012-06-27 02:10:37 AM  

apoptotic: OgreMagi: Yes, the ATF is part of the executive branch, but it operates with Congressional oversight. Congress has the right to documents related to investigations of wrong-doing. See the Ipsy case (google) for the legal reasons why.

My google skills have apparently left the building, because I can't find anything law related under Ipsy (whether that's an upper case i or a lower case L, word or acronym). Do you happen to have a full case name or a link?


It's a big i. Not an L. Stupid fonts can make that a bit ambiguous.

Unfortunately, I failed to bookmark the damn thing after I read it. Basically, the Ipsy ruling set the parameters of when executive privilege can be used. It was absolutely clear that it could NOT be used when congress was investigating a case of wrong-doing by a government agency in which Congress had oversight powers, as is the case with the ATF. It also spelled out when executive privilege could not be used when it was documents between the president and his advisers. The exceptions in that case are extremely rare as it is rightfully believed that the president and his advisers should feel they are free to speak candidly with one another.

If I ever find that damn link again, I'll be sure to save it.
 
2012-06-27 02:16:52 AM  

Fark It: The NRA is a user group. It's not an industry group.


i14.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-27 02:24:40 AM  

BuckTurgidson: Fark It: The NRA is a user group. It's not an industry group.

[i14.photobucket.com image 400x300]


You seem to have the NRA confused with the National Shooting Sports Foundation. This confusion has already been addressed in this thread.

How does the NRA profit from gun sales, being a non-profit and all?
 
2012-06-27 02:26:54 AM  
Ha. Holder is going to learn the age old lesson, it's not the crime, it's the coverup.

Semi-related, maximum trolling edition: Gun group sells $2300 worth of rusty hunks of scrap metal that were once guns to Chicago's gun buyback program, uses the profits to send kids to NRA gun camp
 
Displayed 50 of 260 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report