C
Castor Muscular
Guest
Praise God!
Issa's committee passed the contempt order, so now it goes to the House.
Issa's committee passed the contempt order, so now it goes to the House.
AG Eric Holder has been found to be in Contempt of Congress
T
The Real Bob
Guest
Castor Muscular said:
Let the Obama impeachment begin.
This is absolutely amazing.
The cover up is almost as big as the crime.
The cover up is almost as big as the crime.
C
Castor Muscular
Guest
Bob L said:
Yeah, I'm convinced this goes all the way to Obama, since he is trying (and will probably fail) to assert executive privilege over the documents Holder is refusing to produce. At best, Obama is just trying to protect Holder. At worst (and most likely) he's trying to protect himself, since Holder is unable to cover for him much longer.
M
Miller
Guest
To go off track, just a little bit. If I were charged with contempt of Congress, I would have to plead guilty.
C
ChuckBob
Guest
Well, bless his heart. Now fry him.
ChuckBob
ChuckBob
R
redgreen5
Guest
Castor Muscular said:
Fortunately for you, your livelihood doesn't depend on the accuracy of your wild guesses.
Wrong. He successfully asserted Executive Privilege to fend off the fishing expedition that the House wanted. Their goal isn't this scandal; they're pissed at Holder because all the GOP voter suppression tactics are being forcefully resisted by the Attorney General.
Holder has nothing to answer for. Even Darrell Issa admitted that they have no evidence, not even any suspicion, that Holder did anything wrong.
You should try to separate your wishful thinking from what actually happens in the real world.
C
christundivided
Guest
redgreen5 said:
You're such a piece of crap.
Holder has submitted sworn testimony that he had to to withdraw twice now. In the real world they call this purgery..... And you call it a fishing expedition.... Holder has lied. He has admitted to lying. What a moron.
21 democrats voted to hold in contempt. 21. Get you're head out your rectum little boy.
R
redgreen5
Guest
christundivided said:
Just a million miles ahead of you, that's all.
1. If that is the case, then why did Darrell Issa point-blank declare there was no evidence of any such coverup? No evidence of Holder committing any criminal acts?
WASHINGTON
C
christundivided
Guest
redgreen5 said:
You wish. Just calling it like I see you. Turd.....
Grow up little boy. Recanted testimony doesn't preclude purgury. They only reason he recanted his testimony was for the fact the documents released thus far.... proves he lied.
Turd.... there is no voter suppression going on. Unless you're going to mention that fact Holder's justice department refused to prosecute the "black panthers" for voter suppression.
By the way.... what does red and green make?
1. Its that best you can do? How about you look like the north end of a southbound mule Johnny boy.
2. 21 Democrats voted for civil contempt. LIAR.
3. Ah, you admit you LIED. The truth means nothing to you.
R
redgreen5
Guest
CU said:
No, quite far ahead of you.
But then again, that isn't saying much. I tossed out expired yogurt this morning that showed more signs of intelligent life than you exhibit.
1. Already more grown up than you'll ever be.
2. Recanting testimony doesn't preclude purjury (learn to spell, BTW)? Are you sure? You may want to check your claim. For example, in California:
http://www.shouselaw.com/perjury.html
5. What are the Defenses to a California Perjury Charge?
Mistake or misunderstanding
If, at the time you made your statement, you honestly or justifiably believed it was true, you can't be convicted of this offense...even if it turned out to be a false statement.26 This is because you wouldn't be "willfully" making a false statement, one of the essential elements of a perjury charge.
You quickly recanted your statement
While there is no requirement that you be given an opportunity to correct your alleged false statement, promptly doing so may help prove that you didn't intentionally provide false information.30
In summation: feel free to show us your legal expertise, clown boy. Feel free to cite the legal opinions and boundaries of applicability.
3. "The only reason..." Your wishful thinking is not evidence. You fail.
LOL wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-prepping-lawyers-to-combat-voter-suppression-gop-aiming-at-election-day-fraud/2012/06/26/gJQA5KLZ4V_story.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-21/republicans-voter-suppression-project-grinds-on.html
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/23/granholm-republicans-voter-suppression-drive-is-treasonous/
And in Florida, a judge had to step in to block Florida's attempt to suppress voters:
http://brennan.3cdn.net/27b7dc85758f8a5fdd_a1m6b5aiy.pdf
Red and green make christundivided look like an idiot.
1. It's the truth - which makes it inconvenient for you. You have a lot of experience with mule's hindparts, I bet.
2. I already explained what happened with the Democrats: southern white Democrats living in districts dominated by inbred wingnutters. Oh, and NRA vote scoring.
3. You're on drugs or soemthing; I did not lie, nor did I ever make any such admission.
4. As for the truth -- well, you wouldn't know the truth if it walked in on four legs and bit you hard in the @ss.
R
redgreen5
Guest
T-Bone said:
No lies here. Just inconvenient truths that you can't handle. Tough.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
[quote author=redgreen5]
LOL wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-prepping-lawyers-to-combat-voter-suppression-gop-aiming-at-election-day-fraud/2012/06/26/gJQA5KLZ4V_story.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-21/republicans-voter-suppression-project-grinds-on.html
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/23/granholm-republicans-voter-suppression-drive-is-treasonous/
And in Florida, a judge had to step in to block Florida's attempt to suppress voters:
http://brennan.3cdn.net/27b7dc85758f8a5fdd_a1m6b5aiy.pdf[/quote]
What did you say about source selection?
LOL wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-prepping-lawyers-to-combat-voter-suppression-gop-aiming-at-election-day-fraud/2012/06/26/gJQA5KLZ4V_story.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-21/republicans-voter-suppression-project-grinds-on.html
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/23/granholm-republicans-voter-suppression-drive-is-treasonous/
And in Florida, a judge had to step in to block Florida's attempt to suppress voters:
http://brennan.3cdn.net/27b7dc85758f8a5fdd_a1m6b5aiy.pdf[/quote]
What did you say about source selection?
R
redgreen5
Guest
rsc2a said:
What did you say about source selection?
[/quote]
The Alter piece is op-ed.
The other two are not.
And of course, the PDF of the judge's ruling blocking the Florida law certainly is not "opinion".
I can easily substantiate the points in the Alter piece using non-opinion sources. For example, here is one of the voter suppression examples in that piece, from a non-opinion source, just for you: Pennsylvania legislator Mike Turzai accidentally gives away the GOP game plan:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/commentary_pennsylvania_voter.html
At Saturday
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 7,797
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
[quote author=redgreen5]
The Alter piece is op-ed.
The other two are not.
And of course, the PDF of the judge's ruling blocking the Florida law certainly is not "opinion".[/quote]
Everything* is biased (and, thereby, somewhat opinion). In fact, for someone who slams Fox for inserting opinion into their "hard" reporting, you appear to be blind to the possibility of it occurring anywhere else.
The "harder" the science, the less bias there is likely to be, but there is even bias in the "hardest" sciences.
* Possible exceptions for mathematics and a few others.
[quote author=redgreen5]I can easily substantiate the points in the Alter piece using non-opinion sources. For example, here is one of the voter suppression examples in that piece, from a non-opinion source, just for you: Pennsylvania legislator Mike Turzai accidentally gives away the GOP game plan:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/commentary_pennsylvania_voter.html
At Saturday
The Alter piece is op-ed.
The other two are not.
And of course, the PDF of the judge's ruling blocking the Florida law certainly is not "opinion".[/quote]
Everything* is biased (and, thereby, somewhat opinion). In fact, for someone who slams Fox for inserting opinion into their "hard" reporting, you appear to be blind to the possibility of it occurring anywhere else.
The "harder" the science, the less bias there is likely to be, but there is even bias in the "hardest" sciences.
* Possible exceptions for mathematics and a few others.
[quote author=redgreen5]I can easily substantiate the points in the Alter piece using non-opinion sources. For example, here is one of the voter suppression examples in that piece, from a non-opinion source, just for you: Pennsylvania legislator Mike Turzai accidentally gives away the GOP game plan:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/06/commentary_pennsylvania_voter.html
At Saturday
redgreen5 said:
Just like shooting fish in a barrel...love to pull the chain and hear the lying leftest try to sound like something is coming out of his mouth other than the brain dead tripe he normally spews!!!
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=T-Bone]
Just like shooting fish in a barrel...love to pull the chain and hear the lying leftest try to sound like something is coming out of his mouth other than the brain dead tripe he normally spews!!!
[/quote]
LOL you're too stupid to shoot your own foot without missing.
Just like shooting fish in a barrel...love to pull the chain and hear the lying leftest try to sound like something is coming out of his mouth other than the brain dead tripe he normally spews!!!
[/quote]
LOL you're too stupid to shoot your own foot without missing.
C
christundivided
Guest
redgreen5 said:
Here you go moron....Why is it you liberals are hung up on all things California? Didn't you know that Californians rejected your little homo friends?
Recantation was never a defense to perjury in the common law, and is not a complete defense in a Section 1621 prosecution. United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1937).
Maybe you've missed it but Florida is still going strong on their efforts. Loser.....
Its not voter suppression. Those who are not US citizens. Like yourself. Shouldn't be allowed to vote.
1. Not really. I might have saved your life the other day though. I killed a crap eating dog. By the way... learn to spell.
2. Better check again. Its wasn't all "southern democrats"..... moron.
3. Sure you did. You said is was all about Republicans and then admitted some democrats voted to hold Holder in civil contempt.
4. There you go getting all romantic. I personally don't care for getting bite there but I appears you get your kicks from it. Oh well. To each his own.
