Sure, no reason not to hand over to this clown 80,000 pages of documents containing sensitive information about ongoing investigations and the identities of undercover agents. :roll:
Sure, no reason not to hand over to this clown 80,000 pages of documents containing sensitive information about ongoing investigations and the identities of undercover agents. :roll:
Did you miss the fact that it was illegal for Issa to include the letter in the record AT ALL?Did you miss the fact that names were redacted? Again?
:roll:
Did you miss the fact that it was illegal for Issa to include the letter in the record AT ALL?
The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.
Hmm...
It appears, that yet again, you are incorrect.
Hmm...
It appears, that yet again, you are incorrect.
According to the letter, the wiretap applications contained a startling amount of detail about the operation, which would have tipped off anyone who read them closely about what tactics were being used.
The fact that he has immunity does not mean that he didn't commit the crime, genius. It just means that he can't be prosecuted for the crime.
Spin spin spin... took you a long time to come up with that huge jump. What he did IS . NOT . A . CRIME .
That pesky old constitution getting in your way again eh?
What's the point? If the operation is shut down for good, tipping them off to the tactics is moot. They just don't get it, there will be prosecutions over this.
As expected, the Justice [Department] has informed Congress that the U.S. attorney will not prosecute Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt, despite Thursday's House vote.
"The longstanding position of the Department of Justice has been and remains that we will not prosecute an executive branch official under the contempt of Congress statute for withholding subpoenaed documents pursuant to a presidential assertion of executive privilege," says Deputy Attorney General James Cole in a letter to the House speaker, John Boehner.
The letter notes that during the Reagan administration, DOJ took the position that the contempt statute could not constitutionally be applied to an official who asserts the president's claim of executive privilege. That policy was first articulated in a memo written by Ted Olson when he was at DOJ in 1984.
Cole writes that the position has been asserted several times since then, most recently during the Bush administration in 2008.
Bottom Line: Congress has never really had the authority to hold the Attorney General in contempt. Per the Constitution, Congress can impeach Federal Judges, i.e., members of the Supreme Court, U.S. District Courts or U.S. Federal Courts of Appeal and even the Atty Gen but only for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors".
What crime has Atty Gen. Holder been charge with exactly?
Lying under oath? No, that's not what he's been charge with by Sen. Issa.
Withholding federal documents? He's given up over 7,000 pages of documents since this House investigation began and still Issa couldn't find any conclusive evidence that Holder has committed treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors.
Failure to cooperate with Congress? No more than any other member of the Executive Branch has done in the past.
Of course, the counter argument will be (or has been) that DOJ wouldn't disclose the information Issa and others believes Holder purposely withheld that possibly held the smoking gun they believed would have convicted him of wrong-doing, but my contension has long been that if Congress couldn't put together even the most circumstantial of evidence based on the documents they did have, how were they going to bring about a tougher charge other than holding him in contempt which really amounts to absolutely nothing except to say, "Well, at least we got him on something". Really? Is that all you really got?
Congress (Rep. Issa): "Atty Gen. Eric Holder, because we, Congress (or more specific, GOP House members) believe you haven't played by our rules and giving us the information - no, evidence - we need to convict you of violating the law, we're just gonna hold you in contempt of Congress to atleast claim we won a procedural political victory. NAH, HAH, NAH, NAH, NAH! We gotcha now!...found another way to embarrass the Obama Administration."
Only you forgot that your own Republican executives of the past hide behind executive privilege, too, making it impossible for a Judge or the Atty Gen to be charged with violating the Constitution unless he has committed treason, a high crime (i.e., a felony) or misdemeanors.
It is a crime. Denying reality is not a good argument
Criminally negligent manslaughter
Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable homicide might apply.
It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable.
Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim.
Manslaughter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Issa has requested a warehouse full of documents. Obviously those documents will have information about much more than FF.
I guess the openness and transparency only applies to Congress and not the White House or DOJ, PresidentNixonObama.
Holding the head of the DOJ in contempt was a foolish notion from the start. I mean, really...how do the people who write the laws (Congress) hold the chief judicial department head charge with defending the law in contempt? What's he going to do? Prosecute himself? Oh, and there's this...
"Justice Department won't pursue case against Holder"
By NBC's Pete Williams
Of course no problem with the people who loved to complain and deride EP when Bush was in office that love it and use it now...
I think people have been pretty up front about the self serving senators and congresspeople. If they "luck" into a good deed regardless of party then I am all for it.
Did you miss the fact that it was illegal for Issa to include the letter in the record AT ALL?
It is a crime. Denying reality is not a good argument
Yeah, and while I'm a it I'll ask the other 43 presidents.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?