the charges were dropped the first time, he plead no contest the second time.
ironic isnt it?
the charges were dropped the first time, he plead no contest the second time.Does this make Holder's perjury and obstruction less serious? Does this mean that two American ICE agents aren't dead because of Fast and Furious? This reminds me of the way Ken Starr was demonized during the Clinton impeachment.
ironic isnt it? Originally Posted by CJ7
Does this make Holder's perjury and obstruction less serious? Does this mean that two American ICE agents aren't dead because of Fast and Furious? This reminds me of the way Ken Starr was demonized during the Clinton impeachment.
It's a classic Dimo tactic of distracting attention away from the real issue. Never mind, the AG and the president are criminals, their accuser is imperfect, that's the real problem! Originally Posted by joe bloe
didnt know holder was up on perjury charges ... did you make that up?I didn't say Holder had been officially charged with perjury. It's obvious to anyone who's been following his congressional testimony that he's lied under oath; that means he's perjured himself. He also hasn't been charged with obstruction, even though his noncompliance with the Fast and Furious investigation is obviously de facto obstruction. Not being charged with a crime doesn't mean you're innocent and it doesn't mean you won't be charged in the future.
nonetheless, I thought irrelevent, distracting threads was what you girls thrived on .. didnt like it huh? Originally Posted by CJ7
I didn't say Holder had been officially charged with perjury. It's obvious to anyone who's been following his congressional testimony that he's lied under oath; that means he's perjured himself. He also hasn't been charged with obstruction, even though his noncompliance with the Fast and Furious investigation is obviously de facto obstruction. Not being charged with a crime doesn't mean you're innocent and it doesn't mean you won't be charged in the future. Originally Posted by joe bloe
It just shows you that thugs can get into these elected positions and spout off hypocrisy all the while collecting money from thier wealthy supporters and lining their pockets and lying to the public.Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I concede that Darrell Issa is the Devil. How does that change the likelihood of Holder's guilt? As long Issa's allegations are consistant with the facts, it shouldn't matter if he has a shady past. If it turns out that Issa is a serial murderer, does that mean that Holder must be an angel? Your argument is a non sequitur.
By the way; Court records on file in Issa’s hometown of Cleveland Heights, Ohio, show that in March 1972, one month after getting out of the Army, Issa was arrested on charges of carrying a concealed weapon and auto theft.
In May 1972, a grand jury indicted Issa on a larceny charge in connection with the car theft but dropped the weapons charge. Two weeks later, a prosecutor dropped the car theft charge as well.
Months later, when Issa was attending college in Michigan, he was fined $100 and put on three months’ probation after being arrested for possession of an unregistered handgun, Michigan court records show.
On Dec. 18, Issa pleaded either guilty or no contest to the charge, the records indicate. A magistrate fined him and put him on probation. He also was ordered to pay $107 in court costs, the records show. Originally Posted by Sexyeccentric1
oh, you just tossed in perjury for the hell of it ...If I witness my next door neighbor murdering someone, am I supposed to refrain from calling him a murderer until after the trial and all the appeals are exhausted? Am I to assume that maybe I just imagined the whole thing?
no charges doesnt mean youre innocent ... got it
guilty until proven innocent ...
gee, all this time I thought our legal system worked just the opposit. Originally Posted by CJ7
cant argue with your opinionNothing happened? Clinton was impeached. The Senate would have removed him, except that Republicans thought it would be political suicide. If the economy had been weak, Clinton would have been removed from office. He should have resigned like Nixon did. The money spent on investigation was caused by his criminal misbehavior.
I can argue Issa is a criminal, and a multi-millionaire taking 150$K out of the government payroll, and chasing Holder around at taxpayer expense ...
since you mentioned Clinton. the republicans spent 100 million proving he lied and nothing happened ...
which begs tghe question
what will happen to Holder if hes guilty of everything your opinion convicts him of? Originally Posted by CJ7
Nothing happened? Clinton was impeached. The Senate would have removed him, except that Republicans thought it would be political suicide. If the economy had been weak, Clinton would have been removed from office. He should have resigned like Nixon did. The money spent on investigation was caused by his criminal misbehavior.
The state of California spent millions trying to convict OJ and he walked free. I don't blame the prosecution for the expense. Originally Posted by joe bloe