Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Eric Holder held in Contempt

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 10:35:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.

All votes are based on partisan reasons.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 10:41:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.

Then you must be against the DOJ right now. Holder deserves the contempt vote.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 11:10:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.

The problem is, that unless the documents are released, you won't know if they were withheld for "real legitimate reason[s]" or not.

Though to the issue at hand, it doesn't make a difference. He won't face charges and things will move on.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 11:16:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 10:41:20 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.

Then you must be against the DOJ right now. Holder deserves the contempt vote.

I am against their decision to withhold the documents yes, but if they just released the information, I would be fine with it.

But voting to put Holder in contempt? I don't think that is the right course of action.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 11:19:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 11:16:06 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:41:20 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.

Then you must be against the DOJ right now. Holder deserves the contempt vote.

I am against their decision to withhold the documents yes, but if they just released the information, I would be fine with it.

But voting to put Holder in contempt? I don't think that is the right course of action.

What do you think is the right course of action? You stated that you were "against their decision to withhold the documents..." but they withheld anyway. What do you think they should have done?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 11:28:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 11:19:38 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/29/2012 11:16:06 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:41:20 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.

Then you must be against the DOJ right now. Holder deserves the contempt vote.

I am against their decision to withhold the documents yes, but if they just released the information, I would be fine with it.

But voting to put Holder in contempt? I don't think that is the right course of action.

What do you think is the right course of action? You stated that you were "against their decision to withhold the documents..." but they withheld anyway. What do you think they should have done?

I knew you'd ask that, and I have a response.

Reduce the funding of the DoJ, and they will likely release the information. But I guess that the documents hold private information regarding the failure of the operation, which if exploited would lash out against the Obama Administration and make Romney have a better shot at victory. Thus, this is why Obama cited executive privilege, which maybe was a good idea? I'm not really sure.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 12:02:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Guys...you realize they wanted him to reveal information on an ongoing investigation, right?

That's generally a no-no until the investigation is over.

The entire "Fast and Furious" thing has been a complete propaganda blow-out for Republicans. I was even caught up in it until I read up on the issue. The ATF Fast and Furious team NEVER intentionally allowed felons to keep guns. The closest thing to an example of this was Sen. Grassley pulling a document from an ATF agent kicked off the F and F team who did a separate project where he withheld guns intentionally. This same @sshole went on congressional record to say the F and F team was spraying their pants over a massacre which would give them probable cause to arrest someone.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 12:08:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Who cares?

I read an article this morning that said the worst they can do is have the sergeant-at-arms "imprison" him somewhere in Congress. The last time they did this was the 1800's, and they are forced to imprison people in conference rooms and give them access to the congressional cafeteria, since Congress has no jail. It's not a great way to compel testimony from someone.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 12:30:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.

I bet you support Wikileaks.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 12:43:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 12:30:16 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.

I bet you support Wikileaks.

I <3 Julian Assange.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 12:51:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 12:43:18 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/30/2012 12:30:16 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.

I bet you support Wikileaks.

I <3 Julian Assange.

I hear he is single. ;)
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 12:54:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 12:51:48 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/30/2012 12:43:18 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/30/2012 12:30:16 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.

I bet you support Wikileaks.

I <3 Julian Assange.

I hear he is single. ;)

I hear he's prone to getting a bit aggressive XP
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 12:57:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 12:54:23 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/30/2012 12:51:48 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/30/2012 12:43:18 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/30/2012 12:30:16 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.

I bet you support Wikileaks.

I <3 Julian Assange.

I hear he is single. ;)

I hear he's prone to getting a bit aggressive XP

Seems like your type.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 1:03:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 12:54:23 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/30/2012 12:51:48 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/30/2012 12:43:18 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/30/2012 12:30:16 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.

I bet you support Wikileaks.

I <3 Julian Assange.

I hear he is single. ;)

I hear he's prone to getting a bit aggressive XP

I hear he's prone to not respecting your privacy and hacking into your accounts to see if you're cheating on him.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 1:20:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Executive privilege is invoked to protect communication with the President. Holder and the President both say they were not involved. So what is the legal reason for not complying?

A suit will be filed in civil courts. Eventually either the docs will be supplied or a judge will review them to see if there is any valid legal reason to withhold them. The idea is to stonewall until after the election.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 1:23:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 1:20:01 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Executive privilege is invoked to protect communication with the President. Holder and the President both say they were not involved. So what is the legal reason for not complying?

A suit will be filed in civil courts. Eventually either the docs will be supplied or a judge will review them to see if there is any valid legal reason to withhold them. The idea is to stonewall until after the election.

*insert Wnope's post here*
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 1:24:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 1:20:01 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Executive privilege is invoked to protect communication with the President. Holder and the President both say they were not involved. So what is the legal reason for not complying?

A suit will be filed in civil courts. Eventually either the docs will be supplied or a judge will review them to see if there is any valid legal reason to withhold them. The idea is to stonewall until after the election.

This is a pretty significant scandal as the F&F thing should embarrass everyone involved, and bring to question the judgement of those involved. Stalling until after the election therefore would seem like the politically expedient thing to do, if not entirely ethical.
Debate.org Moderator
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 10:18:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
DoJ is a pretty useless department anyway. Unless I'm mistaken, I think I recall that we disbanded it in Student Congress.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 10:43:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 11:10:42 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:12:14 PM, Contra wrote:
At 6/29/2012 10:10:13 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
The House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt. As the vote started, Democratic represenatives walked out of Congress. Still the vote passed. Your thoughts?

I oppose the vote.

It was based on partisan reasons.

Though, unless the withholding of the documents had a real legitimate reason, which it probably did, I favor open transparent government.

The problem is, that unless the documents are released, you won't know if they were withheld for "real legitimate reason[s]" or not.

Though to the issue at hand, it doesn't make a difference. He won't face charges and things will move on.

The thing is, congress said they would drop the charges if the documents were released to congress. The fact that he continues to withhold the documents from the legislature is proof of his guilt.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 12:27:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 10:18:03 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
DoJ is a pretty useless department anyway. Unless I'm mistaken, I think I recall that we disbanded it in Student Congress.

DOJ does all the federal law enforcement, including the FBI and customs & Immigration. Ya gotta have law enforcement.

The issue is whether DOJ can exempt itself from laws.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2012 12:50:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/30/2012 12:02:24 AM, Wnope wrote:
Guys...you realize they wanted him to reveal information on an ongoing investigation, right?

No, that's absolutely false. The subpoena explicitly exempts anything relevant to the ongoing investigation. The investigation is concerned with issues related to cover up. Congress was sent a letter that gave a false account of F&F, which DOJ later admitted was false and then retracted. The object is to find out what Administration officials did wrong that led to false information being presented. Remember, Watergate was not about the break in, it was about the cover up. If it isn't malfeasance, then there is a problem with gross incompetence that demands a fix by Congress.

To date, it's never been disclosed who authorized F&F, not a single person has been fired, and no new procedures are in place. It would take a day to find out who authorized it. Clearly there is some kind of cover up.

The entire "Fast and Furious" thing has been a complete propaganda blow-out for Republicans. I was even caught up in it until I read up on the issue. The ATF Fast and Furious team NEVER intentionally allowed felons to keep guns. The closest thing to an example of this was Sen. Grassley pulling a document from an ATF agent kicked off the F and F team who did a separate project where he withheld guns intentionally. This same @sshole went on congressional record to say the F and F team was spraying their pants over a massacre which would give them probable cause to arrest someone.

The Fortune article says that the Justice Department refused to indict the criminals fingered by local agents, so as a consequence the guns were not recovered. How does it follow that "they never intended to let guns walk?" It implies that local agents didn't, but that's never been in much doubt. Local agents thought the program was nuts. It implies DOJ HQ did. How does it follow that there is no need for a detailed Congressional investigation? If we take the Fortune article at face value, Holder should resign immediately in disgrace for failing to get the indictments required. That's true if it is merely gross incompetence.

Let's suppose the subpoena is pure politics. So what is the rule that justifies ignoring it? Is the rule that whenever the Party in power doesn't think a subpoena is well-motivated, they get to ignore it? If there is nothing to be discovered, Holder will be cleared.