House Oversight Committee Just Charged Eric Holder With Contempt Of Congress

This thread exposes why the country is doomed to failure.

Rather than looking forward, people want to get caught up in the past and what is immediately in front of them.

Rather than thinking about what is functional, they attempt to make decisions based on abstract notions of fairness. "If Bush was allowed to get away with doing something I didn't like; then why should Obama's administration get in trouble for doing something I feel is similar or even less damaging?"

Even more troubling is the fact that people are not using analytical abilities.

"Bush is a war criminal!"

Where's the evidence? War isn't evidence of being a war criminal. Hell - even starting a war knowingly on false pretenses doesn't make him a war criminal.

People respond based on emotions. Since they have a dislike of the individual - they like to pin blame upon him for unjustifiable and unsubstantiated reasons.

The same can be said for Obama (and we all fall into the trap occasionally - some more than others). Obama is not responsible for the mishandling of Fast and Furious - that would fall more on Holder's shoulders than the President's (unless it could somehow be demonstrated that Obama had conscious knowledge of the program's intricacies - which is very unlikely; he gets skim-briefs, not qualification courses). Though just about everyone involved in the operation shares some portion of the blame.

But rather than acting rationally, people act emotionally.

Which is why democracy is ultimately doomed to failure in the human species. We are far too easy to manipulate and will ultimately end up constructing our own marginalized oligarchies. Which is fine - because that is how we are physiologically adapted to function - in tribal structures with a defined social hierarchy.

The idea that individuals are intelligent and responsible enough to vote on complex issues is nice - and not at all a bad idea. It's just that humans naturally don't function in a manner that takes advantage of the intelligence they do have.

I could rant for hours - but people like to think that we are somehow above genetics. The ability to make conscious decisions is imbued by our genetics - so it's a bit circular.

Originally posted by Maxmars
And still... the partisan crap flies.

If we don't start to embrace the reality that the team shirt colors make no difference, and that the problem in this country is embodied in the political "duopoly" itself we are lost in a meandering tragic sitcom (which they direct) ... and we will be here again, and again, and again.... just like we already have been... and are now.

You will see - bipartisan - support for the Eric Holder contempt vote next week

in the House of Representatives. At least 31 democrats will join with the GOP

to hold Eric Holder in contempt.

reply to post by draco49



Sorry Draco, that quote is fake. (www.snopes.com...)...

For future notice to all...if you see something that on it's face seems extremist or outlandish, research it before you present it as fact...now back to the story

reply to post by Xeven
The endgame agenda for the Democrats might actually be to get Hilary on the ballot?

reply to post by Daedal


Requesting 140,000 documents all of which are at least one page long some perhaps 100 or 1,000 pages long seems a little odd, but then this has little to do with anything other than politics. Interesting but hardly surprising to note the lack of outrage from the NRA over how the GOP is claiming that "guns kill people" as opposed to their slogan "guns don't kill people do".

reply to post by Aim64C


Very well said and I completely agree. Wish I had something to add but I think you've covered it

BOOM there's a star for you!

Originally posted by Aim64C
...

"Bush is a war criminal!"

Where's the evidence? War isn't evidence of being a war criminal. Hell - even starting a war knowingly on false pretenses doesn't make him a war criminal.

....

dotted out the pained and tortuous logic you used to defend the use of politics by the GOP to attack Holder and Obama but just thought I would make this little comment;

A war started on false pretenses, as was the Iraq War, is known as a War of Aggression, it was described by the Nuremberg Tribunal thusly:

"it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Does the fact that the so called Fast and Furious
operation was started by the Bush Admin. mean anything?

WTF people? it's a nonissue bs story,
started by a racist rightwing blogger out of Arkansas.
There was nothing illegal about continuing the exact protocol
Bush's anti-cartel operation was already running.
AND....Holder actually wanted to shut it down.

Facts simply don't matter, if you're after a black POTUS
and his black appointed Attorney General, huh?

Originally posted by Daedal
Let's see if the President threw Holder under the bus to protect his own butt and shield himself from a possible investigation.

I think that just the fact that Obama pulled executive privelege - after making such a big deal about how a POTUS using it was wrong - tells me that Holder has something on Obama. Obama usually throws people under the bus. He went all out to shield Holder. It's strange. What does Holder have on Obama .. that's my question. The name Larry Sinclair comes to mind ...

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
The endgame agenda for the Democrats might actually be to get Hilary on the ballot?

that's who should have been there to begin with. She's smarter. She has much more experience. She can do the job. But the dems fell for the campaign rhetoric 'yes we can' and went with Obama.

Originally posted by sealing
Does the fact that the so called Fast and Furious
operation was started by the Bush Admin. mean anything?

WTF people? it's a nonissue bs story,
started by a racist rightwing blogger out of Arkansas.
There was nothing illegal about continuing the exact protocol
Bush's anti-cartel operation was already running.
AND....Holder actually wanted to shut it down.

Facts simply don't matter, if you're after a black POTUS
and his black appointed Attorney General, huh?

Wow.... you really haven't been reading the thread have you? Did you notice that almost immediately the "racial" deflection was attempted and failed miserably? Did you happen to notice the sources and information that determined why the popular misconception that this somehow relates to previous administrations is moot anyway? Do you realize that people are talking about the fact that partisan b/s needs to be put aside because most people are tired of the nonsense that solves nothing and just engenders "rah rah" bickering?

Or are these responses somehow as scripted and formulaic as they sound?

Must be an election year....

.. and don't hesitate to call me names and try to encapsulate me in one of your pigeon holes about racism or partisanship... I'm starting to find that supremely amusing.... I fully expect a response full of hyperbole, demagoguery, populism, and angst....

If you are of a serious nature, I respectfully suggest you review your sources and what you think you know....

Contempt of Congress is not a trivial thing... until the "politicians' club" and their media get a hold of it. Just like they did with being ":censured" which now means nothing.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by Ml5edtoDeath
They have done no different that what Bush and the neocons did.

Oh, i get it.

Justify Obama bad behavior by comparing it to Bush behavior.
----------
The Fast & Furious Scandal got border patrol agent Brian Terry killed.
It happened on Obamas watch.

Isn't that something? Its becoming too much of a routine these days. Blame it on Bush. Blaming others is nothing more than lack of responsibility and/or maturity.

It is easy to use this method to justify their act. How about comparing the debt and/or economical stats during the Bush Years vs Obama Years (atleast the first 4 years) Nobody would like to compare the good achievements only the bad ones

Originally posted by sealing
Does the fact that the so called Fast and Furious
operation was started by the Bush Admin. mean anything?

WTF people? it's a nonissue bs story,
started by a racist rightwing blogger out of Arkansas.
There was nothing illegal about continuing the exact protocol
Bush's anti-cartel operation was already running.
AND....Holder actually wanted to shut it down.

Facts simply don't matter, if you're after a black POTUS
and his black appointed Attorney General, huh?

The difference Bush's Operation Wide Receiver and The Fast and Furious:

It’s important to note that the Bush administration oversaw something similar to Fast and Furious. Called Operation Wide Receiver, it used the common tactic of “controlled delivery,” whereby agents would allow an illegal transaction to take place, closely follow the movements of the arms, and then descend on the culprits. But Fast and Furious is different because it was “uncontrolled delivery,” whereby the criminals were essentially allowed to drop off the map. Perhaps more importantly, Wide Receiver was conducted with the cooperation of the Mexican government. Fast and Furious was not.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk...


I would say those are big differences.

When does Impeachment enter the minds of the people?

reply to post by Daedal


This is about as significant as the 12 year=old doen the street calling you names.

Originally posted by LeoStarchild
When does Impeachment enter the minds of the people?

Back in early April 2012 when this story broke about a former White House National Security staffer, Kevin O'Reilly, now a soldier in Afghanistan. O'Reilly, who wants to testify in the F&F, but was refused the right to do so by Obama.

Chaffetz: Why won’t the White House let us talk to Fast & Furious witness? ( with Video)
hotair.com...

Obstruction of justice is grounds for impeachment.

reply to post by stanats

A war started on false pretenses, as was the Iraq War, is known as a War of Aggression, it was described by the Nuremberg Tribunal thusly:

Specious argument at best.

Starting a war on false pretenses does not constitute, inherently, a war of aggression. Many other factors must compile to equate to a war of aggression and incriminate an individual as being cognizant of the deception.

"it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

That's a nice opinion.

It's ignorant of functional human systems that necessitate wars of some magnitude or another.

DNA is evil. The Y chromosome is a parasitic genetic evolution that sought to propagate itself at the expense of the species (indeed - had genders not formed in response; all offspring would have become male and the species ceased to exist). It is the nature of DNA to propagate itself in a selfish manner. All life is inherently formed around this crux (the body being a vessel of the DNA's propagation).

Humans are silly creatures. They just don't get that their vision of perfection is ignorant of the perfection that the universe already is. Why would anything in the universe function in an imperfect manner? Or.. more to the point... why do we consider something unattainable in this universe to be perfect?

dotted out the pained and tortuous logic you used to defend the use of politics by the GOP to attack Holder and Obama but just thought I would make this little comment;

And here's where you miss the point (at the beginning of your post).

While I understand the urge to have your point heard and understood - it is ultimately moot. Your argument is far too late to prevent a war. It's far too late to condemn our soldiers to an alternate death by roadway accident; far too late to undo any damage you believe was done to this country by the President.

It's really even irrelevant with regards to Holder. Whether he is prosecuted or not is of little effect to the damage already done.

Punishment is a tribal instinct. We wish to see crimes punished because we wish to see the individual's behavior corrected (and condition the person against repeating the behavior - a collective Pavlov's dog, if you will). It has a place in raising children and in small communities that rely upon each other and would gain more by curbing an individual's less desirable traits as opposed to completely removing him/her (for individuals fitting that description - execution and exile are options).

Unfortunately - it's a bit archaic for modern society. The crime is done and passed. Punishment will not be capable of repaying society (yet people still instinctively desire to see it rendered because of those tribal instincts). You cannot whip a person to a point where he or she has payed a financial debt, corrected an immoral act, or fixed a broken asset. Yet people will act as though it is possible to make the punishment fit the crime.

There are only two worthwhile 'punishments.' Those that can successfully return an individual into society in a condition to work and live outside of criminal behavior (as socially defined); or those that remove an individual incapable of being returned.

Nothing else is logical or of value to a society that has expanded beyond the tribal stages. But people are too ignorant of their instincts to be aware that they are driving their sense of justice off a cliff like the proverbial lemming.

Which returns us to the point: The real question isn't whether or not Holder will be punished. It is really of little consequence.

If you leave a toy ball in the living room; your children will likely begin to play with it. Eventually, they will get too rowdy, and you'll tell them to not play with the ball in the house. They will comply for a bit, then pick up the ball again and start playing. You'll let it slide, because they are being careful... but it quickly goes out of control and something gets broken.

Do you, as a sensible human being, leave the ball in the room for them to continue to play with - or do you put it up where they can't reach it and tell them it can only be played with outside (holding to that rule)?

You put it up where they can't get it. You can't beat the broken object out of the kids. The only way to keep more things from being broken by the ball is to put the ball up and make them play with it outside (where other things may get broken, but the kids are just as likely to get broken in return).

Similarly - we can debate over punishment of Holder, Obama, Bush, etc.... but it really doesn't matter if we leave the weapons used to commit the crime(s) behind for the next person who fills the spot to use.

Originally posted by LeoStarchild
When does Impeachment enter the minds of the people?

It already has BUT the election is in less than 5 months.

We can remove Obama from the White House a lot faster than the

US Senate could.

Just vote for Anybody But Obama on November 6, 2012.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Just vote for Anybody But Obama on November 6, 2012.

I hope I am wrong, but that strategy plays right into the hands of the political duopoly and their robber baron masters.

Regardless, it is clear that we have a problem... one which we are evidently incapable of discussing:

The two political parties that have seized control of the government of the nation are destroying the framework established specifically to keep them from destroying the framework....

And while that's happening ... they have a floor-show for us to indulge in called "politics."

Holder is really the father!

Ack!

Since he is attorney General- I wonder if he has Obamas vital records.

JK.....

...or am I ?