WTF is with Darrell Issa? He seems to promulgate lie after lie - Page 8 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #**106** 04-09-2014, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by link

Can you demonstrate other considerations?

Does a position requiring a law degree have a lawyer with a degree? That's a great start.

Is it an appointed position? Some require congressional advice and consent and some do not. How were they vetted?

Dudesky · #**107** 04-09-2014, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pooka

When it was the other way around, during the Bush years and the Department of Justice was hiring people based ONLY on their religious and conservative beliefs, the Democrats pointed this out and were told the President can do whatever he wants in some situations and the DOJ firing/hiring scandal was one of them.

When it later came out that a number of Civil Service hiring laws had been broken the response from the Republicans was a massive cover-up. Then Bush's DOJ people started 'retiring for family reasons'.

More info needed? Just read all about it right here.....

Internal Justice Dept. Report Cites Illegal Hiring Practices

So whats your point?

Now you got Holder not prosecuting negro's....fair and balanced

Dudesky · #**108** 04-09-2014, 10:11 PM

Getting interesting.

Quote:

House Ways and Means Committee Republicans aren't ruling out the use of the chamber's "inherent contempt" authority if Attorney General Eric Holder refuses to act on the panel's accusations against former IRS official Lois Lerner.

Quote:

Liberal organizations, including the New York Times, called for Congress to use that power in 2007 during the presidency of George W. Bush, when the legislature was controlled by Democrats.

House Republicans won't rule out arresting Lois Lerner if Justice Department doesn't | WashingtonExaminer.com

Dudesky · #**109** 04-10-2014, 11:04 AM

Dems wanting immunity for Lerner.

Humpty Dumpty about to fall off the wall....

link · #**110** 04-10-2014, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Does a position requiring a law degree have a lawyer with a degree? That's a great start.

Is it an appointed position? Some require congressional advice and consent and some do not. How were they vetted?

Why the deflection? Is it just for the sake of prissiness or is there a greater point?

Clearly there was an obvious and even demonstrated (willful and repeated) law breaking bias used for hiring choices during the W administration. It portrays in clear light the desires of W. As was shown, he hired a comparatively minimally capable person for a gig when there was a much more competent choice available to him. I have no doubt this was done many times. I dunno about you but to me and I think most reasonable people that tells the story of his requirements for a job. Fortunately for all of us, the current president has nowhere near the corrupt desires of his predecessor.

But i'm lost on the reasoning for your deflection......

Txjake · #**111** 04-10-2014, 11:20 AM

Lois is trying to be the Ollie North of the Dems. Hope she likes prison wear.....

Dudesky · #**112** 04-10-2014, 11:21 AM

Funny, seem to remember when a new admin came in, it was customary for the other party employees to turn in their resignations.

link · #**113** 04-10-2014, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

Dems wanting immunity for Lerner.

Let’s see, according to some the GOP is gonna charge her with something and according to others they are also gonna give her immunity. These guys need to make up their minds on which direction this stupidly thought out, hollow and pointless gesture in theater is going to take.

Quote:

Humpty Dumpty about to fall off the wall....

If you are implying that that Darrel Issa is going to be verified as a witch hunting moron, i agree. Mebby after being proven a failure he'll come out as an alcoholic and then run for president. heh.

MTI · #**114** 04-10-2014, 12:03 PM

NBC News: What Is Contempt of Congress

Q: When was the last time a full chamber of Congress, either the Senate or the House, voted on a contempt of Congress citation?

A: The year was 1983. The House voted 413-0 to cite former Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle for contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before a House committee. Lavelle was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge, but she was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.

Dudesky · #**115** 04-10-2014, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by link

Thanks for the laff.

If you’re gonna to make a reference to something, provide a direct link to it.
From one of your linked articles:
Read more: House GOP sets first vote to hold Lois Lerner in contempt over IRS targeting - Washington Times

Quote:

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said Mr. Issa has mishandled the entire investigation into the IRS and Ms. Lerner in particular.
“Chairman Issa has demonstrated over and over again that he simply does not want to hear from anyone who disagrees with him or has information that does not fit his political narrative — including witnesses, independent legal experts, and even committee members like myself,” Mr. Cummings said.

Read more: House GOP sets first vote to hold Lois Lerner in contempt over IRS targeting - Washington Times

Looking like Elijah is deep into the doo doo Mr Link:

Quote:

“Although you have previously denied that your staff made inquiries to the IRS about conservative organization True the Vote that may have led to additional agency scrutiny, communication records between your staff and IRS officials – which you did not disclose to Majority Members or staff – indicates otherwise,” the letter to Cummings states. “As the Committee is scheduled to consider a resolution holding Ms. Lerner, a participant in responding to your communications that you failed to disclose, in contempt of Congress, you have an obligation to fully explain your staff’s undisclosed contacts with the IRS.” House GOP sets first vote to hold Lois Lerner in contempt over IRS targeting - Washington Times

cmbdiesel · #**116** 04-10-2014, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Yes, the fact that she actually did it is no longer in question. It's who influenced the action that needs to be brought out. Her refusal to testify is pretty clearly protecting someone from above.

Of course, the left is not going to admit this until a smoking gun is produced. Sure would be interesting to see their view if it were the other way around.

This "my side is incapable of doing anything immoral, unethical or sleazy" stuff is pretty sad on both sides.

I'd like to think I speak for many of us here, that we want a smoking gun before we accept and prosecute any kind of conspiracy allegations like these, from either side of the aisle.

To me, it seems as if the neck closest to the noose is her's, which gives her an extremely compelling reason to invoke her 5th amendment rights.

What the heck is wrong with Issa and his investigation if he can't get anywhere without Lerner's testimony...?? Are we to believe that there was a vast conspiracy, but she is the only one who can give useful testimony?

Newsflash - both sides are sleazy and unethical.

Dudesky · #**117** 04-10-2014, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

I'd like to think I speak for many of us here, that we want a smoking gun before we accept and prosecute any kind of conspiracy allegations like these, from either side of the aisle.

To me, it seems as if the neck closest to the noose is her's, which gives her an extremely compelling reason to invoke her 5th amendment rights.

What the heck is wrong with Issa and his investigation if he can't get anywhere without Lerner's testimony...?? Are we to believe that there was a vast conspiracy, but she is the only one who can give useful testimony?

Newsflash - both sides are sleazy and unethical.

Newsflash...Issa hasn't shown all his cards.

cmbdiesel · #**118** 04-10-2014, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

Newsflash...Issa hasn't shown all his cards.

Unfortunately, he's playing 'Go Fish'....

MTI · #**119** 04-10-2014, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

Newsflash...Issa hasn't shown all his cards.

Some question if he has a full deck.

Dudesky · #**120** 04-10-2014, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

I'd like to think I speak for many of us here, that we want a smoking gun before we accept and prosecute any kind of conspiracy allegations like these, from either side of the aisle.

To me, it seems as if the neck closest to the noose is her's, which gives her an extremely compelling reason to invoke her 5th amendment rights.

What the heck is wrong with Issa and his investigation if he can't get anywhere without Lerner's testimony...?? Are we to believe that there was a vast conspiracy, but she is the only one who can give useful testimony?

Newsflash - both sides are sleazy and unethical.

Who says we are privy to all avenues he is exploring?