Posted on 12/08/2011 7:52:17 AM PST by thouworm
Update at 12:17pm EST: Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA)
- yes the same guy who was concerned that the island of Guam might 'tip over' if too many people moved to one side - is concerned about guns legally sold at gun shows. Again, the ATF intentionally placing guns into the hands of bad guys is apparently lost on these people. Maybe Johnson is worried that citizens from Guam might purchase too many guns, take them back to the island, and put them all on one side. In short, Johnson was incoherent. He's also registered with the DSA caucus.
Update at 12:24pm EST: Johnson just called the NRA 'radical.' Some might call the DSA radical.
Update at 12:25pm EST: Issa is up. Admonishes Johnson for calling NRA members radical. Issa now asking Holder if he will appear in front of Oversight Committee without subpoena. Issa is having staffers bring out several boxes full of printed e-mails. Issa asking why of these, not one email exists to or from Holder regarding Fast and Furious.
summary link:
Update at 3:56pm EST: Rep. Gowdy is up again. Brings up ...Tells Holder that he can't understand the Attorney General's defense of Lanny Breuer while saying that Breuer was intimately involved in the crafting of the falsified February 4th letter. Gowdy also underscores the point that Breuer forwarded drafts to his personal email. Gowdy yields to Issa.
Update at 4:01pm EST: Issa asks Holder to turn over emails between Breuer and Weinstein from March of 2011. Holder says he will not. Issa then tells Holder the AG is standing in contempt of Congress if he does not turn over those emails. Asst Attorney General Ronald Weich is grinning over Holder's shoulder. Parting shot from Issa involved a comparison between Holder and John Mitchell, Nixon's Attorney General who was found guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury.
Red Deutch (Dem, Florida)
...When did you learn of Operation Fast and Furious?
Holder: Sometime in the beginning of the year, it would have been, I think, after I got those letters from Sen. Grassley on Jan 31st, and at some point after that, I think sometime in Feb that I first learned of Operation Fast and Furious.
Did anyone catch this (I am behind on my recording of the hearing as well)????
Congressman Ross (R-Fla):
I just want to clarify your understanding of your being here today because there was some confusion here at the beginning. Is it your understanding THAT YOU ARE HERE UNDER OATH-—THAT YOU ARE UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY AS TO YOU TESTIMONY?
??
Holder: I am here to tell the truth. Sure.
Ross: So you believe that you are here under oath? Is that your understanding?
Holder: I’m not sure that I AM TECHNICALLY UNDER OATH, but I have an obligation to tell the truth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I knew that this was going to be in question the minute that Issa raised the point.
There was no reason NOT to swear him in under oath. Issa knows he is a weasel. Hopefully he law covers Holders weaselness, in this regard.
I had to cut out early, but thought I heard Issa say that Holder was not under oath, much to Issa’s rejections to the rules of the hearing.
“Issa knows he is a weasel. Hopefully the law covers Holders weaselness, in this regard.”
Holder: I’m not sure that I AM TECHNICALLY UNDER OATH, but I have an obligation to tell the truth.
~~~~~~~~~
That needed to be sealed down at the beginning of the hearing-—and on more than HOPE. Issa tried to do it; he was reassured that it was a mute legal point, and now-—near the end of the hearing-— we are hearing Holder’s take on this critical legal point:
Holder: I’m not sure that I AM TECHNICALLY UNDER OATH, but I have an obligation to tell the truth.
That’s a wide-open legal barn door if I have ever heard one, and we can be assured that Holder will use it.
“I had to cut out early, but thought I heard Issa say that Holder was not under oath, much to Issa’s rejections to the rules of the hearing.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~
See my next post (before I saw your post).
It was a BIG question in Issa’s mind, and he wanted it nailed down by putting Holder under oath AGAIN. He was reassured by chairman (and then again by someone whispering in chairman’s ear) that Holder WAS STILL under oath.
BUT... no one bothered to ask Holder if that was HIS understanding, or if they did... [I’d have to go back there in the tape] what weasel response Holder gave as to that point. If he was asked and responded, we can be certain he used weasel words because he is asserting his LEGAL DOUBT now!!!
Was it a question on Issa’s mind or a reflection of his disappointment?
Sorry, I was on the run ... but interpreted Holder wasn’t under oath ... or maybe he was not re-sworn in.
Muddying the waters ... akin to the inauguration swearing-in redo and DNC certification.
Holder: Duh? Adams asks about Holder's emails again! and his personal account. Holder: I don't know....With regard to provision of emails, I thought I made it clear that after Feb 4th, it is not our intention to provide email information consistent with the way in which the Justice Dept has always conducted itself. The exception that I made, that I made, in the hope that the Justice Dept would be seen as transparent was to go against that tradition and to make available deliberative material AROUND (that is the 2nd time he has used that word) the Feb 4th letter. With clean hands, Will you provide those emails to this committee? Yes or No. Holder: We will NOT provide emails after Feb 4th. There also was a refusal on Holder's part to NOT provide emails BEFORE Feb 4th (consistent, Holder said, with previous DOJ policy).... We will have to see the transcript, but it looks to me that he just moved the goal line to include emails BEFORE Feb 4th.
“Was it a question on Issa’s mind or a reflection of his disappointment?
Sorry, I was on the run ... but interpreted Holder wasn’t under oath ... or maybe he was not re-sworn in.”
~~~~~~~~~
Of a fact, Issa wanted Holder sworn in. He made that fact unambiguously clear in the very beginning of the hearing. Chairman assured him Holder was still under oath. A whisper in Chairman’s ear reaffirmed that fact, and Issa RELUCTANTLY let it go-— and took their word for it.
~~~~~~~~~~
“Muddying the waters ... akin to the inauguration swearing-in redo and DNC certification.”
Sort of...Issa let it go, and no one else questioned it until it was brought up again near the end of the hearing-—at which time Holder said:
“I’m not sure that I AM TECHNICALLY UNDER OATH, but I have an obligation to tell the truth.”
Thanx. I had to leave. I guess I missed the part where Holder resigned.
I finally got to that part. Holder, hubris personified.
Do you have any idea who Holder was talking to at the end of the hearing -— Holder giving four (4) hand-touches to the man’s shoulder and then a shaking of hands at the end of the conversation.
Final live-blogging posts of the hearing:
Update at 3:35pm EST: Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) is fired up. She has a husband that is a police officer. She used to be one. She takes great exception to Holder thinking the investigation is political. Asks Holder if there is an operation that would require his sign-off since Fast and Furious apparently did not require his signature. Adams asks Holder about his personal email account and whether he used that personal email account to correspond with Lanny Breuer. Said he doesn’t know but that he doesn’t plan on providing any access to his emails. Adams persisted, asking Holder to deliver a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to her question about turning over emails.
Update at 3:42pm EST: Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ) is up. No new ground broken. Rather uneventful exchange until the end. At the end, however, Quayle asked Holder if he will resign over Fast and Furious. Holder gets defensive and starts listing all of his accomplishments. Quayle then asks Holder if Breuer, Grindler, or Weinstein should resign. Holder says no.
Update at 3:49pm EST: Rep. Tim Griffin (R-AR) picks up on something Rep. Adams said. Asks at what point Holder’s close deputies had an obligation to bring these issues to Holder. Holder’s response was a lame attempt at an example in which that didn’t happen; he referred to Lanny Breuer’s admission that he knew about gun walking and didn’t bring it to Holder’s attention.
Update at 3:56pm EST: Rep. Gowdy is up again. Brings up the fact that there were ‘several’ wiretap applications, known as T3’s. Holder concedes that he hasn’t read the wiretap applications. Tells Holder that he can’t understand the Attorney General’s defense of Lanny Breuer while saying that Breuer was intimately involved in the crafting of the falsified February 4th letter. Gowdy also underscores the point that Breuer forwarded drafts to his personal email. Gowdy yields to Issa.
Update at 4:01pm EST: Issa asks Holder to turn over emails between Breuer and Weinstein from March of 2011. Holder says he will not. Issa then tells Holder the AG is standing in contempt of Congress if he does not turn over those emails. Asst Attorney General Ronald Weich is grinning over Holder’s shoulder. Parting shot from Issa involved a comparison between Holder and John Mitchell, Nixon’s Attorney General who was found guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury.
http://barracknow.blogspot.com/2011/12/live-blogging-todays-fast-and-furious.html
IT'S A MOOT FRIGGIN POINT!
Mute means it can't talk.
Notable video clips from today’s hearing:
http://ironicsurrealism.com/2011/12/08/video-holders-fast-and-furious-dodgeball/
a mute legal point
IT’S A MOOT FRIGGIN POINT!
Mute means it can’t talk.
~~~~~~~~~~
“Mute means it can’t talk.”
Yes, it certainly does. Mind moving faster that brain or fingers. Who are you so pissed off at that you require caps and the use of the word “friggin”?
Nevertheless, thanks for the editorial correction. I have made about 40 posts on today’s hearing (on two separate threads)-— would appreciate your careful review.
Sorry...generic hordes of people who say "mute point". Otherwise, great job. I appreciate your efforts.
would appreciate your careful review.
What is the other thread?
“Sorry...generic hordes of people who say “mute point”. Otherwise, great job. I appreciate your efforts.”
Apology accepted.
“What is the other thread?”
Lol...a continuation of a thread from yesterday. People who didn’t know a Live hearing thread had been posted were commenting and asking questions about the hearing today.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2817576/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.