Posted on 12/08/2011 10:23:31 PM PST by george76
He'll be out within two years.
Obama chose as the head of the United States Department of Justice a man who works at making a mockery of justice. That's the kind of sh*t we're in.
I'm 'thinking' Mr. Holder is a lying marxist.
If I ever have to testify in a trial or go to traffic court, I’ll try this and see how far I get./s
Imagine the incredible gall of this man to say that when a person is speaking and thinking about something else, he’s not lying. So if he says 0bambi is a native born citizen and thinking about schtumping his wife, mistress or boy toy, it’s not a lie!
Holder, a lie is what O said in 2008, when he said that he would be bi-partisan, oh wait, he is bi-partisan, Marxists, Socialists and Communists. Never mind, he didn’t lie. /s
Is it a real scandal if the MSM doesn’t report it?
It is a scandal and a tragedy.
Holder broke the law and, most likely Obama too. That is a scandal.
But it is a tragedy that the MSM is so entrenched as the fifth column in America that it will not report it.
I’m not sure which is worse for Obama, politically, having to fire Holder, or keeping him in place.
If Obama doesn’t rid himself of Holder, then this thing will go on, drip, drip, drip, right on up to the election.
To quote another stupid democrat/liberal who could only prevaricate in the hot seat - it all depends on what “is” is.
Heads up for those who have not kept pace:
http://rt.com/usa/news/us-government-exist-foia-737/
http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/15/2564768/DOJ-ruling-Computer-Fraud-Abuse-Act
Holder very much reminds me of bill Clinton when he said “It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
It all depends on ones state of mind. The argument used in defense of John Wayne Gacy Eric Holder manifests that same
state of mind does he not?
Holder learned a lot as he got down on his knees in front of Clinton for the Marc Rich pardon.
I see by your comment that you’re speechless lol!
Newsmax
GOP: Impeach Holder If He Doesn’t Come Clean on Arms-Trafficking ‘Mess’
Thursday, December 8, 2011 05:45 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican lawmakers told Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday to fire some Justice Department subordinates over the flawed arms-trafficking investigation called Operation Fast and Furious.
Holder Puts Obama in a Double Bind
By Chris Stirewalt
Published December 09, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Rep. James Sensenbrenner: “Tell me what’s the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?”
Attorney General Eric Holder: “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/09/holder-puts-obama-in-double-bind/print#ixzz1g3K4YVn2
Not to defend this lying sack of dog excrement, but the term lying actually DOES depend on what is in the person’s mind.
To think or know one thing, and to say another thing knowing that it is false, that is a lie. It is dishonest.
To think something that is not accurate, and to say it, is not a lie, but a mistake. There is no discrepancy between what the person thinks or knows and what they say, hence no dishonesty.
To think one thing, and to say something else by accident, is not a lie, but merely misspeaking. There is no dishonesty.
The clever liar relies on this knowledge if caught in a lie.
Since no one can read the mind of another, they may claim they actually believed what they said, and merely made a false statement. Even if we can prove that they SHOULD have known the truth - for instance, documented correspondence that they knew at a previous time - they can always fall back on the statement that what they previously knew has now slipped their mind.
OTOH, using the “misspoke” defense, they can say that they either misspoke in the past or now, but did not intentionally mean to deceive.
Without being able to actually READ someone’s mind, their is no solid strategy to sort this out to the point of certainty. However, a pattern of such behavior, or relying on common sense if the claim is too outlandish, especially when coupled with a powerful motive for deception, can lead one to believe “beyond a reasonable doubt” that someone is lying.
And Holder lies.
A Plot To Undermine The Right To Bear Arms
Posted 12/08/2011 07:03 PM ET
Scandal: Newly obtained documents show that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives discussed using its covert operation Fast and Furious to argue for new rules about gun sales. We told you so.
As we observed in June, the way Fast and Furious — the government’s gun-running operation that resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry — was conducted made no sense unless its intent was to facilitate violence with U.S. weapons in the interests of pursuing the administration’s gun-control agenda.
Now documents obtained by CBS News confirm that our first suspicions were correct.
As CBS’ Sharyl Attkisson reports, emails show ATF officials discussed using the deliberate transfer of weapons to Mexican drug cartels to justify a new gun regulation known as “Demand Letter 3.”
We say deliberate because congressional testimony by ATF agents demonstrates how the tracking of Fast and Furious weapons stopped at the border and that requests to interdict the weapons transfers and arrest the gun traffickers were denied by higher-ups.
Demand Letter 3 was so named because it was the third ATF attempt to have Southwest gun shops report all long-gun (rifle or shotgun) sales to the ATF — even those to law-abiding American citizens with all the proper registration and other forms.
On July 14, 2010, five months before Terry’s murder, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, the ATF’s Phoenix special agent in charge of Fast and Furious: “Bill, can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time? We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long-gun sales. Thanks.”
On Jan. 24, as the ATF was preparing to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, another email showed Newell saw it as an opportunity “to address multiple sales on long guns issue.”
Read at:
http://news.investors.com/Article/594196/201112081903/fast-furious-obama-holder-gun-control.htm
Not unless he's pardoned.
A good definition of lying is attempting to deceive. By this definition Holder is clearly lying, as was Clinton much of the time and is Obama every day.
When Bush said Iraq "sought to buy uranium" he was factually correct. Even if he had said that Iraq bought uranium and was factually incorrect, if he thought that this was accurate he would not have been lying. To lie one must say something that he believes to be untrue. I could not understand why Republicans could not make this clear to the leftist media.
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.