View Full Version : DOJ Sues Sheriff Joe
Conley
05-14-2012, 09:48 AM
The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against well-known Arizona, anti-illegal immigration, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, his office and Maricopa County Thursday.
Arpaio has been a loud critic of illegal immigration and made a name for himself by focusing on policing illegal immigration in Maricopa County. His tactics, such as parading undocumented immigrants around in pink underwear, have brought both attention and scrutiny to his department.
In the lawsuit, Arpaio, the Sheriff’s office and the county are accused of practicing discriminatory and unconstitutional law enforcement as well as ignoring violent and serious crimes in pursuit of undocumented immigrants. It alleges racial profiling, mistreatment of Latinos during traffic stops, a culture of contempt for Latinos (in particular Mexicans and Mexican-Americans) and attempts to intimidate those who disagreed with the Sheriff.
Arpaio responded Thursday to the litigation during a press conference in Phoenix. He said he welcomes the lawsuit.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/may/11/doj-files-lawsuit-against-arizonas-sheriff-joe/
I bet he does welcome it. Getting sued by one of if not the most unpopular DoJ of any president (maybe tied with Bush's) will do wonders for his popularity. It wouldn't surprise me if there is legitimacy to the case but the DoJ has burned up all its good will and then some.
Mister D
05-14-2012, 09:50 AM
Agreed. It won't make him any more enemies that's for sure.
Conley
05-14-2012, 09:53 AM
I think Eric Holder might be less popular than Alberto Gonzalez. That's pretty bad! Ashcroft is probably still the champ though.
Mister D
05-14-2012, 09:55 AM
I always liked Ashcroft. All the right peopel hated him. :laugh:
Eric Holder is a joke and not a very funny one either.
Conley
05-14-2012, 09:57 AM
I always liked Ashcroft. All the right peopel hated him. :laugh:
Eric Holder is a joke and not a very funny one either.
I liked Ashcroft...as a singer, not as an AG. :grin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woLQI8X2R6Y
Conley
05-14-2012, 09:58 AM
Fricking DoJ won't allow it to be embedded on YouTube. :angry:
It's Let the Eagle Soar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_the_Eagle_Soar
If Obama gets elected.....Deputy Droop-along will have free reign on Country Joe and the Fish. They will send in the Big guns to take that racally wabbit down. Al Sharptones, Jesse Jackson, and Oprah.
Then they will send in Lady Gaga at the same time to assail his senses. :tongue:
Conley
05-14-2012, 12:06 PM
Did you watch the Ashcroft video?
roadmaster
05-14-2012, 12:55 PM
I didn't watch the viedoes but going after Sheriff Joe Arpaio, for doing his job is appalling. We need a Sheriff like this in our state.
dsolo802
05-14-2012, 02:13 PM
what are the top offenses of Eric Holder?
Mister D
05-14-2012, 02:16 PM
what are the top offenses of Eric Holder?
Besides being an Affirmative Action hire? Fast and Furious and suing states because the Feds won't do their job are two that come to mind.
Conley
05-14-2012, 02:20 PM
My biggest objections are the lawsuits against the states, Fast and Furious, and the assaults on medical marijuana.
dsolo802
05-14-2012, 02:27 PM
My biggest objections are the lawsuits against the states, Fast and Furious, and the assaults on medical marijuana.Agreed on medical marijuana. I just don't understand what those guys are thinking.
Which lawsuits against the States?
Are you angry about FAst and Furious because of what it was trying to do, or the fact that it was bungled?
roadmaster
05-14-2012, 02:29 PM
My biggest objections are the lawsuits against the states, Fast and Furious, and the assaults on medical marijuana.
I agree, if a state passes a law and the shop-owners thinks it's ok in their state and all of a sudden they are being arrested by the feds. Just like in California the state passed it saying it was legal for medical marijuana and then all of a sudden the feds come in and arrest them.
Mister D
05-14-2012, 02:30 PM
Agreed on medical marijuana. I just don't understand what those guys are thinking.
Which lawsuits against the States?
Are you angry about FAst and Furious because of what it was trying to do, or the fact that it was bungled?
It was bungled so badly one may legitimately wonder about what exactly the real objective was.
Conley
05-14-2012, 02:32 PM
Agreed on medical marijuana. I just don't understand what those guys are thinking.
Which lawsuits against the States?
Are you angry about FAst and Furious because of what it was trying to do, or the fact that it was bungled?
What do you think Fast and Furious was trying to do?
dsolo802
05-14-2012, 02:34 PM
What do you think Fast and Furious was trying to do?Kind of like a sting operation to gather info on top traffickers in arms....that is what I thought it was.
roadmaster
05-14-2012, 02:38 PM
Kind of like a sting operation to gather info on top traffickers in arms....that is what I thought it was.
I don't think so and the majority of patients were prescribed by Drs. I think it was more of the drug companies complaining they wern't getting their fair share of profits hooking them on meds.
dsolo802
05-14-2012, 02:43 PM
I don't think so and the majority of patients were prescribed by Drs. I think it was more of the drug companies complaining they wern't getting their fair share of profits hooking them on meds.Hi RM. I thought Conley was asking me what I thought Fast and Furious was. Conley?
dsolo802
05-14-2012, 02:45 PM
Besides being an Affirmative Action hire? Fast and Furious and suing states because the Feds won't do their job are two that come to mind.What is the evidence that Holder was an Affirmative Action hire?
Which suits against the States?
Same question I asked Conley about Fast and Furious: Do you think it was bad because of what its intended purpose? or poor execution?
Mister D
05-14-2012, 02:52 PM
What is the evidence that Holder was an Affirmative Action hire?
Which suits against the States?
Same question I asked Conley about Fast and Furious: Do you think it was bad because of what its intended purpose? or poor execution?
Considering his ideology, that of the man who appointed him, his incompetence, and his ancestry makes my opinion reasonable. Seems appropriaten too. The POTUS is an AA action hire too.
The immigration suits.
Not sure what the purpose was, frankly. I'm much more cynical than I was before.
roadmaster
05-14-2012, 02:57 PM
What is the evidence that Holder was an Affirmative Action hire?
Holders quote: “Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices,” Holder said. “The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin. … When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”
dsolo802
05-14-2012, 03:01 PM
Considering his ideology, that of the man who appointed him, The President has always appointed as his AG an individual whose ideology aligns with his own, no?
his incompetenceAs measured by?
and his ancestry makes my opinion reasonableHolder was a Kenyan?
Seriously, when you say ancestry, what exactly do you mean?
Seems appropriaten too. The POTUS is an AA action hire too. How do you figure POTUS is an AA hire/
The immigration suits. In my view, immigration has become a politicized mess, because neither party wishes to come down HARD on businesses taking advantage of it. Why in your opinion are the immigration suits wrong?
Not sure what the purpose was, frankly. I'm much more cynical than I was before.So you don't like Holder because the operation was bungled?
dsolo802
05-14-2012, 03:03 PM
Holders quote: “Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices,” Holder said. “The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin. … When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”RM, Holder said in the abstract, how does that show in any way that Holder wasn't qualified for the job and was an affirmative action hire?
Mister D
05-14-2012, 03:08 PM
The President has always appointed as his AG an individual whose ideology aligns with his own, no?
As measured by?
Holder was a Kenyan?
Seriously, when you say ancestry, what exactly do you mean?
How do you figure POTUS is an AA hire/
In my view, immigration has become a politicized mess, because neither party wishes to come down HARD on businesses taking advantage of it. Why in your opinion are the immigration suits wrong?
So you don't like Holder because the operation was bungled?
No doubt. Holder is BO's AA bulldog.
As measured by his ideological lawsuits against the states (run the country!? by golly, dark folks are being oppressed!) and the Fast and Furious fisaco.
You know exactly what I mean.
If BO wasn't a black man Hillary Clinton would be POTUS.
Indeed, neither party really wants to do anything because big business wants grade school educated mestizo slaves and the left wants more brown voters. Now yuo ask me why I think the suits are wrogn when you acknowledge that the feds won't do their job. You alreadyknow the answer to that question. There was no need to ask.
I don't like Holder because he doesn't like me or this "nation of cowards".
Mister D
05-14-2012, 03:09 PM
RM, Holder said in the abstract, how does that show in any way that Holder wasn't qualified for the job and was an affirmative action hire?
Is Holder qualified?
dsolo802
05-14-2012, 03:13 PM
Is Holder qualified?From what I can see he is very qualified. Including his willingness to successfully prosecute a VERY big and powerful Democrat fish - Rostenkowski.
Have you looked into his qualifications?
Mister D
05-14-2012, 03:18 PM
From what I can see he is very qualified. Including his willingness to successfully prosecute a VERY big and powerful Democrat fish - Rostenkowski.
Have you looked into his qualifications?
His willingness to prosecute a "powerful Democrat fish" makes him seem less ideological to you?
Have you? BO's don't exist so I'm sure Holder hasd him beat there.
dsolo802
05-14-2012, 03:46 PM
No doubt. Holder is BO's AA bulldog. Holder was no more or less Obama's bull dog than was Meese Reagan's.
As measured by his ideological lawsuits against the statesNeither the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution nor the Federal pre-emption doctrine based upon it were created by Eric Holder or Obama, you know. What part or aspect of the lawsuits that were brought do you think were inappropriate?
(run the country!? by golly, dark folks are being oppressed!)Hmm, what exactly are you saying? Hard to respond otherwise.
and the Fast and Furious fisaco. Since you say you don't know the goal of that Operation, I assume you are thinking he is therefore incompetent and a AA hire because the team responsible for the Operation bungled it?
You know exactly what I mean.
If BO wasn't a black man Hillary Clinton would be POTUS. If grandma had balls she'd be grandpa. :) But seriously . . .
BO is black and Holder is black. And Reagan was White as is Meese. What are we to make of that?
Indeed, neither party really wants to do anything because big business wants grade school educated mestizo slaves and the left wants more brown voters.
Now yuo ask me why I think the suits are wrogn when you acknowledge that the feds won't do their job.Under accepted principles of Federalism, the Federal government has pre-empted the field when it comes to immigration. Obviously one can single out one of the two parties who are engaging in an industrial strength game of gridlock, thereby preventing POTUS from doing the job that he thinks should be done, but - again - that's not a reflection on Holder's competence or support for the proposition that he was an AA hire.
As for the general job of stemming the tide of illegal immigration, I think Obama and Holder have demonstrably done a very good job.
You alreadyknow the answer to that question. There was no need to ask. I didn't know your thinking and wanted to respond to it.
I don't like Holder because he doesn't like me or this "nation of cowards".Why do you think Holder doesn't like you?
We know from first hand experience just how difficult it is for a small group of people to openly and honestly discuss race relations in the US. Why fault him for saying we lack the courage to address it fairly as a nation? Is that not the truth? It is such an emotionally charged topic, my view is that people tend to run away from real conversation, favoring instead the shelter of their preconceived views and tightly held ideologies.
On this and so many issues, I think it is much more convenient for virtually everyone to turn each and every one of our issues into something that is black and white, with no shades of gray.
Shoot the Goose
05-14-2012, 03:47 PM
What do you think Fast and Furious was trying to do?
The question was not asked of me, but I believe its primary intent was political, so as to create a basis to push for greater gun control, particularly in the border states. Prior to FF being exposed, no less than Hillary Clinton used the explosion of guns from the US in Mexico as a basis for such a need. When it became clear that our government deliberately put them there .... crickets.
dsolo802
05-14-2012, 03:56 PM
His willingness to prosecute a "powerful Democrat fish" makes him seem less ideological to you? I would consider the willingness of an AG who is Republican to go after a guilty Republican a very important quality to have. Yes, I think Holder prosecution of Rostenkowki shows a level of impartiality that is or should be a qualification for that office.
Let me put it this way, if Holder found a way to let Rostenkowki keep his powerful House Ways and Means Committee chair, and Rostenkowski got off without any jail time, wouldn't you have held that against Holder?
Have you? BO's don't exist so I'm sure Holder hasd him beat there.I don't get what you are saying. Can you rephrase?
Shoot the Goose
05-14-2012, 04:37 PM
From what I can see he is very qualified. Including his willingness to successfully prosecute a VERY big and powerful Democrat fish - Rostenkowski.
Have you looked into his qualifications?
All due respect, Holder was the US Attorney that led the prosecution. But Rostenkowski's misdeeds were brought to light with the Congressional Post Office scandal. There is no evidence that Holder showed any initiative in bringing the case. He just did his job prosecuting a crooked politician who had been exposed already.
What Holder has not done is coopoerate with the Fast and Furious subpoena's, while presiding over that massive fiasco. He has not prosecuted numerous examples of voter intimidation by "his people". The man is a train wreck as AG.
Holder is responsible for failing to provide the material for subpenoas to Congress on 22 Specific detailed categories of information. In which Issa has filed a lengthy Contempt of Congress Citiation.
Furthermore Holder hasn't provided the info that was referenced to him over Fast and Furious.
Do you think it is acceptable for any party's administration to defy a Congressional Subpenoa?
Peter1469
05-14-2012, 05:02 PM
I think that it is appropriate to bring out some of the language thrown about during the Bush era..., Holder should be taken into custody and frog-marched off to jail.
Hat tip to Saul Alinsky.
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4872563636700274&id=baca050e80036fc68e99ac06a6effbfd&url=http%3a%2f%2fimages.clipartof.com%2fthumbnails %2f46061-Royalty-Free-RF-Clipart-Illustration-Of-A-Welcome-Mat-In-Front-Of-An-Open-Red-Door.jpg
Greetings Shoot the Goose.....Welcome to the Poltical Forums of The Rant. :yo2:
dsolo802
05-14-2012, 05:20 PM
All due respect, Holder was the US Attorney that led the prosecution. But Rostenkowski's misdeeds were brought to light with the Congressional Post Office scandal.First off, thank you for showing me respect. I appreciate that very much.
From my vantage point, he prosecuted the case very aggressively because he found the case to have merit and to be a good use of tax-payer money. That is all you can expect a DA to do.
As the "result" in the voter intimidation case illustrates, Prosecutors are vested with enormous charging discretion. He prosecuted Rostenkowski because he thought he was guilty and, in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, believed he could prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the great voter intimidation case where charges were dropped against two of the defendants, the evidence was not overwhelming, and he exercised his discretion differently.
There is no evidence that Holder showed any initiative in bringing the case. He just did his job prosecuting a crooked politician who had been exposed already.He exercised his discretion in favor of prosecuting and did a great job of it. He did not function like a partisan, unable or unwilling to do his job.
What Holder has not done is coopoerate with the Fast and Furious subpoena's, while presiding over that massive fiasco. Bungled operations of the kind here are not usually cited as examples of the AG being an Affirmative Action hire.
Since the days of Nixon and before the office of the President has consistently pushed back on the scope of Congressinal investigations. That said, I think Holder should comply with the Fast and Furious subpoenas.
He has not prosecuted numerous examples of voter intimidation by "his people".There have been two people to my knowledge he has decided not to prosecute. In the scheme of things, do you think there is anything like a pattern and practice of suppression of the white vote in polling places?
The man is a train wreck as AG.
dsolo802
05-14-2012, 05:21 PM
Holder is responsible for failing to provide the material for subpenoas to Congress on 22 Specific detailed categories of information. In which Issa has filed a lengthy Contempt of Congress Citiation.
Furthermore Holder hasn't provided the info that was referenced to him over Fast and Furious.
Do you think it is acceptable for any party's administration to defy a Congressional Subpenoa?I think Issa may be embarking on a fishing expedition - and I think Holder should comply.
Mister D
05-14-2012, 05:28 PM
Holder was no more or less Obama's bull dog than was Meese Reagan's
If you wish to characterize Meese's relationship with Reagan that way it's fine with me. :smiley:
Neither the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution nor the Federal pre-emption doctrine based upon it were created by Eric Holder or Obama, you know. What part or aspect of the lawsuits that were brought do you think were inappropriate?
But only the AA duo have used them to sue states in this manner. You already know why I find the lawsuits appalling. Why do you keep asking?
Hmm, what exactly are you saying? Hard to respond otherwise.
lol
Since you say you don't know the goal of that Operation, I assume you are thinking he is therefore incompetent and a AA hire because the team responsible for the Operation bungled it?
I think he is incompetent. Others think he's just plain vicious. As for the "team responsible", nice try. The fish stinks from the head. :wink:
If grandma had balls she'd be grandpa. :) But seriously . . .
You have no response? Again, if BO wasn't a black man Hillary Clinton would be POTUS. Sorry, but BO's blackness was cool and hip. He's POTUS because of it.
BO is black and Holder is black. And Reagan was White as is Meese. What are we to make of that?
I haven't mentioned Meese or Reagan. What are we to make of that? You mentioned them.
Under accepted principles of Federalism, the Federal government has pre-empted the field when it comes to immigration. Obviously one can single out one of the two parties who are engaging in an industrial strength game of gridlock, thereby preventing POTUS from doing the job that he thinks should be done, but - again - that's not a reflection on Holder's competence or support for the proposition that he was an AA hire.
Holder is an ideological hack who wages ideological battles against states that are merely trying to defend themselves from what is, quite frankly, an unprecedented migration. Moreover, the AZ law does not trump federal law. It was designed specifically with such objections in mind.
As for the general job of stemming the tide of illegal immigration, I think Obama and Holder have demonstrably done a very good job.
If you are crediting BO with destroying the economy as a means of stemming illegal immigration than I guess he did a good job too. I stand corrected. :smiley: I mean for whatever that's worth to his credit.
Why do you think Holder doesn't like you?
Oh, I think Holder and Obama have quite a few problems with white folks.
We know from first hand experience just how difficult it is for a small group of people to openly and honestly discuss race relations in the US. Why fault him for saying we lack the courage to address it fairly as a nation? Is that not the truth? It is such an emotionally charged topic, my view is that people tend to run away from real conversation, favoring instead the shelter of their preconceived views and tightly held ideologies.
Bologna. In his mind, we are "cowards" because we don;t see eye to eye with him or accept his views on race. I can sum them up for you: white people = bad and mean. Black people = oppressed and cheated. Holder, the AA hire, is mighty pissed that some white folks just don't want to listen to his monologue on race.
On this and so many issues, I think it is much more convenient for virtually everyone to turn each and every one of our issues into something that is black and white, with no shades of gray.
That's what people like Holder have been doing when it comes to race for decades. Have you just noticed?
Shoot the Goose
05-14-2012, 05:29 PM
First off, thank you for showing me respect. I appreciate that very much.
Civility in disagreement in these Forums is always a pleasure :)
From my vantage point, he prosecuted the case very aggressively because he found the case to have merit and to be a good use of tax-payer money. That is all you can expect a DA to do.
I have a difficult time seeing that as evidence of an objective and aggresive DA. See below.
As the "result" in the voter intimidation case illustrates, Prosecutors are vested with enormous charging discretion. He prosecuted Rostenkowski because he thought he was guilty and, in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, believed he could prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the great voter intimidation case where charges were dropped against two of the defendants, the evidence was not overwhelming, and he exercised his discretion differently.
He exercised his discretion in favor of prosecuting and did a great job of it. He did not function like a partisan, unable or unwilling to do his job.
Bungled operations of the kind here are not usually cited as examples of the AG being an Affirmative Action hire.
Since the days of Nixon and before the office of the President has consistently pushed back on the scope of Congressinal investigations. That said, I think Holder should comply with the Fast and Furious subpoenas.
There have been two people to my knowledge he has decided not to prosecute. In the scheme of things, do you think there is anything like a pattern and practice of suppression of the white vote in polling places?
If Holder had an unblemished record, which is what I expect of any DA, then I could give him a pass. But FF seems a horrible episode, and we agree that he needs to cooperate. My belief is that he won't because his office is severely stained with partisan politics on that one. As I mentioned earlier, I believe its intent from the beginning was to create an artificial gun-control issue.
As to the voter-intimidation, there was evidence, and hearings, that provided evidence contrary to your conclusion, that being that they had ample grounds to prosecute.
As you can likely surmise, I think this entire Administration wreaks of scumbaggery. But I enjoy a respectful debate. Thanks.
Mister D
05-14-2012, 05:35 PM
In the scheme of things, do you think there is anything like a pattern and practice of suppression of the white vote in polling places?
Does it matter?
dsolo802
05-14-2012, 05:38 PM
Civility in disagreement in these Forums is always a pleasure :) Here here! I couldn't agree more.
I have a difficult time seeing that as evidence of an objective and agreesive DA. See below.Rostenkowski was a REALLY big fish. For that reason, the job he did to me deserves high praise.
If Holder had an unblemished record, which is what I expect of any DA, then I could give him a pass. But FF seems a horrible episode, and we agree that he needs to cooperate. My belief is that he won't because his office is severely stained with partisan politics on that one. As I mentioned earlier, I believe its intent from the beginning was to create an artificial gun-control issue.The Obama administration was very early assumed to be one that would "go for the guns." Much to the chagrin of his base, Obama has been absolutely silent on gun control. I hear that many were convinced he would be "progressive" in this way, and were quite concerned about it, but have to say I see no evidence of that here. The problems with gun trafficking along the US and Mexico border and related wholesale murder are beyond dispute and easily seen as being of national concern.
As to the voter-intimidation, there was evidence, and hearings, that provided evidence contrary to your conclusion, that being that they had ample grounds to prosecute.I would be very interested to hear of the evidence you have read about. When this thing happened, I was utterly unimpressed by it.
As you can likely surmise, I think this entire Administration wreaks of scumbaggery. But I enjoy a respectful debate. Thanks.I understand your point of view, and absolutely thank you for engaging me the way you have.
Mister D
05-14-2012, 05:40 PM
Welcome, Goose.
Holder was responsible with Greg Craig at the beginning of Obama Presidency in getting Obama to announce the Closing of Guantamano by Jan 2010. Not only did public opinion turn against the idea but so to did the Demos. The decision turned so sharply that the Demos joined Republicans in voting 90-6 to block funds for the facility's closure.
He also provoked a political firestorm by withdrawing a lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party for violations of the Voting Rights Act, over the objections of 6 career lawyers at DOJ.
Then to top it off he released Classified Justice Dept memos on the CIA Terrorist Program and reopened criminal investigations into the Conduct of Cia Interrogators. Overriding the Objections of 5 former CIA directors including Leon Panetta. The special prosecutor he appointed came to the same conclusion as the career prosecutors under the Bush administration and found no criminal wrongdoing by the CIA officials involved in the agency’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program. After two years of wasted resources and needless controversy, holder came up empty.
Then came Holder’s order to read Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a Miranda warning after just 50 minutes of questioning – an order the attorney general gave without even without consulting chief intelligence or national security officials.
Holder is one of the most incompetant DOJ AG we have ever had! :angry:
Shoot the Goose
05-14-2012, 05:58 PM
Here here! I couldn't agree more.
Rostenkowski was a REALLY big fish. For that reason, the job he did to me deserves high praise.
Rostenkowski got caught. Big fish or not, he got caught, and it sure wasn't because of slick police work by Holder. It was like shooting fish in a barrel at that point, and no one could save Rosty.
The Obama administration was very early assumed to be one that would "go for the guns." Much to the chagrin of his base, Obama has been absolutely silent on gun control. I hear that many were convinced he would be "progressive" in this way, and were quite concerned about it, but have to say I see no evidence of that here. The problems with gun trafficking along the US and Mexico border and related wholesale murder are beyond dispute and easily seen as being of national concern.
FF backfired. The lack of cooperation by Holder now is evidence of such, IMMHO.
I would be very interested to hear of the evidence you have read about. When this thing happened, I was utterly unimpressed by it.
I understand your point of view, and absolutely thank you for engaging me the way you have.
I do not want to debate it so much, but the crux of it is in whether or not Holder and others pushed excessively to have the case squashed. There are all kids of leads at Wiki on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case
... especially when you get down the page, look at the hearings conducted by the Civil Rights Commission, etc. My position is not so much on the actual evidence of the specific case, but rather with all the irregularities in how is was squashed by Holder's DoJ. There are all kinds of tangents to pursue there.
I am one of those "where there's smoke, there's fire" folks, and where Holder's DoJ should have erred on the side of transparency, it has been consistently opaque. And while I was born at night, it was not last night. His house stinks.
Shoot the Goose
05-14-2012, 06:00 PM
Holder was responsible with Greg Craig at the beginning of Obama Presidency in getting Obama to announce the Closing of Guantamano by Jan 2010. Not only did public opinion turn against the idea but so to did the Demos. The decision turned so sharply that the Demos joined Republicans in voting 90-6 to block funds for the facility's closure.
He also provoked a political firestorm by withdrawing a lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party for violations of the Voting Rights Act, over the objections of 6 career lawyers at DOJ.
Then to top it off he released Classified Justice Dept memos on the CIA Terrorist Program and reopened criminal investigations into the Conduct of Cia Interrogators. Overriding the Objections of 5 former CIA directors including Leon Panetta. The special prosecutor he appointed came to the same conclusion as the career prosecutors under the Bush administration and found no criminal wrongdoing by the CIA officials involved in the agency’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program. After two years of wasted resources and needless controversy, holder came up empty.
Then came Holder’s order to read Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a Miranda warning after just 50 minutes of questioning – an order the attorney general gave without even without consulting chief intelligence or national security officials.
Holder is one of the most incompetant DOJ AG we have ever had! :angry:
I am thinking that I found a long lost brother :)
Peter1469
05-14-2012, 06:15 PM
Regarding the lawsuit against AZ, oral arguments didn't go well for the federal government. Even the newest Justice made it clear that she thought the federal case was weak.
Mister D
05-14-2012, 06:23 PM
Regarding the lawsuit against AZ, oral arguments didn't go well for the federal government. Even the newest Justice made it clear that she thought the federal case was weak.
That's because the fed's actual case is an afterthought. The primary objective has nothing to do with federal versus state authority.
Also there was the fiasco with attempting to try Khalid Shiek Mohammed and other 911 plotters in NYC. Without even consulting NY State Officials. Due to the backlash Obama and the Demos got. The Adminstration who had agreed at first with Holder, then backtracked and announced the RESUMPTION of Military Commission Trials back at Guantanamo for the Shiek and ANY Other Terrorists.
Plus he went ahead with the Arizona stunt over the Objections of 3 Arizona State Democrats and their Party Affiliations. Causing 2 of them to lose their seats in Arizona and weakening of their Party in that State.
Shoot the Goose
05-14-2012, 06:53 PM
When considering all of the above posts, Holder's DoJ would seem to at least be inept. Arrogantly inept. I don't see anything there to inspire anything except a lack of confidence vote. Holder is not only a hack, but an incompetent one too.
When considering all of the above posts, Holder's DoJ would seem to at least be inept. Arrogantly inept. I don't see anything there to inspire anything except a lack of confidence vote. Holder is not only a hack, but an incompetent one too.
I would agree with you.....moreover talking about well laid intentions is not accurately pointing out the results, and or problems that currently exist in the DOJ.
roadmaster
05-14-2012, 07:17 PM
Regarding the lawsuit against AZ, oral arguments didn't go well for the federal government. Even the newest Justice made it clear that she thought the federal case was weak.
Protecting Americans should always be first on the list of an appointed President or Sheriff. Too many ranchers, women, ect of American have fallen prey to people crossing the borders illegal.
Peter1469
05-14-2012, 07:18 PM
Very true
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.