Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post - On Deck : Government Universal Health Care

aquaadverse · 09-04-2009, 03:00 PM

Never said he couldn't, just that the idea this could possibly be politically motivated was realistic. And since Holder was appointed by Reagan, I'm not real sure the political Party of the person who did the appointing is of any relevance.

I posted references to Justice documentation after you accused me of making up Federal Attorneys and the court system weren't routinely used to gather information to analyze recommendations.

The links in the blog were to Waxman and Dowd and others who expressed outrage at the process and are hardly hardcore Republicans looking for a scalp. It was to illustrate the outrage wasn't limited to partisans. I guess it would have been better to just lift the links.

I'm not angry. I took the time to use my shift key. And I've already said the actually pardon wasn't the point. Holder himself has admitted he did a poor job, he just never gave an explanation of why he didn't consult the prosecutors but just that he should have done it. Perhaps you should take up the issue with it being a usual process with him instead of me.

There are people who feel this has already been investigated and serves no real purpose that isn't outweighed by the damage it will do to the ability of getting quality people to do a difficult and dirty duty. Take it up with that hardcore right wing attack dog Panetta.

You want to take the position that opening previously closed files and exposing agents the gathering of classified information is acceptable, up to you. Here's another take of why the current initiatives could have a political bent:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...712840406.html

I'm not taking a position the use of the Justice Department for political reasons is more likely from one Party or another, just that your position Holder is above such things and has nothing in his past behavior to cast doubt is a simplistic one.

09-04-2009, 03:00 PM	#121
aquaadverse Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 317	Never said he couldn't, just that the idea this could possibly be politically motivated was realistic. And since Holder was appointed by Reagan, I'm not real sure the political Party of the person who did the appointing is of any relevance. I posted references to Justice documentation after you accused me of making up Federal Attorneys and the court system weren't routinely used to gather information to analyze recommendations. The links in the blog were to Waxman and Dowd and others who expressed outrage at the process and are hardly hardcore Republicans looking for a scalp. It was to illustrate the outrage wasn't limited to partisans. I guess it would have been better to just lift the links. I'm not angry. I took the time to use my shift key. And I've already said the actually pardon wasn't the point. Holder himself has admitted he did a poor job, he just never gave an explanation of why he didn't consult the prosecutors but just that he should have done it. Perhaps you should take up the issue with it being a usual process with him instead of me. There are people who feel this has already been investigated and serves no real purpose that isn't outweighed by the damage it will do to the ability of getting quality people to do a difficult and dirty duty. Take it up with that hardcore right wing attack dog Panetta. You want to take the position that opening previously closed files and exposing agents the gathering of classified information is acceptable, up to you. Here's another take of why the current initiatives could have a political bent: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...712840406.html I'm not taking a position the use of the Justice Department for political reasons is more likely from one Party or another, just that your position Holder is above such things and has nothing in his past behavior to cast doubt is a simplistic one.