‘Only way’ Eric Holder ‘didn’t know’ about Fast and Furious is...

Oh, accessory to murder now. Odd. Is this just a contest to see who can be the most wrong here? Surely you are taking the lead, no easy feat considering the made up stuff being flung around.

I have to saw that I am impressed. I thought there was a boundary to political hackery, that it was finite in it's intensity and ridiculousness. In that regards, you have proved me incorrect.

 

Please use words to state your case. I am not watching silly videos for two reasons. The first is they are blocked form the building I am in. The second is they are silly.

 

I suggest you look at History, what laws were broken that started this?

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/clintontimeline.htm

 

I am sorry, but the Clinton impeachment seems to have nothing to do with this topic. If you can list a high crime or misdemeanor that the president committed than please do so. Arguing by insinuation is a bit on the pathetic side.

 

TFM can't respond to a statement he made. He has been owned, again, let it be known.

 

Brian Terry is dead due to holder's justice departments negligence in failing to prevent his murderer from getting his hands on the gun that killed him As was their job.
But, worse than that, Brian Terry is dead due to holder's justice department actively arraigning for his murderer to get his hands on the gun that killed him.
That is, at very least, negligent homicide.

 

let me spell it out for you, the Clinton impeachment was started by a extramarital affair. Last time I looked that was not against the law. To have a congressional hearing, no laws need to have been broken. Your demanding to know what law was broken is just smoke and mirrors, Obama and Holder are in deep kim chee and all your misdirection and righteous indignation is just gum flapping

 

I understand you dont wanna see the actual news reports that prove your previous statement wrong....

They knew, They planned it, they got American border agents killed...

all to destroy the second amendment.....

 

That is not remotely close to negligent homicide. Once again, I provided you the in depth legal definition of the term and you are opting to ignore that in favor of being wrong.

 

I give you a gun knowing you are a known felon, you use it to kill someone. Was a law broken ?

 

Here's some words for you:

This is the third time I've had to post that link for you. What are you afraid of?

 

Actually, videos are blocked where I am at, as are radio stations and streaming audio.

No worries though. I realize the written word is a dead concept in the time of copying and pasting, that actually using sentences to convey an idea has gone out of style, for most anyway, and that the new de rigueur is short blurbs with light flashes that sell well to short attention spans and to those who can not understand simply concepts, hence youtube videos.

If you would like to see a funny one though, type "nu thang" into youtube's search box. The religious brainwashing is hilarious on that one.

 

Arent they supposed to have a back ground check, and a 3 day waiting period?

Im pretty sure felons arent allowed to buy guns...

 

It would depend. Are you a law enforcement person attempting to apprehend a criminal?

 

here is the free legal lesson for the day

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...iminal/pdf/4100-accessory-before-the-fact.pdf

would it stick, who knows, probably not. B8ut at the least it will (*)(*)(*)(*) sure make the evening news in 2012 and make Obama look like a Chicago mobster if they can link the WH in on this

 

The depths of leftist impropriety a leftist ideologue won't defend have yet to be plumbed.

 

Are you really not aware that Operation Gunrunner and Fast and Furious are two separate things? Really?

Operation Gunner is the larger program, within that program there are smaller operations, one of which was Fast and Furious.

May I suggest you take a moment to read up on the topics on which you post? It really is a bit on the sad side that so many on the right hand side of the aisle are so consistently wrong about the facts in a thread they are posting.

 

Oh that's right, the "accessory to murder" thing. Odd. It would appear Holder and Obama do not come remotely close to the definition of the term you provided.

I have to ask though. Was it your intent to prove yourself wrong on this?

 

background check, waiting period varies from state to state. The very act of straw purchasing guns is a felony, even if the person involved had never even had a traffic ticket previously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase

The main issue here was ATF was alerted as per law to the straw purchases and they knowingly let them cross the border without notifying the Mexican authorities. If the Mexican authorities had been involved then Holder could hang the albatross around the Mexican misgovernment neck and at least avoid the worst of the fallout.

 

Nope, These are actual news reports from CNN...

What I dont understand is, how can Obama and Pals cry about American gun sales to Mexican drug cartels, when theyre the ones selling guns to Mexican drug cartels....

I know democrats tell lies, but (*)(*)(*)(*) dude....

Obama is "DIRECTLY ENGAGED" hmmmm.... Someone is lying... again...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r_M1g4wfzU"]SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON - MEXICO - DRUG CARTELS & GUNS - YouTube[/ame]

The Secretary of State, the President, and the Attorney General....​

 

'
http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/homicide/

Are you trying to say that holder's actions and inactions were not negligent?

 

If you say so. it seems immensely sad that this is what you have to offer here. Out of context nonsense in the hope that one day you will be right.

 

I think it is sad that someone advocates and defends the arming Mexican drug cartels as you are doing

 

I am saying you are wrong, have been wrong, have been shown to be wrong, and rather than just do the honorable thing and concede the point you are going to attempt to hammer away at this while remaining wrong.

Holder was not remotely near this operation. You are trying to twist the definition to fit your failed argument, and it is failed. I have provided the definition with examples and Holder does not remotely fit that.

The question remains is why are rejecting fact/ Why have you thrown reality out the window? Why not just accept that you were incorrect consistently and on many point here?

It is as if you argued, failed, and then rather than add facts to your argument you are arguing the same thing and failing over and over.

 

I think it is sad that the greatest argument you can come up with is not laden with facts or even a coherent point but instead is a mind numbingly simple straw man argument.