While Holder’s in the Mood to Answer Questions

0

Trying to get a straight answer to ANYTHING from Attorney General Eric Holder is one of the most frustrating things known to man. For over 15 years he has been appearing in front of Congressional committees as either Attorney General or Deputy AG . Under questioning, while the asker is directly asking for a yes or no answer, Holder simply refuses to oblige. He assaults you with a blizzard of words that are designed to SEEM to answer the question without actually answering the question.

There are three reasons he does it. To weasel out of potential perjury charges for lying to Congress, because in general when he’s talking he’s lying; because he thinks he’s smarter than everybody else; and because he thinks he’s above being held accountable to the citizens, ergo Congress.

The exchange he had with Senator Ted Cruz (Patriot-TX) will someday be legend. What seemed like 90 minutes of badgering (by Cruz) and weaseling (by Holder) could be summed up by this:

Cruz: Yes or no: would it be Constitutional for the government to drone-strike and kill a US citizen on US soil while not posing an immediate threat
Holder: It would not be appropriate.
Cruz: I’m not asking if it would be appropriate.
[repeat the above, x 50 or so]

At the end, and this is why it will be legend, Cruz won . He got Holder to say “when I say appropriate I mean legal”. Nobody ever wears Holder down, but Cruz did.

So I thought, hey, while we got Holder in the mood to answer questions [a first ever, I would venture to say], it’s time to open the vault and see things that have been hidden for years behind that ferret face. A few things I’d like to know from Holder:

  • When you brokered the pardon deal for Marc Rich, what did it cost Marc Rich and/or Denise Rich to buy a pardon from Bill Clinton?
  • Why did you cancel the prosecution of the NBPP Philadelphia voter intimidation case when a plea agreement had already been reached?
  • When you say “my people” as a sitting Attorney General, why do you mean “black people” and not “all Americans”?
  • What did you know about Fast and Furious, and when did you know it?
  • Under what possible legal argument could you have possibly have justified ordering or allowing F&F?
  • Why did you sue Arizona for trying to enforce federal law?
  • In the 2012 presidential election, did you simply have no curiosity about accusations and evidence of rampant voter fraud in Cleveland, Houston, and Philadelphia? Why not?
  • Why have you systematically obstructed states that pass Voter ID laws? You are on record as having said that Voter ID laws are racist. Do you believe that, or are you simply trying to make sure that reliable tools for Democrat voter fraud are not taken away?
  • Why were you similarly uninterested in looking into the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin by the very administration he was investigating?

So, while the weasel is in the mood to answer questions, hey, why not ask?

Follow me on Twitter :

About Author

The weapons had evolved, but our orders remained the same: Hunt them down and kill them off, one by one. A most successful campaign. Perhaps too successful. For those like me, a Death Dealer, this signaled the end of an era. Like the weapons of the previous century, we, too, would become obsolete. Pity, because I lived for it.

Send this to friend