What do you think of Holder's comment?

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" on Thu, 21 Jun

Me thinks that Holder is just saying words to make it sound like he has a glimmer of a clue as to what he is talking about. His primary job remains: Cover Obama's Ass.

tschus pyotr

ME thinks he's going to take a fall just like Ollie North did.

Difference is, North was actually a good guy trying to rescue American hostages.

THIS fiasco has an entirely different smell.

Richard

assassinated,=20

After using the phrase "constitutional crisis" at least three times, = Holder noted two hours into the hearingthat "constitutional conflict" = might be a better term.

Read more: =

I doubt Holder has that level of loyalty. Obama has to protect Holder, because he knows that Holder will squeal like a cheerleader on helium if he doesn't. It is, The Chicago Way.

It was not a "botched" sting at all, it was a bungled attempt to make gun control "popular" again. Holder lied, hundreds died.

Google Operation Northwood...

Ah, I see. This was a fiendish scheme cooked up by the Mexicans to implicate Obama in the death of Fidel Castro. Yes, I can see how it would work. And Hugo Chavez as well...

tschus pyotr

I'm remembering the government shut down. When the sleigh ride in the park wasn't funded, and some other nonsense. The rest of the nation went right on with their lives.

I say bring it on, we need some transparency, here.

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus

I may be wrong, but I thought that a constitutional crisis was when one of the three branches of government were rendered unable to serve, or were absent -- like the period of time between a President's being assassinated, and the veep taking the oath of office.

Now, the Judiciary isn't going anywhere. Same for the Legislative branch. So, does his comment imply that the President would be _removed_ from office if his testimony were given?

LLoyd

Love that simile!

(cleaning coffee from keyboard)

nope

We do. But we won't get that. What we will get is "National Security"