General Discussion

Voice for Peace

(13,141 posts)

55. I may be one of the few here who still have some faith in Holder

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:06 PM

Jul 2012

and maybe I'll be proven wrong.. but I believe there is a great
deal more investigating going on behind the scenes in the Justice
Dept than we know.

I imagine there is someone who is looking seriously into
the question of SEC or other felony by Romney. And other
crimes all of us would love to see prosecuted. Obama is a
good man and I believe he will do all he can with the time
he's given to stand up for truth and integrity.

I can't debate re: Holder because I am not well enough
informed.. just expressing a hopeful point of view that I
can't shake, no matter how many cranky posts I read.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

why don't they indict Romney? [View all] ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 OP

Because it would submarine the campaign. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #1

THAT would generate serious blowback IF he wins ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #2

Trust me - I feel your frustration on this. Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #12

Just as there are those who will excuse Holder when he disregards publicly known evidence and will AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #47

I may be one of the few here who still have some faith in Holder Voice for Peace Jul 2012 #55

Yep, you might be the one. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #57

It wouldn't stop them... Xyzse Jul 2012 #3

I guess you get immunity for running for President. nt Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #4

Correction: You get immunity if you are a Ruhpublican. Jamaal510 Jul 2012 #14

Too true, too true. nt Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #49

I thought Edwards dropped out of the race Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #64

"The devil you know...." nt DCKit Jul 2012 #5

Let him twist in the wind. JoePhilly Jul 2012 #6

that's a good point ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #7

Sorry, not years to indict ... years to prosecute. JoePhilly Jul 2012 #9

eh...perhaps. maybe we would get lucky ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #11

And Twist And Twist...Put More ? Out There... KharmaTrain Jul 2012 #51

Because you don't indict the opposition to a sitting president in an election year Bok_Tukalo Jul 2012 #8

ok to the first line... ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #10

Helloooooo? Iggy Jul 2012 #13

why is it weak? ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #15

Huh? What Are Iggy Jul 2012 #45

x2 -- Exactly. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #58

so you are in favor of the Obama campaign using the IRS and other federal agencies to indict Romney DrDan Jul 2012 #16

I'm in favor of those agencies doing their job ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #18

"It would seem a sure-fire way to submarine the campaign" DrDan Jul 2012 #20

doing their job is enforcing the law ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #21

have you given any thought to how this would play out in the media? DrDan Jul 2012 #22

the media should have no bearing on it ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #23

and that is EXACTLY what you are proposing DrDan Jul 2012 #24

no i am not... ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #26

it is EXACTLY what you are suggesting - using federal agencies for political purposes DrDan Jul 2012 #29

wow.. you just don't get it. ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #31

ok - you got it figured out . . . DrDan Jul 2012 #34

i am not suggesting HIS CAMPAIGN DO ANYTHING ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #36

exactly - you are suggesting FEDERAL AGENCIES do it DrDan Jul 2012 #38

right...as is their JOB... ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #41

never mind . . . the thought just boggles my mind DrDan Jul 2012 #27

so you're ok with the media influencing ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #33

done . . . the thought is just so ridiculous - once again, I thank GOD that DrDan Jul 2012 #37

get it through your head ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #42

"submarine the campaign" . . . you did say that . . . right? DrDan Jul 2012 #44

i don't suspect anybody here remembers Watergate.... oldhippydude Jul 2012 #50

He's baiting you. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #60

"baiting"??? DrDan Jul 2012 #61

Right, Please get a Clue Iggy Jul 2012 #46

did you reply to my post? if so, not sure I understand. DrDan Jul 2012 #48

2002 is 9 years back - statute of limitations on taxes is 7 years KurtNYC Jul 2012 #17

there is no seven year statute of limitations ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #19

As explained by the IRS, the statute of limitations is not "7 years." It never has been. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #32

Those are IRS rules but the felony at issue is an SEC violation KurtNYC Jul 2012 #54

When someone says, "statute of limitations on taxes is 7 years," I assume that they are using words AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #56

It's probably not as clear as you think Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #25

i get that...okay ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #30

You mean the Obama campaign? Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #52

That is what I am wondering. Is this Stephanie Cutter doing her own thing or dkf Jul 2012 #63

Wapo was dead wrong along fc.org, it's obvious they spoke too soon and are holding out on backtrack uponit7771 Jul 2012 #40

Hmmm . . . Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #53

Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. slackmaster Jul 2012 #59

Fun, isn't it? Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #62

One of my best friends is named Marcia, spelled that way. She's over 50... slackmaster Jul 2012 #65

because he was working for Bain Enrique Jul 2012 #28

The immediate consequence would be articles of impeachment in the House jberryhill Jul 2012 #35

if the SEC filings are true ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #39

Rmoney has de facto immunity because he is among the super-rich. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #43

Beengo! Iggy Jul 2012 #67

Because that would end the Romney campaign. jeff47 Jul 2012 #66

Because the Justice Department isn't about Justice, it's about criminal politics just1voice Jul 2012 #68