XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:42:29 -0800, linuxgal    
   wrote in alt.atheism:   
      
   >Free Lunch wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 18 May 2013 09:08:53 -0800, linuxgal   
   >> wrote in alt.atheism:   
   >>   
   >>> >Jeanne Douglas wrote:   
   >>>> >>Holder had recused himself from the investigation long before this   
   >>>> >>appalling behavior, so how could he have known anything about it?   
   >>>> >>   
   >>>> >>You DO know what "recused" means, don't you?   
   >>> >   
   >>> >It means "I'm not in the least bit prepared to testify about anything so   
   >>> >I better come up with an excuse not to testify."   
   >> No, recusal is his decision to get out of the way of the investigation   
   >> and turn it over to someone who is independent of him. It is handing   
   >> over power to someone else.   
   >   
   >One should never do something half-assed.  If he's going to hand over   
   >power to someone else, he should hand over all his power and resign.   
      
   So he cannot win. If he recuses himself you don't like it, if he   
   controls the investigation you will accuse him of a coverup.   
      
   The real problem is the laws that have slowly stripped all meaning from   
   the 4th amendment, not the fact that the AP was the target in this war   
   on leaks.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)