HOLDER DIDN'T KNOW about FAST AND FURIOUS??? WHAT A CROCK OF BS!!
Old Timer
2012/09/20 10:50:49
|
|
|||||
|
1 vote
|
|
17% | |||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | |||
|
4 votes
|
|
67% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
17% | |||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | |||
TWO HIGH LEVEL OFFICIALS HAVE LOST THEIR POSITIONS, BUT HOLDER COMES OUT PEARLEY WHITE. Does anyone with an ounce of common sence really believe that he didn't know? AMERICA IS NOT STUPID. Had to stop the BLEEDING BEFORE IT GOT TO THE TOP.















Plausible deniability:
Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.
The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. It typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.
This is exactly how Obama and Holder operate.......PERIOD.......
Obama's career as a Senator centered around a modified version of this by voting present constantly. By doing so he was able to remain in a position of neu...
Plausible deniability:
Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.
The term most often refers to the denial of blame in (formal or informal) chains of command, where senior figures assign responsibility to the lower ranks, and records of instructions given do not exist or are inaccessible, meaning independent confirmation of responsibility for the action is nearly impossible. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. It typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge.
This is exactly how Obama and Holder operate.......PERIOD.......
Obama's career as a Senator centered around a modified version of this by voting present constantly. By doing so he was able to remain in a position of neutrality until the final outcome was revealed and then claim through previous vague statements that he was on the winning side of the issue...............PERIOD......
The liberals can claim Holder is innocent all they want but in proclaiming Holder's innocence they are also proclaiming his incompetence indicating that Holder had no control over the agency he is head of, that his underlings had no respect for his authority, and that Holder himself had no interest in seeing that rules and laws were being followed. Holder reports to Obama directly so the claim of the innocence of Obama equates to the same proclamation of the ignorance and incompetence of Obama. The liberal's are hell bent on supporting Obama and his socialist agenda and will never see nor accept the truth about their chosen Messiah. Handwritten notes signed and dated between Obama and Holder could be presented and they would still excuse any of their actions.
BTW - Horowitz is a long time friend of Holder and has served and worked under him in the past so any conclusion he arrives at about a long time friends innocence is certainly suspect.
No Democrats in 2012!!
If Holder DIDN'T know what at least a dozen of his subordinates were up to, then he should be fired for incompetence.
Either way he should be outta there.