MR. HOLDER DEFINES FOR US THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LYING VERSUS MISLEADING...

It was earlier this week, I think, during a hearing on Capitol Hill concerning the government sponsored "Fast and Furious" debacle, that our stellar Attorney General, Mr. Eric "I'm not a Racist" Holder was asked whether he had lied to Congress about the ongoing, and some would saying rapidly expanding, Fast & Furious gun-running scandal. Mr. Holder, a man about as qualified for his job as Barry is qualified for his, is probably the worst attorney general since that disaster, Janet Reno. Anyway, it was Rep. James Sensenbrenner who asked Mr. Holder what was a very straight forward question. And that question was, “Tell me what's the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?"



Now, apparently thinking himself to be so much smarter than those whom he was sitting in front of, Mr. Holder's arrogant response, was both typical and eerily reminiscent of the way old "BJ" Clinton went about defining "is." Here's how the esteemed Mr. Holder chose to respond to what was a very simple question: “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie," Holder said. "The information that was provided by the February 4th letter was gleaned by the people who drafted the letter after they interacted with people who they thought were in the best position to have the information."


Such is the caliber of sleazy behavior that, while it has quickly become something we have come to expect from this very corrupt administration, is something that cannot be tolerated nor allowed to go unchallenged. This entire bunch of Chicago hacks seems to think that they are not only above the law but are also free to completely ignore the dictates of Congress as well as the constraints placed upon them by our Constitution. They also seem to be under the misguided impression that they can simply ride roughshod over our political system and that they are somehow to be considered as being immune to any and all criticism directed at them regarding the repeated recklessness of their, if not outright illegal, highly unethical actions.