He said the first time he heard about the operation was a few weeks before the hearing. That was a lie.
Not to mention, is anyone in this administration responsible for anything, or does the government just run on autopilot since 2009? Seems like every bureaucrat in this administration has the power of the President. At this rate we’ll go to war because of a decision made by some lieutenant in the Pentagon.
No, that’s not what he said.
Then interpret his words for me.
It’s a sentence or two; it doesn’t really need interpretation.
“I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”
So you’re just seeing an entirely different meaning there than I am. I define a week as seven days, a few as 3-5.
Now if you define “few” as up to 50, then I guess he wasn’t lying.
Wrong again. This isn’t that hard 
The *facts *aren’t hard. *Accepting *them can be. Especially if you’re trying to make them fit a predetermined, unquestioned conclusion.
In responding to our friend it would save time simply typing ILLYWAA. Just a thought.
I’ve only just heard… I got here as soon as I could.
adaher, wrong? Please tell me someone got pictures!
Many were puzzled by this odd phrase.
It was a nod to the former Attorney General, Foreman, who used do not cast aspersions on my asparagus from time to time in the courtroom as an attempt to bring some silly lightness to a tense situation. It comes from an old Three Stooges movie.
Mr. Holder is aware that it meant “lighten up.”
I’m missing your point too, then. The cite says, "On May 3, 2011, Holder told a Judiciary Committee hearing, ‘I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.’”
Are you suggesting he remembers he was briefed, but the “inexactness” he refers to means he gets a pass if he was off by 10 months or so? “The last few weeks” can mean “going on a year ago”? Or do you mean something else?
IMO, only an extraordinarily generous interpretation of his statement can lead to any other conclusion than he was being deliberately misleading. Unless he has amnesia or something.
It was bad memory or polit-speak. Not admirable, certainly, but not lying. He’s a lawyer – he was, not surprisingly, careful not to say anything that was an outright falsehood.
This Pub House has no balls. As I pointed out after Holder was ruled in contempt (the same day SCOTUS ruled on ACA) and Holder blew them off I said that if the Pubs had any backbone they would impeach Holder. Instead they puss out.
Well, it was flat-out inaccurate and in my opinion designed to mislead. He was trying to create an impression that he had only recently been made aware of the matter, which was deliberate (I don’t believe he remembers being briefed, but was off in the timing by 10 or 11 months).
That’s close enough to dishonesty for me.
There are people who have this strange belief that being wrong and lying are the same thing. I don’t understand the mentality myself, but it’s out there.
I should clarify, now that I read your post.
What I meant to say is: I DO believe he remembers being briefed (he is acknowledging he was made aware of the matter), and that fact isn’t consistent with him thinking it was very recent when it first occurred going on a year before. IOW, I think he was being dishonest.
It’s equally possible that he was briefed multiple times, and only remembers the most recent.
Equally? I don’t think so, not with a gap in time like that, not for a program as memorable as this one. I think he was being deliberately weaselly, as you last suggested. IMO, he was trying to create a misleading impression, and he chose his words carefully. As I said before, that’s close enough to dishonesty for me.
Pretty arrogant to just say “you’re wrong” when the best you can come up with is that, iiandyii. Ever tried merely disagreeing?
With others, sure