Quote:Is that acceptable behavior? At what point does incidental behavior become the standard-of-practice unbecoming of the position?

 

This is the top-law enforcement official in the United States, and he obstructed Congress' investigations. He attempted to give a foreign terrorist the rights afforded to us through our Constitution. He seized the AP's phone records on the guise of homeland security, and he still monitors reporters of opposing political philosophy (James Rosen). He lied about Fast & Furious when he told Congress that he only knew about the program for a "few weeks". In reality, he knew about it for at least 6 months. Aside from those, he refuses to enforce some laws and completely disregards others. 

 

He's exhibited, what I feel to be, unquestionably illegal behavior in the obstruction of investigations conducted by Congress. If he's willing to do that, there's no doubt in mind that he's hiding a lot more. 

 

He's supposed to be the epitome of professionalism. Think about what we expect from someone like teachers, doctors, police, and other public-service careers. His lying and behavior should not have been tolerated. 

 

I don't argue that some of those may be legitimate complaints, worthy of discussion.   I just don't think the guy should be "shot for sedition."   That is what brought me into this thread- that statement. 

 

IF--   IF your allegations about Holder are true, and I'm not saying they are or they aren't, then this is not unusual.     THIS IS PAR FOR THE COURSE.    It happens under democratic and republican administrations. 

 

During the George W. Bush administration Alberto Gonzales resigned under a cloud "in the best interests of the [Justice]  department." 

 

Ronald Reagan's attorney general Ed Meese resigned under investigation by a special prosecutor. 

 

The problem is that Presidents usually appoint their best, most loyal friend to be Attorney General. 

---