The only way he'll take a fall is if you tie his shoe laces together...

Well, John, I'll give you this, you certainly dream big, but a dream it is, nonetheless. The House might pass articles of impeachment, but the senate will never look twice at 'em. I suppose it might be considered a form of "getting it on the record," but impeaching Holder will have no more lasting effect than impeaching Bill Clinton did. Too bad Hillary slipped her head out of the noose - impeaching her for misconduct and official negligence as Sec State might have have had some lasting positive effect. But to impeach Holder? Won't accomplish a thing... Better for Congress to subpoena him once a week, put him in front of the TV cameras, and compel him to keep lying. Sooner or later the court of public opinion will convict and hold him and his master Obama accountable.

S'bout time that Congress looked at the criminal code and crafted some new laws that eliminate the ambiguity between terrorism as an illegal military act committed by soldiers and terrorism as an illegal civil act. Just because these Islamic extremists have "declared war" on the west doesn't make them legitimate soldiers by any definition. To continue to treat them so only gives them and their cause an superficial and undeserved legitimacy and notoriety among their followers and potential recruits. In fact, treating them like soldiers plays right into their hands and satisfies one of their goals for their attacks - notoriety and importance. Calling them soldiers and trying them in military courts implicitly recognizes that they act under a chain of command at the behest of some sovereign (they would claim Allah). It's long past time to treat these people exactly like what they are - murdering thugs and criminals. Give them a superficial trial and then either put 'em in the gas chamber or bury them so deep under the prison that even Allah can't find 'em. Stop treating them like their self-proclaimed Jihad has some kind of legitimacy. Make a public spectacle of their criminality and de-legitimize their actions.

Just another bureaucrat's answer to a problem - make another rule... The problem with DUI in America is that the legal system only ever gives a drunk driver more than a slap on the wrist until it's too late. Serious punishment only ever comes after someone (usually someone else) has been killed by a, more often than not, repeat offender. We simply don't take DUI seriously - period. In places in the world where DUI is treated as a serious felony and results in mandatory jail time and immediate loss of driving privileges for even first time offenders, traffic fatalities caused by drunk drivers are low. There is a social norm that driving drunk is not just "ha ha" and drivers fear the consequences of getting caught. I've lived in places where people really are afraid to get caught DUI - jail time will do that. Social stigma my tail. The possibility of losing your job because you couldn't come to work for three months because you were in jail will make folks call a cab. If the NTSB wants to reduce DUI related fatalities, they should be calling for tougher enforcement of the current laws and more serious punishment. When you treat DUI like a parking ticket, then no one takes it seriously.

Amen to all of that.

Continue the congressional investigation. Subpoena more witnesses and compel them to speak in front of the camera to the American public. It's pretty clear that Obama&Co. have learned the Watergate lesson to leave no paper trail or any other kind of evidence, so the only court that matters now is the court of public opinion. Put them all on the stand and make them tell their lies. At least some people will see the truth behind what they say. A special prosecutor will only hide the entire sordid affair from the public, and just like the Whitewater conspiracy, the MSM will sweep it off the front pages and finally under the carpet.

Certainly demonstrably, by your own hand, more arrogant.

Learner has a Constitutional right to not give testimony that incriminates herself. She DOES NOT have any rights to not answer questions. Issa, et al need to ask intelligently crafted questions to solicit the names of everyone at the IRS who had any part in this, and if Learner knows any of those names, she either answers the questions or she's in contempt or she's perjuring herself. She has no Constitutional protections from being compelled to testify to what she knows other than what would be self-incriminating. Put the screws to her and twist hard!

Nope, she's the best the Dems have anywhere...

Well, it's only natural... like a dog licking his... Pelosi just can't help herself. Equally natural are all the Kalifonians who vote for her like crack-addled monkeys pushing a button in a lab experiment, and for pretty much the same reasons. (That is the crack-addled monkeys and Kalifonian voters pushing button. But then again, Pelosi probably has the need to open her pie-hole for the same reasons Old Yeller licks his ... )

"Orders? Orders!? We don' need no stinkin' orders!" Those unionized prog-lib IRS bureaucrats don't need anyone to tell them what they should do or can get away with, especially with uber-prog-lib Democrat political appointees in charge to look the other way...