AG Holder held in Criminal Contempt


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
June 28, 2012, 05:54 PM
.

Well, it finally happened. They voted to hold AG Holder in Criminal Contempt. The first time in US history that an AG has ever been held in contempt.




I believe this is mostly a symbolic ruling and the AG will not be held accountable.



What do you think?




And for those anti-2nd Amendment folks who believe that it was President Bush's fault, why didn't the AG and the Obama administration just blame President Bush like they do for most things and say, "It was President Bush's fault, here's all of the documents proving it." and then releasing said documents.
.

If you enjoyed reading about "AG Holder held in Criminal Contempt" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Fishslayer
June 28, 2012, 06:15 PM
I believe this is mostly a symbolic ruling and the AG will not be held accountable.

What do you think?


He will be frowned upon. Maybe strongly disapproved of. He MAY even get a stern talking to! :eek:

rcmodel
June 28, 2012, 06:16 PM
He may even get a Presidential Pardon and a bonus check later today.

rc

Wangmuf
June 28, 2012, 06:21 PM
I believe the civil trial will go down, but I don't think Justice will choose to prosecute their boss.

CoRoMo
June 28, 2012, 06:22 PM
I believe this is mostly a symbolic ruling and the AG will not be held accountable.
I don't think it is symbolic. He was obstructing justice and he was publicly/officially 'dishonored' for it. History will forever know what happened and why.

But this is probably the full extent of his 'punishment'. More than likely, he's off the hook now.

jfrey
June 28, 2012, 06:27 PM
This whole thing is a joke. Crimes have been committed and no one will ever go to jail for it. I'm tired of politics in DC.

Deltaboy
June 28, 2012, 06:50 PM
It would be nice if the police on some level would arrest Holder and lock him up in the DC Jail.

razorback2003
June 28, 2012, 06:52 PM
Nothing will happen. Didn't the treasury secretary get called out on tax evasion but just got a slap on the wrist. A New York congressman same thing tax evasion and just a stern word. You or I do the same thing and we go to jail.

2000Yards
June 28, 2012, 06:55 PM
As all Presidents do, for those who do their dirty work, he will be pardoned (reminiscent of Scooter Libby).

2KYDS

ErieLurker
June 28, 2012, 07:19 PM
Barring an extraordinary turn of events, Holder will walk. But at least his name is officially mud.

wannabeagunsmith
June 28, 2012, 07:29 PM
God bless America.

JERRY
June 28, 2012, 08:13 PM
this contempt vote will be as effective as the impeachment vote of clinton.

nothing will come of it.

Double Naught Spy
June 28, 2012, 08:18 PM
So they voted him in contempt. Is he being held pending a bond hearing? Was he arrested?

How do you get the Justice Dept. to prosecute itself?

verdun59
June 28, 2012, 08:34 PM
I'm betting nothing will happen to him, after all he was corrupt in the Clinton administration. He should never have been approved.

leadcounsel
June 28, 2012, 09:18 PM
Seems to me that his state bar should disbar him.

Can't be a lawyer without it.

Doubt you can be Attorney General without a law license.

DesertFox
June 28, 2012, 09:34 PM
Status quo, ya know?:barf:

As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, he'll go down in history for this but suffer very little, if any, punitive sanctions.

Gaiudo
June 28, 2012, 10:19 PM
Despite all of the cries of conspiratorial inaction from Congress from many over the past months, this is in fact a fairly significant step in continuing to press the case. This is one of the tools/weapons Congress has at its disposal, and they are correct in using it. Further action must be taken, but this is a positive indication that Bohner et al pressed the issue, and proof that political pressure (i.e., the "we") have not allowed this topic to get disappeared. Remember that most on this board considered it highly unlikely that a contempt vote would come about.

Continue to pressure your reps, and we'll see what comes next.

rugerman
June 28, 2012, 10:38 PM
Don't think that anything much will come from this but I'm glad that the republicans and a few democrats finally grew balls and did something right.

Furncliff
June 28, 2012, 10:40 PM
Political theater, motivated not by a search for the truth, but for a political advantage.

JellyJar
June 28, 2012, 10:41 PM
If holder goes I suspect he will take Obama with him.

7.62 Nato
June 28, 2012, 10:49 PM
He may even get admonished !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYmUU84ro0Q

shotgunjoel
June 28, 2012, 10:51 PM
I believe the civil trial will go down, but I don't think Justice will choose to prosecute their boss.
Sure they'll prosecute, they'll put some young attorney on it who doesn't know what he's doing, and they'll put up a great legal team to defend Holder. It's like if you got to pick both teams during a pick-up basketball game. Tall guys on my team, little fat guys over there.

How do you get the Justice Dept. to prosecute itself?
It's the US Government, they'll find a way.

<deleted>

Neverwinter
June 28, 2012, 11:52 PM
Seems to me that his state bar should disbar him.

Can't be a lawyer without it.

Doubt you can be Attorney General without a law license.
You can still be a paid lobbyist despite being disbarred.

In fact, there's precedent for government appointees leaving their position to work in private industry.

FCC Commissioner Becomes Comcast Lobbyist After Approving Comcast Deal

You were, likely, worried about the ability of Comcast-NBC to push effectively for its interests on Capitol Hill. Sorry — we mean, push for the interests of American consumers. But worry no more! The cable giant has hired Meredith Attwell Baker for "a top DC lobbying job," and we have a feeling she's going to do a great job. You've heard of Baker — she used to be one of the Republican commissioners of the FCC. Four months ago, she voted to approve the NBC-Comcast merger? But that was four whole months ago, so Comcast probably forgot about it before they hired her.

source: http://gawker.com/5801067/fcc-commissioner-becomes-comcast-lobbyist-after-approving-comcast-deal

If he was orchestrating OF&F, then maybe Soros might have a position for him.

arcticap
June 29, 2012, 02:10 AM
He's lost his credibility and should resign or be fired by the POTUS.
He's a liability to the whole country and can't be trusted to look out for our national interest.

test drive
June 29, 2012, 02:43 AM
couldnt have happen to a nicer person

YankeeFlyr
June 29, 2012, 02:43 AM
Why is this on a gun forum?





Oh, yeah. Nevermind.

awgrizzly
June 29, 2012, 03:38 AM
Holder will likely not be punished, but there is a useful purpose for the contempt resolution, especially the civil contempt charge. Congress can now go to a civil court and have the court force the DoJ to show cause why each document should not be turned over as demanded by Congress. The problem is that it can be a long process which would run past the election. Thus it would satisfy the probable purpose in declaring executive privilege... delay. We may not learn if the intent was further gun control until it is too late or moot.

Varmiter
June 29, 2012, 04:10 AM
“Why is this on a gun forum?”. The mind boggles.

I can’t believe what I’m reading here. Nobody seems to be able to look past today, let alone tomorrow.

This is a wake up call folks. Not only with the contempt of Holder but with the decision of Obamacare as well.

It would be inappropriate to post all I have to say regarding today on this forum. For those who may be interested, have a look at the link below.

http://www.freelibertywriters.com/chris-woodard/2012/6/28/todays-decisionsopinions-now-fall-on-us-we-the-people.html

Nuff said.

Chris

303tom
June 29, 2012, 10:26 AM
Jail Him............

roadchoad
June 29, 2012, 10:44 AM
I must say I'm disappointed by most of these responses, especially the apathy towards what should be seen as a step in the right direction for this case.

Kingcreek
June 29, 2012, 10:50 AM
As much as I would like to see him disbarred, dismissed, and severely punished... its probably just going to grind on and on until after the election

by which time everybody will be sick of it and it will be less relevant anyway
and then it will just fizzle out from apathy and its own buraucratic weight.

inclinebench
June 29, 2012, 11:56 AM
I think most of us would love to see Holder punished for this, and the full truth to come out on F&F, but history, and especially recent history have shown that the political elites will protect each other. Most of us have resigned to the fact that Holder is hiding the truth, but there is nothing that we can do about it. He knows this as well, which is why he is going on vacation today, and not worrying about the truth coming out.

ATBackPackin
June 29, 2012, 12:09 PM
I believe the civil trial will go down, but I don't think Justice will choose to prosecute their boss.

+1

I think it all comes down to whether a judge going to make them produce these documents to see if there is a cover up or a legitimate reason for the President to exert executive privilege.

ATBackPackin
June 29, 2012, 12:10 PM
Political theater, motivated not by a search for the truth, but for a political advantage.

Care to explain this further and back it with some facts?

zxcvbob
June 29, 2012, 12:36 PM
Sure they'll prosecute, they'll put some young attorney on it who doesn't know what he's doing, and they'll put up a great legal team to defend Holder. It's like if you got to pick both teams during a pick-up basketball game. Tall guys on my team, little fat guys over there.
I wish they'd seek the death penalty under the felony murder rule. That would shake things up. A young attorney just might go for it.

Furncliff
June 29, 2012, 12:48 PM
Sure. Here you go.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/?section=money_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_topstories+%28Top+Stories%29

X-Rap
June 29, 2012, 01:04 PM
Heck I hold congress in as much contempt as I do Holder, we are ruled by an Imperial gov. that steals from its subjects and takes turns covering for each others transgressions.
As proof I would submit the fortunes those in high places in gov. accumulate during and after their tenure. They make a pretty sum and have some sweet benefits but nothing like the fortunes they make on inside trading and influence peddling.

X-Rap
June 29, 2012, 01:11 PM
Sure. Here you go.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...Top+Stories%29
A real, comprehensive border policy would stop drug, human, gun, and money trafficking through our borders. No country in the world allows the traffic across it's borders with a third world nation like we do without knowing it is destrying itself from within.
Any policy that attacks one problem while ignoring the rest is doomed to fail.

7mmsavage
June 29, 2012, 01:18 PM
The AG did more than just obstruct justice. This was nothing but an attempt to villafy guns and gun owners with the ultimate goal being weapon bans. They had to know that this would lead to, at best, deaths in Mexico or what did happen, the death of US citizens.

Mike J
June 29, 2012, 03:07 PM
Furncliff you might be interested in reading this http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2012/06/fortunes-horribly-bad-reporting-on-fast-and-furious/

Carl N. Brown
June 29, 2012, 03:39 PM
And on that Fortune article: Katherine Eban claimed five ATF sources that ATF had no gun walking tactic. Were those five the heads of Operation Fast and Furious who were removed from their jobs in Aug 2011 when the "Gunwalker" scandal broke:
* Dennis Burke, US Attorney for Phoenix AZ under OF&F, retired.
* Kenneth Melson, ATF director, transferred to DoJ.
* David Voth, supervisor Phoenix, transferred to HQ office job.
* Bill Newell, SAC Phoenix, xfr to HQ.
* William McMahon, ATF deputy director of operations, xfr to HQ.
All but McMahon are named in the Fortune article. The main source is David Voth, who now claims the only guns "walked" in the whole Operation F&F were six Draco AK pistols "walked" by whistleblower Dodson in an undercover operation.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
Katherine Eban, "The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal", Fortune, 27 Jun 2012.

The Fortune article is credible if you have not been following the issue the past year and a half and have only been skimming headlines.

CAVHOOAH
June 29, 2012, 04:03 PM
Another well thought out addition from Yankeeflyr, congrats.



If you have the idea that nothing will happen, you have already rolled over and offered your belly to the beast. What a shame, what a shame.

It is our duty to not let this fail...get off your butts and turn off "Americas got talent" and voice your opinion. Since you all assume it is "theater"... and nothing will come of it.... then you will expect nothing will come of it. And when it starts moving that way, youll have already mentally prepared yourself for that hence you will accept it.

I on the other hand refuse to accept anything but justice...and if anything but justice appears to be coming of it, it will just step up my drive for getting the truth out..and awareness. While the rest will say... I figured that, as you go polish your firearms in the basement.

Sweet.

Where is the patriotic spirit... have you already considered yourself defeated ? Than you truly are... leeches on the patriotic few...leeches.


You should be ashamed. Its as much of a mental war against Americans than anything else, and if your weak minded.... youll accept that warfare and trudge on without raising your voice...

Ky Larry
June 29, 2012, 04:26 PM
It doesn't matter what Holder did, knew, or intended. B.O. will hand him a "Get out of jail free" card. The only thing that will stop B.O. from pardoning Holder is the fear that he will not get reelected. Yet another reason we can't let him return to the White House for another term.

loadedround
June 29, 2012, 04:27 PM
They may even take away his gun permit.

heron
June 29, 2012, 04:30 PM
I gave a big cheer when I saw the news of Holder being cited, but -- the more important issue is the withheld documents themselves. Will they show up? I'd like to think so, but I sure won't bet my next meal on it.

Sam Cade
June 29, 2012, 04:44 PM
No country in the world allows the traffic across it's borders with a third world nation like we do without knowing it is destrying itself from within.

The US does not share a border with a third world nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country

CoRoMo
June 29, 2012, 05:04 PM
This just hit...

Issa Puts Details of Secret Wiretap Applications in Congressional Record

http://www.rollcall.com/news/darrell_issa_puts_details_of_secret_wiretap_applications_in_congressional-215828-1.html?pos=htmbtxt

In the midst of a fiery floor debate over contempt proceedings for Attorney General Eric Holder, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) quietly dropped a bombshell letter into the Congressional Record.

ATBackPackin
June 29, 2012, 05:36 PM
Sure. Here you go.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/?section=money_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fmoney_topstories+%28Top+Stories%29

What a shock! They are trying to discredit the whistle blower. Who would have thunk of that.

More importantly, if you believe that article, I'm not sure what I could say to have you believe the truth. However if you are willing to listen with an open mind I would be willing to try.

moewadle
June 29, 2012, 07:33 PM
and does not belong on this forum, at the very least does not belong in this section. I would ask the mod to close it or move it.

Ignition Override
June 29, 2012, 07:42 PM
Sam Cade:
Even though Mexico is not a third-world nation, some areas remind me of two parts of Africa.
My parents spent three years in San Miguel d. A., a nice town in Guanajuato where lots of full and part-time expats live.

Driving down the roads to either the airport in Leon or the city of Guanajuato, it reminded me more of my week in Mogadishu ('81) than it did the US.
Back to guns.

TurtlePhish
June 29, 2012, 07:49 PM
Just saw on TV (NBC), Justice Dept. sent a letter saying that Eric Holder would not be prosecuted. :banghead:

X-Rap
June 29, 2012, 09:25 PM
The US does not share a border with a third world nation.


You can call Mexico whatever you wish but I have seen enough of it to forbid any of my family to set foot across that border, my son says Uncle Sugar won't let him go there. They seem to like to bury folks in mass graves and do a little beheading to keep the peasants in line. If you think cops in the US are a PITA get hooked up in the legal system down there, your family will go broke getting you back.
If this and much more isn't worth securing against then all you have to do is head south to paradise.

Capybara
June 29, 2012, 09:26 PM
Love that episode!

I want Holder to also be censured and admonished. Without pay!

Furncliff
June 30, 2012, 02:09 PM
Thanks for the link to Jack Moss' blog. I read a bunch of his stuff.
Unfortunately it's difficult if not impossible to reasonably assume that Mr. Moss could or would be impartial on a subject like this. Committed members of any base look for and find the truth they are looking for. Any writer searching out the truth and writing what he finds knows the truth can't fall on one side of the line 100% of the time. For Mr. Moss the truth falls on one side of the line 100% of the time.

leadcounsel
June 30, 2012, 05:01 PM
This will last well into the next POTUS term, and the next administration will crush Holder.

This is evidence that will prove that some people are above the law if he's not prosecuted. You better believe any of us would have been prosecuted.

Heck a guy from Washington just went to jail for a year for selling a gun to a Canadian. Why not those involved in authorizing F&F?

Read this article from Ann Coulter in which she outlines that the powers that be don't want to release the documents because F&F was a huge anti gun play by the administration to turn the nation against guns. Very sinister if true

http://news.investors.com/article/616669/201206291741/fast-furious-eric-holder-obama-corruption.htm

we are not amused
June 30, 2012, 05:37 PM
The main source is David Voth, who now claims the only guns "walked" in the whole Operation F&F were six Draco AK pistols "walked" by whistleblower Dodson in an undercover operation.

The Fortune article is credible if you have not been following the issue the past year and a half and have only been skimming headlines.

Sorry, I read the article and found it about as credible as the Easter Bunny.

Still, it is a good idea to find out how the gun banners and BATFE apologist are trying to spin the story. Interesting that they are blaming the Arizona U.S. Attorney, who happens to work for Eric Holder's Justice Dept.

For the information of the reporter, who seems to be overly credulous of David Voth. It seems to be an effort by Voth to sugarcoat his role. As for the "helplessness" of the BATFE to do anything, the BATFE has never been shy about abusing it's authority before. I find it incredible that anyone would believe it was as helpless to stop those guns as Voth and the reporter claim.

we are not amused
June 30, 2012, 05:41 PM
The US does not share a border with a third world nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_country
Sorry! I am not politically correct! :p

I was unaware that the Transi's (TranNationalSocialist) had a new term for third world hell holes. Whether Mexico is called a third world country, or a "NIC", it is still a lawless hell hole unless you are one of the fabulously wealthy or a tourist in one of the very carefully protected tourist zones.

we are not amused
June 30, 2012, 06:11 PM
This will last well into the next POTUS term, and the next administration will crush Holder.

This is evidence that will prove that some people are above the law if he's not prosecuted. You better believe any of us would have been prosecuted.

Heck a guy from Washington just went to jail for a year for selling a gun to a Canadian. Why not those involved in authorizing F&F?

Read this article from Ann Coulter in which she outlines that the powers that be don't want to release the documents because F&F was a huge anti gun play by the administration to turn the nation against guns. Very sinister if true

http://news.investors.com/article/616669/201206291741/fast-furious-eric-holder-obama-corruption.htm

Yes, so much for the idiot reporter Katherine Eban's false assertions that the penalties for "straw purchases" were hard to prove.

Ann Coulter's column is very interesting, I agree with it. I once got accused of being a "tin foil hat wearer" by a Moderator on this site, for suggesting the same, that was before the E-mails came out suggesting the same.:rolleyes:

I wear the accusation with pride!:neener:

we are not amused
June 30, 2012, 06:29 PM
By the way, Carl N Brown, I just reread my post, and realized, it sounded critical of you. My apologies, I realize that the way I wrote it made it sound as if you supported the story, when your post clearly indicated you did not. careless writing on my part, I had just read the article, and was in too big a hurry to say bad things about it to write coherently. :o

Neverwinter
June 30, 2012, 07:19 PM
Ann Coulter's column is very interesting, I agree with it. I once got accused of being a "tin foil hat wearer" by a Moderator on this site, for suggesting the same, that was before the E-mails came out suggesting the same.:rolleyes:

I wear the accusation with pride!:neener:
My applause goes out to the moderator willing to do so.

With so many threads on this same subject, I can't remember in which one I had referenced historical postings which came to conclusions which were in complete absence of existing evidence. Exhibit A has kindly been presented. And, curiously enough, is willing to wear the accusation of tin foil hattery as a warning to all readers.

we are not amused
June 30, 2012, 07:50 PM
My applause goes out to the moderator willing to do so.

With so many threads on this same subject, I can't remember in which one I had referenced historical postings which came to conclusions which were in complete absence of existing evidence. Exhibit A has kindly been presented. And, curiously enough, is willing to wear the accusation of tin foil hattery as a warning to all readers.

Considering your established pattern of argument, and the fact that e-mails supporting my position have been released, (the existing evidence you deny) I would be worried if you agreed with me.:neener:

You have always strongly attacked Republicans and Conservatives, and I would be disappointed if you changed your rant now.:p

I remember on one of the early "Fast and Furious" threads, you dismissed the entire story because "Faux News" had carried it. How embarrassing!:o

Have a nice, if clueless, day.:D

Neverwinter
June 30, 2012, 08:23 PM
Considering your established pattern of argument, and the fact that e-mails supporting my position have been released, (the existing evidence you deny) I would be worried if you agreed with me.:neener:

You mean these emails?

Two of Holder's emails and one by Deputy Attorney General James Cole were among documents the Justice Department showed Tuesday to Republican and Democratic staffers of the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee in an effort to ward off a criminal contempt vote against the attorney general.

The full contents of the emails were described to The Associated Press by two people who have seen them. Both people spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about them publicly.

For the past year and a half, some Republicans have promoted the idea that Holder and other top-level officials at the Justice Department knew federal agents in Operation Fast and Furious had engaged in a risky tactic known as "gun-walking."

Two of Holder's emails and one from Cole appear to show that they hadn't known about gun-walking but were determined to find out whether the allegations were true.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6blqmM2jeQ8hxrVDaHVUshQLokA?docId=44ff0778c01e45709c1df986a2be0c4e

I remember on one of the early "Fast and Furious" threads, you dismissed the entire story because "Faux News" had carried it. How embarrassing!:o
Issa kept his focus on the Justice Department, clarifying that he has no evidence the White House was involved in any Fast and Furious cover-up.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/24/issa-predicts-bipartisan-contempt-vote-against-holder-this-week/

Now we can see if the dancing is to the beat of the drum of Fox News.

Carl N. Brown
July 1, 2012, 09:48 AM
We are not amused: I understood what you meant. No offense seen or taken.

Any who. Heads of Operation Fast and Furious who were removed from their jobs in Aug 2011 when the "Gunwalker" scandal broke:
* Dennis Burke, US Attorney for Phoenix AZ under OF&F, retired.
* Kenneth Melson, ATF director, transferred to DoJ.
* David Voth, supervisor Phoenix, transferred to HQ office job.
* Bill Newell, SAC Phoenix, xfr to HQ.
* William McMahon, ATF deputy director of operations, xfr to HQ.
Now some of them are coming out as stalking horse spokespersons for the operation, the Bureau and the Administration.
David Voth has become the stalking horse for the print media.
Bill Newell is the stalking horse for the TV news (I guess he comes across better on audio/video).


These peoples' idea of "cutting off the head of the snake"--allowing guns to walk to lead Phoenix ATF/USAO to the gun trafficking king pins, and taking down the king pin and ending it all in one fell swoop--is the stuff fantasies are made of.

Literally, there are dozens of rival cartel heads on the Mexican side of the border waving fistfuls of dollars, and hundreds if not thousands of little snakes on this side willing to take the risk of smuggling guns for their share of those dollars. It is almost like the radical concept of "leaderless resistence"--only in this case it is leaderless black marketeering. There is no king pin snake and cutting his head off will not kill the den of snakes. The lure of the black market creates the den of snakes, little ones as well as big.

Allegedly in the 1920s Al Capone would "vacation" in nearby Johnson City--"Little Chicago"-- while his buyers made connections with local moonshiners/bootleggers for grain alcohol to have shipped to Chicago to be flavored with juniper as bathtub gin. When Capone was sent to prison, the moonshers/bootleggers continued as long as there was national prohibition, local option dry laws, or just a preference for "white lightning" over the legal stuff. Cutting off the head of that snake (Capone) did not stop the den of snakes from continuing.

we are not amused
July 1, 2012, 11:14 AM
You mean these emails?



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6blqmM2jeQ8hxrVDaHVUshQLokA?docId=44ff0778c01e45709c1df986a2be0c4e



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/24/issa-predicts-bipartisan-contempt-vote-against-holder-this-week/

Now we can see if the dancing is to the beat of the drum of Fox News.

No, these documents.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

See! Fox News is not the only irresponsible News Service telling lies about your hero Eric Holder and your favorite government agency, the BATFE.:neener:

Seriously, there is another thread currently active about what the purpose of "Fast and Furious" was. I suggest you read it. You may find I am not alone in my suspicions.

danez71
July 1, 2012, 11:41 AM
Im not amused by the derogatory/inflammatory undertones in your posts towards people and countries.

Mexico, like the USA and many other countries in the world, have area that are very modern as well as very rural. Corruption is in all of them too.

Calling Mexico a "hell hole" is about as valid as saying "guns are evil".


Tactics like that devalues whatever valid point your trying to make.

x_wrench
July 1, 2012, 11:53 AM
all this really amounts to is a slap across the fingers with a wooden ruler. there will never be anything serious done. to do so, would mean that the big O made a mistake. and that would be political suicide. it is way better to look good, than do what is correct and right for the good of the country.

we are not amused
July 1, 2012, 01:00 PM
Im not amused by the derogatory/inflammatory undertones in your posts towards people and countries.

Mexico, like the USA and many other countries in the world, have area that are very modern as well as very rural. Corruption is in all of them too.

Calling Mexico a "hell hole" is about as valid as saying "guns are evil".


Tactics like that devalues whatever valid point your trying to make.

I Am Not Amused that you are not amused by my opinion of the hellhole known as Mexico! :p Okay, okay! I really am amused.:D

What Was I Thinking! :what: Of course Mexico is a shining example of an enlightened modern State! :D And if We try REALLY, REALLY HARD, we can be just like them! :neener:
We can have the same level of corruption as they do, where Rule of Law is determined by your bank account, where the police and military routinely sell arms and equipment to armed criminal gangs who engage in kidnapping for money, and engage in bloody gang wars amongst themselves for control of international drug trade.
We can have the same government that encourages it Citizens to violate the sovereignty of it's neighbors as a deliberate policy, because it is too corrupt and poor to take care of it's own Citizens.

My, my, I am sure glad you brought me to my senses about how great Mexico is! All those beheadings and shootings, are just figments of some reporters imagination, and I am sure glad you think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread.:barf:

Double Naught Spy
July 1, 2012, 01:24 PM
Seems to me that his state bar should disbar him.

Can't be a lawyer without it.

Doubt you can be Attorney General without a law license.

The US AG does not actually practice law. No law license required as far as I can discern from the 1789 and 1870 creation laws relative to the position and the office. The original position called for a person to be knowledgeable about the law to hold the position which now apparently means having a law degree. That AG is really nothing more than a legal advisor and judicial system manager. He probably should have a license, but I don't see where it is required.

danez71
July 1, 2012, 03:09 PM
My, my, I am sure glad you brought me to my senses about how great Mexico is! All those beheadings and shootings, are just figments of some reporters imagination, and I am sure glad you think they are the greatest thing since sliced bread.:barf:

I said no such thing..... not even close or hinted at.

You alluding to such only discredits yourself.

45bthompson
July 1, 2012, 04:05 PM
Just a few brief thoughts.... 1 Holding a law degree and passing the bar should definitely be a prerequisite to being the ATTORNEY general. 2 Mexico is a hell hole. 3 Ann Coulter should never be taken seriously unless the topic is venereal disease. 4 Holder should swing for his blatant disrespect to the American populace. 5 My opinions also do not deserve to be taken seriously!

atomd
July 1, 2012, 05:31 PM
On the legal end of this....this is not about the operation anymore (although I still think someone should answer for the operation itself). This is about how they lied to Congress. The Justice Department gave false documents to congress to try and cover this up. That part is not up for debate. They lied. The end. Did Holder know about it? If you say no, you're odds aren't looking good at this point.

A lot of times it's not the "crime" that gets you....it's the cover up. Watergate, Clinton, etc etc...heck...even Roger Clemens had a hard time.

CAVHOOAH
July 1, 2012, 08:00 PM
Some should entertain the idea of studying up before posting garbage....lol.

Lets see what I can pull out of the hat today. Be sure to take the time to read all three pages....otherwise, your future commenting will be regarded by me as "hogwash".

Heres the latest "T-III" info that may be interesting to those who care...to care.
(PS, T-III is lingo for wiretap)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca2_1341068707


Facts...not assumptions.

Please take the time to actually read the documents and NOT post some biased BS from a news station of third partyassumptions of what it says. If you cant read and understand it..... you dont need to argue in this arena. Parroting of others veiws is just that.....parroting. <Deleted>


My name is CAV, and I approve this message

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca2_1341068707




Also, another issue detailed in the papers... questions if the paperwork was pencil whipped. Meaning was it placed on a desk of high ranking officials, where they skimmed at best... read the title at worst.... then threw a signature to it and moved on. Also...as stated in the papers above.... the evidence of guns being allowed to walk was totally against SOP and the required restrictions placed on ATF. These measures where contained in the wire tap request, where it was obviously "overlooked" somehow and allowed to continue. The gun running that is.

Any fresh out of school lawyer would have caught this, even me...with no formal law training. Yet some of the supposed "best governmet officials" didnt see the blatant and repeated infractions of this very specific S.O.P placed in the ATF ? I dont buy it..... and neither should anyone with a brain in thier skulls.

Jeff F
July 1, 2012, 10:22 PM
Wouldn't he have to prosecute himself? I don't see that happening.

CAVHOOAH
July 1, 2012, 11:03 PM
Hence Issa's prior approval for Civil also along with pre approval to put together a group to take care of the investigation issue. Hes actually thought this out quite well. All this info is out there. Please do not rely on a forum, or the news for that matter to get info. I suggest we all search and well be much better off. As always, dont take my word for it, see it for yourself.

I hate to post links to any news firm, but in the effort of expediancy....heres Fox. (I will wash my mouth out now).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/after-holder-contempt-vote-republicans-eye-civil-court-case-to-extract-furious/



DO NOT LOOSE FAITH ! DO NOT ASSUME WE ARE DEFEATED ! They would love nothing more for the American people to take that pill, swallow it and move on. We can hold them accountable, do not fall for the hype. There is actually a GREAT chance of victory here, by-pass the propaganda and get to the facts.

Neverwinter
July 2, 2012, 01:50 AM
Heres the latest "T-III" info that may be interesting to those who care...to care.
(PS, T-III is lingo for wiretap)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca2_1341068707

Also, another issue detailed in the papers... questions if the paperwork was pencil whipped. Meaning was it placed on a desk of high ranking officials, where they skimmed at best... read the title at worst.... then threw a signature to it and moved on. Also...as stated in the papers above.... the evidence of guns being allowed to walk was totally against SOP and the required restrictions placed on ATF. These measures where contained in the wire tap request, where it was obviously "overlooked" somehow and allowed to continue. The gun running that is.
Thank you for posting that primary source which corroborates the Associated Press quote that I posted earlier indicating the lack of knowledge by Holder and Cole of gun walking from their emails.

As explained in the document, the processing of the wiretaps requires the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division agency of the DoJ to approve the wiretaps after reviewing what the previous operational details which did not achieve the investigative information necessary. In practice, this meant that a top deputy of Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division Lanny Breuer would have looked at reports of gun walking. Gun walking which as the document states, was reiterated by Cole in March 2011 as being against departmental policy.

This fits into the timeline that the Associated Press article describes based on the reported emails. Five days after the CBS News report accusing gun walking came out, Holder sent a request to the Inspector General to begin an investigation, which is a rational response to discovering that individuals in the department were acting against departmental policy.

"I hope the AG understands that we did not allow guns to walk," an official at the ATF's Washington headquarters said on March 10 in an email that Holder's aides forwarded to the attorney general.

In a response, Holder wrote, "Do they really, really know" that there was no gun-walking?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6blqmM2jeQ8hxrVDaHVUshQLokA?docId=44ff0778c01e45709c1df986a2be0c4e

CAVHOOAH
July 2, 2012, 02:30 AM
Indicating lack of knowledge ? I didnt get that.

I got alot of stuttering and dancing aroung via holder in those pages. Didnt you see that ? Heck, was written ver-batem. I keep hearing as also stated by another member in another post.. "I am not a crook!" (jowels flappin and all). Im sure they have the fall guy already in place if need be.

Holders anti-gun agenda has been long acknowleged, by his words and his actions. Cant wait to get to the real meat of this subject, all we are getting now is teasers and tickles of warm fuzziness.

Now back to executive privilige, why would Holder cry to Obama to lock it down if all the good stuff has already been released ? Any assumptions yet ? Ive got a few shared with others...but they are just assumptions as of now.

Anywho, Its gonna be good if they think we as American people will let this die without knowing the whole truth. Any assumptions on Holders deny, dely and lock down strategy ?

5 days is not timely.... especially with huge allegations. One day, two days...tops. Must have taken them 5 days to crap a good story and backcheck it before claiming ignorance.

we are not amused
July 2, 2012, 11:27 AM
Indicating lack of knowledge ? I didnt get that.

I got alot of stuttering and dancing aroung via holder in those pages. Didnt you see that ? Heck, was written ver-batem. I keep hearing as also stated by another member in another post.. "I am not a crook!" (jowels flappin and all). Im sure they have the fall guy already in place if need be.



Now back to executive privilige, why would Holder cry to Obama to lock it down if all the good stuff has already been released ? Any assumptions yet ? Ive got a few shared with others...but they are just assumptions as of now.



I particularly liked the part where Dem. Rep. Cummings got slapped down by Issa for lying.

I remember seeing on C-Span when Holder tried to explain why he had lied -oops! presented false information to Congress. I believe that much of it is available on YouTube. His explanation, was at best, unconvincing.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nssa3wqDBwM

I am not sure they have a fall guy picked out yet, I think it may go too high up for there to be a politically acceptable fall guy, at least not before the November elections.

The Congressional record can be accessed directly on the internet back to 1989. It makes fascinating reading if you have the stomach to wade through a lot of B.S. Just be aware that the record does not necessarily match what you see on C-Span, as the members can "correct or extend" their remarks.

Ryanxia
July 2, 2012, 12:03 PM
That's fantastic! Hope something more comes of it.

Neverwinter
July 3, 2012, 12:40 AM
Indicating lack of knowledge ? I didnt get that.

It's rather explicit in the transcript regarding who is implicated as being privy to the operational details as a matter of the T-III request process: A deputy of the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division of the DoJ.

Now back to executive privilige, why would Holder cry to Obama to lock it down if all the good stuff has already been released ? Any assumptions yet ? Ive got a few shared with others...but they are just assumptions as of now.There's the assumption that because Obama has covered internal communications after February 2011, that there is evidence of wrong doing by Obama. This takes advantage of the assumptions that some have made that Obama was directly orchestrating OF&F, despite the lack of evidence for such as described by Issa.(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/24/issa-predicts-bipartisan-contempt-vote-against-holder-this-week/)

It's an ingenious methodology when observed from the strategic view. They just need to request information which would never be available to them under normal circumstances(the communication processes of the executive branch when responding to the legislative). If the president uses executive privilege, they can make the claim that the evidence that they imagine must be contained in the protected paperwork and use that to prop up a position that Obama must have been behind it. From the looks of it, that strategy was successful. If the paperwork is released, they have successfully fished for their target. Even if nothing is produced from the released documents, they can still throw the red meat to their constituents with the conspiratorial platitude that "the shredders must have been working over time" to gloss over the absence of evidence.

5 days is not timely.... especially with huge allegations. One day, two days...tops. Must have taken them 5 days to crap a good story and backcheck it before claiming ignorance.We've already presupposed that all high-ranking officials in the DoJ belong to a shared hive mind in which the deputies of the Assistant Attorney General of an agency under the DoJ share complete perception all the way up to Obama. With such conspiratorial capabilities, it would take one day, two day tops to fake a story, if they hadn't already planned out the story well beforehand. :eek:

CAVHOOAH
July 3, 2012, 02:21 AM
Neverwinter, I do enjoy listening to your opinions...although its yet to be seen what actually is going on here. Obama and his crew...must go...that much I know factually. Wonder what hes hiding, and why should our government hide anything from the people who employ them ? This must be that great "transparent" government he sold some on in his BS campaign. No taxes for the middle class ? Hmmm...healthcare. Thats not a duck..."quack"..no really thats bob, I swear..."quack"... lol. Holder came from commieville chicago right from the right hip of obama, wich means he smells of Obama armpit sweat and it sure does stink.

Got anything new ? or are you just letting me bring in all the meat to the table for you do disect ? Playing your cards like Holder..."we didnt allow guns south"....11 months later "oh, you know what information now?"..."what I meant to say was we did allow guns to head south".....Theres a generall consensus here in this forum and others like it.... some are a round peg. Got anything youd like to bring up other than trying to discredit the obvious ? I dont buy it.


One more thing to remember, the more they try to make it complex, the more simple really is. Talk is just that...talk. lets see what the cards have in store for this group after the papers are released... Im betting there are quite a few agendas that were in the works...as stated by Issa, another AWB or such was being kicked around in these emails....due to all the american guns heading south...lol. If that alone doesnt tell you the scum we are dealing with....common sense is not in your vocabulary.

Not sure how anyone loving firearms and the security the afford us could even stand to look at a picture of these whale turds...much less TRY to defend them ? WOW

leadcounsel
July 3, 2012, 02:46 AM
Not many reasons not to release exonerating documents.

Just like a suspect who invokes his rights because talking will be harmful, or testifying will be harmful... (yes I realize that cannot be used against him in a court of law...) But...

Makes you wonder what the coverup is.

atomd
July 3, 2012, 09:04 AM
There's the assumption that because Obama has covered internal communications after February 2011, that there is evidence of wrong doing by Obama. This takes advantage of the assumptions that some have made that Obama was directly orchestrating OF&F, despite the lack of evidence for such as described by Issa.(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...der-this-week/)

It's an ingenious methodology when observed from the strategic view. They just need to request information which would never be available to them under normal circumstances(the communication processes of the executive branch when responding to the legislative). If the president uses executive privilege, they can make the claim that the evidence that they imagine must be contained in the protected paperwork and use that to prop up a position that Obama must have been behind it. From the looks of it, that strategy was successful. If the paperwork is released, they have successfully fished for their target. Even if nothing is produced from the released documents, they can still throw the red meat to their constituents with the conspiratorial platitude that "the shredders must have been working over time" to gloss over the absence of evidence.

But all of this could have been avoided if they never tried to hide the information in the first place (and then present false information...and then lie about that). Executive privilege was never intended to be used for this sort of thing anyways. It would be used to hide communications between the president and his top advisers for the interest of national security, etc. Since he played that card, it immediately puts scrutiny on him and he knew it would. He's not going to go out of his way to hide nothing. It's just human nature to think there's something wrong when someone his hiding something. Maybe he's hiding it to protect himself...maybe he's hiding it to protect Holder...who knows. Generally people don't hide things that show what a great job they did. It doesn't take Issa or Fox News to tell you that it's suspicious....it's just plain suspicious period.

we are not amused
July 3, 2012, 10:18 AM
Neverwinter,
Got anything new ? or are you just letting me bring in all the meat to the table for you do disect ? Playing your cards like Holder..."we didnt allow guns south"....11 months later "oh, you know what information now?"..."what I meant to say was we did allow guns to head south".....Theres a generall consensus here in this forum and others like it.... some are a round peg. Got anything youd like to bring up other than trying to discredit the obvious ? I dont buy it.

common sense is not in your vocabulary.

Not sure how anyone loving firearms and the security the afford us could even stand to look at a picture of these whale turds...much less TRY to defend them ? WOW

<deleted>


The request for documents is limited to find out why Holder lied, OOPS! misinformed Congress, not unfortunately the wider picture of who ordered and approved the gun walking. There is however, some reason to believe those requested documents will reveal who knew what and when. Which may be why the resistance to the subpena.

Neverwinter
July 3, 2012, 11:48 AM
Neverwinter, I do enjoy listening to your opinions...although its yet to be seen what actually is going on here. Obama and his crew...must go...that much I know factually. Wonder what hes hiding, and why should our government hide anything from the people who employ them ? This must be that great "transparent" government he sold some on in his BS campaign.If that's true, then we shouldn't have any problems releasing our troop movements to our citizens, since we employ them. There's a reason not to expose basic operational details, especially if releasing them reduces the ability to function. This is true whether we're talking about troop movements, or the process by which the executive responds to the legislative.

Got anything new ? or are you just letting me bring in all the meat to the table for you do disect ? Playing your cards like Holder..."we didnt allow guns south"....11 months later "oh, you know what information now?"..."what I meant to say was we did allow guns to head south".....Theres a generall consensus here in this forum and others like it.... some are a round peg. Got anything youd like to bring up other than trying to discredit the obvious ? I dont buy it.You just discussed the timeline from an article that I linked, so I'm not sure what your contention regarding sources is here.

With regard to consensus, that's not necessarily a fact based process. If one is to start out with the preconception that there was a conspiracy involving a branch of government from the personnel laterally transferred all the way up to the president, I would have to agree that none of the information available would dispel that preconception. Then again, even if the documents currently covered by executive privilege are released and found not to have any culpatory evidence, the consensus would hardly be changed. Look at the rumblings in another thread, And any documents that would be damaging will be destroyed before they're ever released or forced to be turned over. Its simply the way of Washington so no one should get their hopes up that any real justice comes out of this.. The excuses for why the lack of evidence only makes their preconceptions stronger have already been prepared. It's the reason that we still have people who believe our president is Kenyan despite two birth certificate releases.

as stated by Issa, another AWB or such was being kicked around in these emails....due to all the american guns heading south...lol. If that alone doesnt tell you the scum we are dealing with....common sense is not in your vocabulary.

Not sure how anyone loving firearms and the security the afford us could even stand to look at a picture of these whale turds...much less TRY to defend them ? WOWI'm going to quote Nushif on this:
Here's my issue with this notion of operation F&F being done solely to tighten gun control in the US.

While there was the chance that these guns imported into Mexico by the US government would be used in crimes and then would receive national attention, the reliability of this plan leaves a lot to be desired.
If we can't reliably track where they go, what makes us think we can reliably track which crime they will be used for? How do I know the cartel won't simply sell the nicely brand-spankin-new M4 for profit, grab themselves three UZIs and call it good? Let's face it, it makes no sense to rely on a criminal cartel to do your conspiracy work for you.

Let's face it, if I were an anti gun president, and I wanted to slap a big ol' high profile case up there to tighten up laws I'd reach for a solution that relies less on a Mexican drug cartel and more on assets I could you know ... actually control.

I do think we have to apply Occam's Razor here. And Occam's Razor tells me it is much, much, more likely that it simply was just an incredibly ridiculous plot to track some weapons to a potential kingpin and then to nail him than it is the conspiracy of a president busy with all kinds of other problems to tighten gun laws, of all things.

I'm not gonna sit here and say the executive and legislative here is innocent, but pinning some high end conspiracy with more plot twists than your average Jack Bauer show seems at least mildly delusional to me when there is the very, very easy explanation that it was just a really dumb idea that somehow made it through the system, got funding and then got assigned to someone dumb enough to want to execute it.

I know when it comes to blaming antis we ascribe to them a lot of sinister motives and endless resources, alongside the willpower and infrastructure to do absolutely anything up to and including influence in NATO circles, but let's face it ... gun control isn't popular and it is very, very much more likely that it was just an incredibly dumb plan.


<deleted>

CAVHOOAH
July 3, 2012, 02:12 PM
We are not amused, point taken and concur.

<deleted>

Ill be back when more news is released, but <deleted>.... I still have faith, not in government but The People and its not hard at all to see the hints of coverup here. Unless of course, you have a different agenda....<deleted>

atomd
July 3, 2012, 03:34 PM
If that's true, then we shouldn't have any problems releasing our troop movements to our citizens, since we employ them. There's a reason not to expose basic operational details, especially if releasing them reduces the ability to function. This is true whether we're talking about troop movements, or the process by which the executive responds to the legislative.

This is a moot point. Issa changed his request for only information beyond the operation end date. He doesn't want the information on the operation itself anymore. He wants information on the cover up. You used the term "fishing" previously. That term was used by Holder and by the white house to describe the inquiry (probably why you like that term). This isn't "fishing". Using the term fishing makes it look like they have no direction...they are just taking shots in the dark (like there's really nothing there to begin with).

In this case, we knowingly gave guns to cartels. Innocent people were murdered (including Americans). We had no way to track where these guns went. When this is investigated, thousands of documents were withheld, false documents were submitted, Eric Holder withheld information and lied about it. They then found him in contempt.

So because we want to know why this was covered up and lied about, we're "fishing"? People are DEAD because of this. The people deserve to know how and why this happened and how far up this went. The people deserve to know why this was lied about and covered up.

atomd
July 3, 2012, 03:45 PM
Also, to further disprove your theory about why they did not release the documents:
It is common practice to list the documents you have in your possession and then a reason why you can't submit those documents. They have refused to even hand that over. Why? It would contain no sensitive information at all....just a list and a reason. If there were an ongoing investigation that would be compromised it would say it right there. They only gave over around 8% of all the documents requested.

hang fire
July 4, 2012, 03:30 AM
Just read where the two bloggers that first broke the F&F story have filed an ethics complaint against Holder. Guess they don't trust the congress critters to really follow through on all their tough talk.

Bubbles
July 5, 2012, 09:25 AM
Just read where the two bloggers that first broke the F&F story have filed an ethics complaint against Holder.
The goal is to get Holder disbarred. I don't know if that would cause him to automatically lose his job as AG or not.
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2012/07/sipsey-street-exclusive-mike.html

JFrame
July 6, 2012, 09:23 AM
Here's my issue with this notion of operation F&F being done solely to tighten gun control in the US.

While there was the chance that these guns imported into Mexico by the US government would be used in crimes and then would receive national attention, the reliability of this plan leaves a lot to be desired.
If we can't reliably track where they go, what makes us think we can reliably track which crime they will be used for? How do I know the cartel won't simply sell the nicely brand-spankin-new M4 for profit, grab themselves three UZIs and call it good? Let's face it, it makes no sense to rely on a criminal cartel to do your conspiracy work for you.

This argument somewhat ignores what the Holder "Justice" Department, along with other federal agencies, have ALREADY done in regard to painting the U.S. arms market as culpable for Mexican gang violence. Some time ago, the FedGov issued a report that 90 percent of all guns used by Mexican criminals came from the U.S. Only after scrutiny of the report raised questions did the FedGov "clarify" that the "90 percent" only referred to those guns that could actually be traced as to its national origin.

Clearly, this administration had/has a vested interest in giving the U.S. arms market a black eye. Infusing the Mexican gang market with thousands of additional "traceable" U.S. guns only adds to their narrative.


.

Deanimator
July 6, 2012, 12:56 PM
Only after scrutiny of the report raised questions did the FedGov "clarify" that the "90 percent" only referred to those guns that could actually be traced as to its national origin.
Actually, I believe it was firearms which they arbitrarily CHOSE to be traced.

X-Rap
July 6, 2012, 01:27 PM
The 90% was a joke, many of the photos showing huge caches of weapons contained grenades, full auto weapons, and other contraban that no American can just go into his LGS and buy. There were no statistics on the number of weapons found that had serial numbers that could be traced back through channels supplying the Mexican or other Cent/So American gov agency.
The types of weapons found in Mexico could have origins from around the globe and there are plenty of dirty cops, soldiers in Mexico alone to have sold off what we or other govs. have given them not to mention the world wide illegal arms trade.
We are talking about people that literally have no limits on the money they can spend and they are in a country in which corruption allows for things we can hardly imagine. They are also the neighbor to what may be the most envied country on earth and there are plenty of people wanting to capitalize on that and are constantly working at destabilizing US.

JFrame
July 6, 2012, 01:55 PM
Actually, I believe it was firearms which they arbitrarily CHOSE to be traced.


Okay -- thank you for the correction! :)


.

Neverwinter
July 8, 2012, 02:01 AM
This is a moot point. Issa changed his request for only information beyond the operation end date. He doesn't want the information on the operation itself anymore. He wants information on the cover up. ... Using the term fishing makes it look like they have no direction...they are just taking shots in the dark (like there's really nothing there to begin with).
It perhaps is directed in the sense that it is the fallback when the original position, that Holder was involved in the orchestration of a gun walking plan, was shown to be indefensible using the evidence. It's the same tactic which has been used by creationists when more evidence that refutes their ridiculous claims emerges, known as the "God of the gaps." They can still fight back from the refuge that remains. More recently invoked with the Obama birth certificate, falling back to more desperate positions as more evidence that demolished their position was revealed.

The original premise of Holder orchestrating gun walking to promote gun control hasn't held water, and that much is suggested with the move to focus on an alleged cover up by Holder after the gun walking plan had already completed.

So because we want to know why this was covered up and lied about, we're "fishing"? People are DEAD because of this. The people deserve to know how and why this happened and how far up this went. The people deserve to know why this was lied about and covered up.The "how" isn't going to be answered with the documents from after the operation. And the "why" as being discussed in this thread is about finding the answers that the questioners are looking for, see the above section and see the posts at the very beginning which claimed that it went all the way up even though the evidence hadn't supported their beliefs.

They gave him the same treatment as the race baiters who read the first articles on Zimmerman and claimed that he shot Martin because he was black, then pointed at articles that came out later as their justification.

It is common practice to list the documents you have in your possession and then a reason why you can't submit those documents. They have refused to even hand that over. Why?They already had a meeting where they were briefed on the withheld documents, but any thing less than the complete documents was insufficient for their demands.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/20/holder-issa-set-for-critical-meeting-on-fast-and-furious-documents-contempt/

I still have faith, not in government but The People and its not hard at all to see the hints of coverup here. Unless of course, you have a different agenda....
Beautiful false dichotomy. Anyone who doesn't agree to your position automatically has an agenda. Furthermore, the push to see a coverup wherever possible is not at all an agenda unto itself.

Fremmer
July 8, 2012, 11:00 AM
When will the parents of the murdered border patrol agent start getting some answers from holder and obama? What are holder and obama trying to hide? Why won't holder and obama release the documents? Why has the obama administration first claimed that holder didn't know anything about this program, and then had to admit after months of delay and deny that they did know about it?

danez71
July 8, 2012, 11:09 AM
It perhaps is directed in the sense that it is the fallback when the original position, that Holder was involved in the orchestration of a gun walking plan, was shown to be indefensible using the evidence..

Or perhaps not. We wont know until the documents are reviewd. You seem to play the "perhaps its just someting else game" but never really answer 'why dont they just turn over the documents?'



The original premise of Holder orchestrating gun walking to promote gun control hasn't held water, and that much is suggested with the move to focus on an alleged cover up by Holder after the gun walking plan had already completed.

Uh... No. If we learn the 'what, when, whys, and hows, of the cover up, we are likely to quickly get to WHO orchestrated it as the cover up documents will point to WHO they are protecting.

Again, if there were no crimes and therefore, no cover up, Why dont they turn over the documents?



The "how" isn't going to be answered with the documents from after the operation.

And how do you know that? If they documents show Mr. XYZ ordered it... that going to point to 'how'. It seems that you're quick to dismiss the need for the whole truth supported by all of the documents.



And the "why" as being discussed in this thread is about finding the answers that the questioners are looking for,...

The answers the questioners are looking for is the simple truth. Again, if no crimes or cover up was committed... why not just turn over the documents?



.....see the above section and see the posts at the very beginning which claimed that it went all the way up even though the evidence hadn't supported their beliefs.

Absent the documents... of course people are going to speculate. There's a simple solution to end the speculation; Turn over the documents and let the truth get out.



They gave him the same treatment as the race baiters who read the first articles on Zimmerman and claimed that he shot Martin because he was black, then pointed at articles that came out later as their justification.

Lets stay on topic. This isnt related. Again, just relase the documents and let the truth be free.



They already had a meeting where they were briefed on the withheld documents, but any thing less than the complete documents was insufficient for their demands.

As it should be! Again, it seems you're quick to dismiss wanting the whole truth.

Holder didnt remember, or recall, or was unaware of, and handfull of very important things that later came out he did. How did that happen? Documents proved it.

He has proven to not be a good witness with selective memory at best.

They've only turned over something like 10% of the documents and the AG office has selected the documents of that paltry %.

I think America deserve the whole truth and nothing but the truth instead of selective memory and selective documents.



Beautiful false dichotomy. Anyone who doesn't agree to your position automatically has an agenda. Furthermore, the push to see a coverup wherever possible is not at all an agenda unto itself.

And anyone that disagrees with your position gets the 'perhaps it was something else' deflection and 'throw in some unrelated tangets to try rationalize it away' .


The push to see documents is nothing more than search for the truth. Regardless of political party, I support it.

I'll say again,
I think America deserve the whole truth and nothing but the truth instead of selective memory and selective documents.


This thread can keep going around in circles with unrelated diversions of analizing tactics of politics.

But were not talking politics.


So, please explain why you dont think America deserves the whole truth supported by all of the documents instead of proven selective memory supported by selective documents.

Fremmer
July 8, 2012, 11:22 AM
Obama told everyone that he would have an open, transparent administration, but things have changed I guess. Obama hides behind a bogus claim of privilege to prevent having to show documents regarding the administration's claim for months that it didn't know about the program. That's called lying to congress.

So when are the parents of the murdered border patrol agent going to get real, non-contrived, actually honest answers from the obama administration about what happened to their son and how it happend? By the way never, I've seen the interview with those poor parents, who are convinced that obama is trying to cover up what really happened and why it happened with the privilege claim.

jon_in_wv
July 8, 2012, 11:25 AM
While there was the chance that these guns imported into Mexico by the US government would be used in crimes and then would receive national attention, the reliability of this plan leaves a lot to be desired.

I'm at a loss to see why people don't realize this wasn't something that was overlooked, it was the PURPOSE. Obama was on tv/radio repeatedly whining about lax gun control laws in the US resulting in US weapons going to the cartels in Mexico while he knowingly ran an operation that intentionally allowed 1000s of weapons to do exactly that. Its being pretty generous to give him credit that he overlooked the fact these weapons would fall into the wrong hands. In fact it did the most good if they DID fall into the wrong hands. The death of the INS agent would have been great for him if we weren't able to trace the weapon used to Fast and Furious.

7.62 Nato
July 8, 2012, 12:40 PM
Obama told everyone that he would have an open, transparent administration, but things have changed I guess. Obama hides behind a bogus claim of privilege to prevent having to show documents regarding the administration's claim for months that it didn't know about the program. That's called lying to congress.


I'd call that pretty transparent. Anyone with a lick of sense can see right through the lies.

Neverwinter
July 8, 2012, 04:27 PM
Or perhaps not. We wont know until the documents are reviewd. You seem to play the "perhaps its just someting else game" but never really answer 'why dont they just turn over the documents?'

Uh... No. If we learn the 'what, when, whys, and hows, of the cover up, we are likely to quickly get to WHO orchestrated it as the cover up documents will point to WHO they are protecting.

Again, if there were no crimes and therefore, no cover up, Why dont they turn over the documents?

The answers the questioners are looking for is the simple truth. Again, if no crimes or cover up was committed... why not just turn over the documents?

Absent the documents... of course people are going to speculate. There's a simple solution to end the speculation; Turn over the documents and let the truth get out.

So, please explain why you dont think America deserves the whole truth supported by all of the documents instead of proven selective memory supported by selective documents.

To reiterate what was mentioned above, these statements illustrate the reductive logic of the proposition imposed by the questioners. The god of the gaps and the birth certificate analogies were cut out, so I'll phrase it in a slightly more topical way using your own words. "Why dont you just register your firearms?" "Again, if there were no crimes and therefore, no cover up, Why dont you just register your firearms?"

It's the anti-gunner logic that we see:
If you have nothing to hide, then there is no reason for you to be hiding this information which I have deemed to be the proof positive that you are personally involved in wrong-doing. Absent that registration, of course we're going to speculate. There's a simple solution; turn over your phone and email records and let the truth get out. So please, tell me why you don't think America deserves the whole truth. What is the deal with the "perhaps it was something else" deflection?


And anyone that disagrees with your position gets the 'perhaps it was something else' deflection and 'throw in some unrelated tangets to try rationalize it away' .
The unwillingness to understand the relevancy of the concepts which are being conveyed is not the problem of the writer.

zxcvbob
July 8, 2012, 04:33 PM
To reiterate what was mentioned above, these statements illustrate the reductive logic of the proposition imposed by the questioners. The god of the gaps and the birth certificate analogies were cut out, so I'll phrase it in a slightly more topical way using your own words. "Why dont you just register your firearms?" "Again, if there were no crimes and therefore, no cover up, Why dont you just register your firearms?"

That is a false analogy; my firearms are not the subject of a subpoena.

Neverwinter
July 8, 2012, 05:08 PM
That is a false analogy; my firearms are not the subject of a subpoena.
And yet the essence remains: the presumption of guilt for refusing to do something for which acquiescing has distinct negative consequences for both you and those coming after you.

danez71
July 8, 2012, 06:15 PM
To reiterate what was mentioned above, these statements illustrate the reductive logic of the proposition imposed by the questioners. The god of the gaps and the birth certificate analogies were cut out, so I'll phrase it in a slightly more topical way using your own words. "Why dont you just register your firearms?" "Again, if there were no crimes and therefore, no cover up, Why dont you just register your firearms?"

It's the anti-gunner logic that we see:
If you have nothing to hide, then there is no reason for you to be hiding this information which I have deemed to be the proof positive that you are personally involved in wrong-doing. Absent that registration, of course we're going to speculate. There's a simple solution; turn over your phone and email records and let the truth get out. So please, tell me why you don't think America deserves the whole truth. What is the deal with the "perhaps it was something else" deflection?


The unwillingness to understand the relevancy of the concepts which are being conveyed is not the problem of the writer.

Last thing 1st, first thing last,

There is no unwillingness on my part to understand the concepts which you are trying to convey. There is a lack of relevancy of your concepts to the issue at hand.

If you're unwilling to convey concepts that have relevancy to the issues, that is your problem (the writer) as the results is that you havent effectively communicated anything of relevance


All of my firearms are essentially registered. Ive bought them all through an FFL.

I live in AZ and have a CCW permit even though we are allowed to CC with out one. In order for me to get it, I went through a full back ground check and was finger printed.

I gave them everything they asked for even though I didnt need to in order to CC. Nothing was subpoenaed. Why? Because I gave them everything they asked for.

They didnt ask for my phone records or emails as they must not think they need nor want it. If they change their mind, they will get a court order and get the info whether I want them to or not.

However, the AG doesnt think they should live by the same rules. Even when subpoenaed, they continue to thumb their nose at the same laws they swore under oath to up hold.

I play by their rules... but they wont play by their own even though the swore under oath to do so.

Quite the double standard.

Its a fact that the approprite watch dog commitee has reason to suspect something bad happened.

Its a fact that Holder has given testimony that has been proven not to be true.

So, just answer one question... just one question with out the superfluous irrelevant analogies etc.

Answer this with just one sentence.

Why dont you think the AG should have to comply with a supoena as you or I would have to?

jon_in_wv
July 9, 2012, 11:45 AM
The fact is we have an Attorney General and a President who think being able to conspire in secret to cover criminal activity and impede a an investigation into that activity is "executive privileged" speech and is protected. I think many people would disagree.

Hacker15E
July 9, 2012, 12:11 PM
The fact is we have an Attorney General and a President who think being able to conspire in secret to cover criminal activity and impede a an investigation into that activity is "executive privileged" speech and is protected. I think many people would disagree.

I think it's pretty far from being "fact" that the executive privilege was invoked because of that.

Certainly a lot of smoke, but thusfar there has been no fire observed.

B!ngo
July 9, 2012, 04:32 PM
I'm still a believer in the occam's razor means of finding truth and fact. Especially when there is so much swirl accompanying the facts. I accept that I am generally, though not unilaterally an Obama supporter and so I find this method comforting but it seems to me that...
During the Bush administration, someone in the Justice Department had the idea of selling and tracing arms back to lynchpins in Mexican drug cartels. A not completely crazy notion, notwithstanding my ignorance of the details in how such processes work. In the process, an unknown number of people were killed with these (or other) weapons, including our own agents making some realize that the bad outweighed the potential good in this plan. Sometime during it's execution, a new president and AG took over, assessed the situation and like all programs that are routinely or exceptionally assessed, came to realized that it was imprudent to continue. That the agent was killed after this new administration was elected does not imply that the original fault lies with Obama or his administrators. Finally, I have no reason to doubt that someone or someones in the current administration could have surmised, after all of this transpired that the results could be used to carry forward someone's anti-gun agenda. Who wrote this note, or who read this note is not clear. Moreover, it seems that no action was taken in this regard.
That to me is the simple and straightforward explanation. It excludes black helicopters, secret agenda, tie-ins to drug cartels and the like. But that's just me.
B

Fremmer
July 9, 2012, 08:36 PM
This isn't matlock or complicated, and bush is irrelevant. The proof is in the pudding, and we need to find the truth in the the documents that obama wants to hide. If obama would lawfully comply with the subpoena, the parents of a murdered border patrol agent could finally get some honest information.

This is open and transparent, obama style?

atomd
July 9, 2012, 09:06 PM
And yet the essence remains: the presumption of guilt for refusing to do something for which acquiescing has distinct negative consequences for both you and those coming after you.

Your analogies once again don't add up. It is a FACT that they submitted false evidence. It is also a FACT that Holder claimed no knowledge of this during a time where he sent emails about the operation. Those are facts. We aren't "presuming" anything. If you don't think they committed those crimes, they still knowingly gave weapons to drug cartels with no way of tracking them back down. That's a fact too.

Whether or not that part was/is/should be illegal is up for debate but it still happened. The taxpayers paid for this. This isn't about individual rights. We paid for this operation. We hired these people. We deserve to know why drug dealers were knowingly given untrackable weapons and people were killed using them. We also deserve to know why false documents were submitted and why Eric Holder lied about it.

The analogy I'm referring to is the gun registration. As far as presuming they are guilty because of them not turning over the files....we already know they are guilty of wrongdoing. We aren't presuming they lied...they have already been caught in the lie. We just want to know how big the lie is now. As far as the president being guilty of involvement in this, we don't know that. What we do know is that he wrongfully used executive privilege to prevent these files from being released.

So the facts are:
The DOJ lied
Holder Lied
They are witholding evidence about the incident they lied about
The president used executive privilege to keep these files hidden

I don't know how anyone can say he isn't trying to cover up a lie. We already know these files contain evidence about a subject the doj was already caught lying about. We know that they can't contain information about the ongoing operation because the evidence requested was changed to only include evidence after the end of operation date. It's not presuming that this is a cover up. It IS a cover up.

Cosmoline
July 9, 2012, 09:33 PM
"Why dont you just register your firearms?" "Again, if there were no crimes and therefore, no cover up, Why dont you just register your firearms?"

A much closer analogy is staring us in the face. If any of *US* were subpoenaed to appear before a Senate committee and had duces tecum obligations to bring listed documents, our refusal to do so would be subject to a contempt citation. Holder's own DOJ would aggressively prosecute us, and we'd have to scramble to explain, to an Art. III Court, a Constitutional basis for refusing to produce the documents.

Here, Holder himself refuses to produce the docs and gives himself a pass from prosecution. So he never has to explain his decision and he never faces consequences.

It is quite simply one set of laws for him, and another set for the rest of us.

danez71
July 9, 2012, 09:44 PM
I'm still a believer in the occam's razor means of finding truth and fact. Especially when there is so much swirl accompanying the facts. I accept that I am generally, though not unilaterally an Obama supporter and so I find this method comforting but it seems to me that...
During the Bush administration, someone in the Justice Department had the idea of selling and tracing arms back to lynchpins in Mexican drug cartels. A not completely crazy notion, notwithstanding my ignorance of the details in how such processes work. In the process, an unknown number of people were killed with these (or other) weapons, including our own agents making some realize that the bad outweighed the potential good in this plan. Sometime during it's execution, a new president and AG took over, assessed the situation and like all programs that are routinely or exceptionally assessed, came to realized that it was imprudent to continue. That the agent was killed after this new administration was elected does not imply that the original fault lies with Obama or his administrators. Finally, I have no reason to doubt that someone or someones in the current administration could have surmised, after all of this transpired that the results could be used to carry forward someone's anti-gun agenda. Who wrote this note, or who read this note is not clear. Moreover, it seems that no action was taken in this regard.
That to me is the simple and straightforward explanation. It excludes black helicopters, secret agenda, tie-ins to drug cartels and the like. But that's just me.
B

Nope.

Bush's AG shut down their operation which failed at tracking the weapons. This was called Gunrunner.

Obama's AG reopened his own, call Fast and Furious, and never made much of an attempt to track the guns. Some say no attempt was made.

Regardles, the last AG shut his down. This AG reopened a new program with serious flaws designed in.

A much closer analogy is staring us in the face. If any of *US* were subpoenaed to appear before a Senate committee and had duces tecum obligations to bring listed documents, our refusal to do so would be subject to a contempt citation. Holder's own DOJ would aggressively prosecute us, and we'd have to scramble to explain, to an Art. III Court, a Constitutional basis for refusing to produce the documents.

Here, Holder himself refuses to produce the docs and gives himself a pass from prosecution. So he never has to explain his decision and he never faces consequences.

It is quite simply one set of laws for him, and another set for the rest of us.



Exactly.

publius
July 11, 2012, 08:10 AM
The IG is investigating this situation, which of course means the Justice Department is investigating itself. Still, IG investigations have earned at least some respect over the years. They are ALWAYS investigating themselves. It becomes an issue in big, politically charged cases, like ones that draw claims of executive privilege.

The IG has some 80,000 documents related to their investigation.

Congress has some 8,000, many of which look like this:

http://www.tropicalboating.com/imagestr/issa-redactedw.jpg

Congress has a legitimate interest in those other 72,000 documents, not to mention the already "released" ones that are all black.

Mousegun
July 11, 2012, 08:33 AM
Nope.

Bush's AG shut down their operation which failed at tracking the weapons. This was called Gunrunner.



Plus the fact that there were electronic devices in the Gunrunner guns and when the cartel discovered them, it was then the operation was closed. The failure was the discovery of the devices and the weapons could no longer be tracked. Those that were tracked before the discovery led to many arrests.

Unlike Fast and Furious, the Mexican government knew about Gunrunner.

alsaqr
July 11, 2012, 09:34 AM
Plus the fact that there were electronic devices in the Gunrunner guns and when the cartel discovered them, it was then the operation was closed. The failure was the discovery of the devices and the weapons could no longer be tracked. Those that were tracked before the discovery led to many arrests.

The operation was Wide Receiver: It came under the auspices of Project Gunrunner, which continues to this day.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/programs/project-gunrunner/

On 6 October, 2007 Operation Wide Receiver was shut down by director of field operations William Hoover. According to some accounts numerous guns were lost in Mexico.

http://madison.craigslist.org/rnr/3091106318.html

Wide Receiver E-mails:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2011/10/atf-emails-discuss-bush-era-gun-walking-program.php?page=1

Neverwinter
July 11, 2012, 11:31 PM
Last thing 1st, first thing last,

There is no unwillingness on my part to understand the concepts which you are trying to convey. There is a lack of relevancy of your concepts to the issue at hand.

If you're unwilling to convey concepts that have relevancy to the issues, that is your problem (the writer) as the results is that you havent effectively communicated anything of relevance

The refusal is flawed and based in either a misunderstanding of the parallels or a lack of cognizance regarding the parallels that exist.

* From the break of the first story, there were posts in here claiming that the operation was run by Holder/Obama
* Issa himself stated that he has no evidence that the Whitehouse was involved
* Obama asserts executive privilege over documents occurring after the operation completed
* People believe the assertion indicates Obama was involved in the orchestration

They line up with the god of the gaps phenomenon.

So, just answer one question... just one question with out the superfluous irrelevant analogies etc.

Answer this with just one sentence.

Why dont you think the AG should have to comply with a supoena as you or I would have to?I don't, since you or I placed in Holder or Issa's position wouldn't have to.

source: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=RS&p_theme=rs&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_field_label-0=Source&s_dispstring=cunningham%20AND%20date%289/18/2007%20to%209/19/2007%29&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=9/18/2007%20to%209/19/2007%29&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=%28%22cunningham%22%29&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

We aren't "presuming" anything.Is the royal "we" willing to say that we have no presumptions about Holder/Obama organizing or orchestrating gun walking?
The posts in this thread indicate that this is not the position commonly held. See #110.

We deserve to know why drug dealers were knowingly given untrackable weapons and people were killed using them. We also deserve to know why false documents were submitted and why Eric Holder lied about it.And yet this process had already been initiated on the part of the Inspector General. If this were really about getting justice, it would not have been wise to get a Congressional proceeding going when it has a history of not delivering justice, e.g. North and Poindexter.


The DOJ lied
Holder Lied
They are witholding evidence about the incident they lied about
The president used executive privilege to keep these files hidden

I don't know how anyone can say he isn't trying to cover up a lie. We already know these files contain evidence about a subject the doj was already caught lying about. We know that they can't contain information about the ongoing operation because the evidence requested was changed to only include evidence after the end of operation date. It's not presuming that this is a cover up. It IS a cover up.We assume that all statements denying the occurrence of gun walking are lying. The documents released as part of the contempt proceedings show that Holder himself was being lied to in the communications that he received.


It is quite simply one set of laws for him, and another set for the rest of us.This has always been the case. Police are not subjected to prosecution for actions in the line of duty that you or I would get convicted for. Congressmen cannot be arrested for misdemeanors on the way to a session.

danez71
July 12, 2012, 02:17 AM
1) I don't, since you or I placed in Holder or Issa's position wouldn't have to.

2) This has always been the case. Police are not subjected to prosecution for actions in the line of duty that you or I would get convicted for.

3) The documents released as part of the contempt proceedings show that Holder himself was being lied to in the communications that he received.



(I reformatted in order to address these in a more logical order; not to change the context.)

Ok... now we're getting some where.

In order from above.....

1) I asked why you think the AG shouldnt have to comply with a subpoena and your answer is that because if we were in his position we wouldnt have too. (and that would include Issa as indicated by your response.)

Thats indicates that you are OK with the double standard.

2) No. Thats not true. Police ARE subject to prosection for actions in the line of duty. A widely publicized example is the police involved in the Rodney King beating (ultimately acquitted).

You also mentioned North. Oliver North was prosecuted and convicted. (Later reversed on procedural technicalities)

3) So the evidence shows that even though Holder was being lied to...He (Holder) doesnt want to release the documents that could solve this whole mess. Well, that abstruction plain and simple.


Lets not forget that the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing.

Holder knows this. Obama knows this. But yet executive privilege is still being attempted to invoked.

Neverwinter
July 12, 2012, 03:39 AM
1) I asked why you think the AG shouldnt have to comply with a subpoena and your answer is that because if we were in his position we wouldnt have too. (and that would include Issa as indicated by your response.)

Thats indicates that you are OK with the double standard.

2) No. Thats not true. Police ARE subject to prosection for actions in the line of duty. A widely publicized example is the police involved in the Rodney King beating (ultimately acquitted).I did not say that they were immune from all prosecution. Are you saying that cops over the course of their legal duties never perform acts which you or I would be liable for? I do agree with your definition of double standard, because it completely ignores the duties of a position by claiming that someone can never be allowed to act that way if any member of the general public cannot. If we are to go by your definition of double standard, using a misdemeanor to prevent a Congressman from representing their constituents would be permissible, and I'm having a hard time agreeing with that. Cops could never run red lights to pursue a murderer.

You also mentioned North. Oliver North was prosecuted and convicted. (Later reversed on procedural technicalities)
As was Poindexter. It was procedural mistakes with Congressional proceedings that allowed their convictions to be reversed. Works fine for the panem et circences, but not as well for the meting of justice.

3) So the evidence shows that even though Holder was being lied to...He (Holder) doesnt want to release the documents that could solve this whole mess. Well, that abstruction plain and simple.
The thing is, that in the minds of those who have internalized the preconception, even documents when released couldn't solve the whole mess if it doesn't support the conclusion that they want. See the "shredders" comments.

Lets not forget that the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing.

Holder knows this. Obama knows this. But yet executive privilege is still being attempted to invoked.And the purpose for invoking executive privilege isn't to shield wrongdoing.

publius
July 12, 2012, 06:15 AM
And yet this process had already been initiated on the part of the Inspector General. If this were really about getting justice, it would not have been wise to get a Congressional proceeding going when it has a history of not delivering justice

When was the IG investigation into Fast and Furious ordered, and by whom?

publius
July 12, 2012, 06:23 AM
And the purpose for invoking executive privilege isn't to shield wrongdoing.

Congress wants to know why they were lied to about the ATF walking guns and how that lie came to be retracted months later. Seems like reasonable oversight to me. Deliberations over how to lie to Congress do not fall under executive privilege.

Deanimator
July 12, 2012, 06:49 AM
Deliberations over how to lie to Congress do not fall under executive privilege.
Try explaining that to the BATFE, who once produced an OFFICIAL TRAINING VIDEO on how to LIE UNDER OATH.

Davek1977
July 12, 2012, 06:59 AM
And the purpose for invoking executive privilege isn't to shield wrongdoing. And that is a statement there is no current way to verify as being remotely accurate. Unless you have a 6th sense and have an ability to read unreleased documents, theres absolutely no way you can make such a claim with any degree of certainty. Sure, if you want to take Obama on his word, it isn't to cover up any wrongdoing. However, that's pretty damn hard to prove WITHOUT the documents being released, isn't it. You can't simply make a statement of fact, without there being a legitimate factual basis for such a statement. Sure, I'd LOVE to believe our President was an honest man, incapable of telling a lie. However, his ability for stretching and even creating the truth has been documented well enough that his word alone cannot be used as "proof" of anything. The proof is in the pudding...or in this case, the documents. Without them, your claim is utterly and completely meaningless.

publius
July 12, 2012, 08:45 AM
The operation was Wide Receiver: It came under the auspices of Project Gunrunner, which continues to this day.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/programs/project-gunrunner/

On 6 October, 2007 Operation Wide Receiver was shut down by director of field operations William Hoover. According to some accounts numerous guns were lost in Mexico.

Yes, a few hundred, about a quarter of the number "lost" in Fast and Furious.

Everyone who has looked at both operations has been able to connect them because of certain similarities. Uh, except Lanny Breuer. He knew about the gunwalking in Wide Receiver, but it never occurred to him that another operation in the same place by the same people under the same overall program might possibly be doing the same thing.

I put "lost" in quotes because the common line that this was "a botched sting in which agents lost track of guns" does not even stand the slightest scrutiny. They lost some guns, then some more, then some more, then dealers started getting really uncomfortable with how many were being lost and needed reassurance from Mr. Voth, then they lost some more, then they lost some more. In the end they made this same foolish mistake over and over again for almost a year, losing track of around 2,000 guns.

I'm pretty close to a libertarian and even I do not believe in that level of incompetence from agents of the BATF. Whatever happened here, it was not some agents screwing up and losing track of guns. That just does not explain an operation of this duration and scale.

alsaqr
July 12, 2012, 09:18 AM
Sadly, it gets considerably worse than most realize. Some BATFE supervisors in the Phoenix office had a cavalier attitude. At least one of the supervisors who ran Fast and Furious on the ground viewed the increase in Mexicos murder rate as evidence their gunrunning scheme was working.

See pages 37 and 38. Tried to make it more readable by removing footnotes:

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ATF_Report.pdf

And he was . . . he was essentially trumpeting up the violence that
was occurring as a result of an ATF sanctioned program, is that
correct?

A. Agent or Group Supervisor Voth took that, or the way that he
presented that to us was look here, this is proof that we are
working a cartel, the guns that our guys are buying that we are
looking at are being found, are coming back with very short time
to crime rates in Mexico in known cartel related violence, and the
violence is going through the roof down there, we are onto a good
thing here.

Q. The e-mail further goes on and says there was 937 killed in
January 2010, 842 killed in December, 2009. The numbers are
increasing?

A. Yes, sir.
This evidence established a nexus between straw purchasers in the United States and the
DTOs in Mexico, bringing ATF one step closer to catching the “bigger fish.” This strategy of
letting the “little fish” go in order to capture the “bigger fish” was the ultimate goal of Phoenix
Group VII. As Agent Dodson explained:

Q. Okay. So earlier we were discussing an e-mail that . . . was


Scramble Some Eggs:


[S]omebody in management . . . used the terminology “scramble
some eggs.”

A. Yes, sir.

Q. If you are going to make an omelette you have got to scramble
some eggs. Do you remember the context of that?

A. Yes, sir. It was – there was a prevailing attitude amongst the group
and outside of the group in the ATF chain of command, and that
was the attitude. . . . I had heard that . . . sentiment from Special
Agent [E] Special Agent [L], and Special Agent Voth. And the
time referenced in the interview was, I want to say, in May as the
GRIT team or gunrunner initiative team was coming out. I was
having a conversation with Special Agent [L] about the case in
which the conversation ended with me asking her are you prepared
to go to a border agent’s funeral over this or a Cochise County

Page | 39

deputy’s over this, because that’s going to happen. And the
sentiment that was given back to me by both her, the group
supervisor, was that . . . if you are going to make an omelette, you
need to scramble some eggs.

awgrizzly
July 12, 2012, 12:41 PM
Plain and simple without manufacturing excuses and diversions these are certain:

The DoJ did something apparently stupid which violated both US and Mexico law and contributed to the death of a number of people.
Holder was caught lying about it.
Now the DoJ refuses to hand over documents pertaining to Fast & Furious and what led up to Holder's deception.
The president got involved in a no win situation where he is either wrongfully protecting Holder and the DoJ, or was also involved in the operation and/or cover up.
It is reasonable for us to conclude that a delaying action is taking place on the part of Holder and the president to push this past the election.
If the previous bullet is true, both parties can be accused of obstruction.
Given the justifiable suspicions that have arisen, it is now impossible to trust a DoJ investigation in this or anything else, we can never feel that the results are true, and Holder can never be fully cleared.
This also disqualifies the DoJ in the leaks investigation.

I thus submit my conclusion: Holder must turn over the requested documents regardless of his arguments to the contrary, an independent investigation is required, and in any case, because of the conduct of Holder and the loss of trust in the present justice department, Holder must be replaced.

It matters not which political party is more worthy nor what Bush did or did not do... I feel this is the reasonable bottom line. And I strongly feel that we need to know the purpose of this seemingly crazy program... whether it may have been an effort to create justification for more restrictions to our second amendment, which is of the most vital interest to us here, whether liberal or conservative.

publius
July 12, 2012, 01:41 PM
...
And yet this process had already been initiated on the part of the Inspector General. If this were really about getting justice, it would not have been wise to get a Congressional proceeding going when it has a history of not delivering justice....

When was the IG investigation into Fast and Furious ordered, and by whom?

For those who don't know the answer to my question and don't want to wait for an unlikely reply, the answer is (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/08/after-fast-and-furious-holder-to-blame-congress-for-not-supporting-atf/#ixzz20QY9GFFs):

He noted receiving Grassley's letters in January and said he asked his staff to look into the matter before hearing more about it in the press. In late February, Holder asked the Justice Department's Inspector General to investigate "Fast and Furious," and in March he directed the department to issue guidance that all prosecutors refrain from "flawed tactics" like those of "Fast and Furious," Holder said.



So Grassley was looking into this for a month or so before Holder ordered an IG investigation, which by the way was ordered several weeks after the DOJ lied to Congress about gunwalking.

The directive to refrain from such flawed tactics seemed strange at the time, in light of the denial that they occurred. It does not seem as strange now, but raises questions...

2ndAmFan
July 12, 2012, 02:36 PM
Can't say I agree with you Neverwinter. There is strong evidence that members of Obama's Cabinet knew of F&F, and it logically follows that he knew as well. Look it up yourself. With a little diligence you will find small blurbs even in the MSM that report Obama Cabinet members were in the loop on F&F.
This is not a matter of national security. It's an attempt to take away our 2nd Amendment rights through illegal means.

danez71
July 12, 2012, 11:01 PM
1) I did not say that they were immune from all prosecution.

2) Are you saying that cops over the course of their legal duties never perform acts which you or I would be liable for? I do (I think you meant to write "dont") agree with your definition of double standard, because it completely ignores the duties of a position by claiming that someone can never be allowed to act that way if any member of the general public cannot.


3) And the purpose for invoking executive privilege isn't to shield wrongdoing.

(reformatted by me to address specifics and added the comment in red)

1) No you didnt. You said:
Police are not subjected to prosecution for actions in the line of duty that you or I would get convicted for

And youre not wrong in saying that. I think we read each other out of context.


2) What I'm saying is that those positions have defined allowable behavior. You're right in saying that their defined allowable behavior contains actions that you and I are not permitted to do legally.

HOWEVER, when they do things outside their defined allowable behavior, they are subject to prosecution.

What I'm also saying is that when they do something outside their defined allowable actions, they are not only subject to prosecutions and convictions, they are also subject to subpoena's.


The AG has admitted there were some wrong doings. And he wants it to end there.

However, since he has admitted there were wrong doings, that they acted outside of the defined allowable actions, he has essentially volunteered the AG dept to subpoenas (and potentially prosecutions and convictions.)

AG has repeatedly ignored the subpoena's.

Thats the double standard.
(Not that cops can run red lights persuing a murderer and I cant. C'mon, give me a little credit why dont you...?)


3) Then why is the excecutive privledge evoked?

I think they basically said its to shield the communications as to how to respond to the inquiry.

There's only one way to do that. Truthfully.

So we're down to 2 options:
a) The comminications said to respond truthfully. If so, there is nothing to hide.

b) If the executive privledge envoked on the communications are anything but saying to respond Truthfully, the the executive privledge is trying to hide wrongdoings which the Supreme Court already ruled againt waaay back in Nixons time.

publius
July 14, 2012, 05:47 PM
I think Senator Grassley's interest in the email that flew around the day before the DOJ lied to Congress (http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=41652#) about gunwalking is legitimate. He wants to know how they came to make a statement they later had to withdraw. If that's not an oversight role, what is?

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder:

July 3, 2012

The investigation into Operation Fast and Furious has focused on two specific areas: (1) When did individuals within the Department of Justice (DOJ/Department) become aware of the tactics and (2) How did DOJ provide false information to Congress regarding the allegations of gunwalking.

I believe the Department should have been abundantly aware of allegations of gunwalking as there was more than one ATF agent providing information to Department components before the February 4, 2011, letter was sent to Congress.

Specifically, on February 2, 2011, my investigators contacted an ATF Special Agent who worked out of the Phoenix Field Division, Group VII office, and was familiar with Operation Fast and Furious. The conversation centered on the ATF Agent’s recollection of how Fast and Furious was executed and his recollection confirmed the allegations my office had heard from other ATF whistleblowers. What was unknown until late 2011 was that this ATF Agent produced a memorandum on February 3, 2011, which documented his discussion about Fast and Furious. The subject of the memorandum is, “Contact with Congressional Investigators,” and I have enclosed it within this letter.

This Fast and Furious memorandum traveled rapidly through ATF’s chain of command. The memorandum was emailed on February 3, 2011, from the Dallas Field Division to Phoenix SAC William Newell and Deputy Assistant Director for Field Operations William McMahon. Records that the Justice Department has withheld from Congress, which were only made available for review in camera, show an email chain attaching this memorandum was sent to Assistant Director of Field Operations Mark Chait at ATF headquarters by the afternoon of February 3, 2011.

According to ATF personnel, the memorandum was discussed by high level ATF personnel and possibly forwarded to DOJ headquarters on February 3, 2011. Specifically, it has been alleged that individuals within the Deputy Attorney General’s (DAG’s) office and the Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA) at the Department were aware of or actually read the memorandum before the Department’s February 4, 2011, letter was sent. Some individuals who spoke with my office claim they were “alarmed” by the substance of the memorandum and it caused such a stir that ATF planned to put a panel together to address the allegations but someone within DOJ suppressed the idea.

The possibility that DOJ was aware of this memorandum on February 3, 2011, and still sent the erroneous letter to Congress on February 4, 2011, raises more questions about DOJ’s claim that faulty information from Department components inadvertently led to the false letter. This was direct, documented information from street level agents in a far better position to know the facts than the senior supervisory personnel whom DOJ claims to have relied upon for information about the allegations.

Discovering how high up the chain of command inside the Justice Department the memorandum was reviewed has not been easy. The Department has not made available certain individuals who could corroborate what my office has been told. Moreover, it is unclear whether the set of “deliberative” materials about the drafting of the February 4, 2011, letter that the Department produced to Congress constitutes a complete set of all relevant documents or whether other relevant documents from the pre-February 4th timeframe may have been withheld. Consequently, please answer the following questions:

1) Have all records relating to the February 3, 2011, memorandum been gathered and preserved by the Justice Department? If not, why not? If so, please describe the nature and volume of those records.
2) Will you produce those records to Congress? If not, please explain why not.
3) Which DOJ personnel received a copy of the February 3, 2011, memorandum prior to February 4, 2011?
4) Which DOJ personnel were aware of the memorandum before the February 4, 2011 reply was sent to me? Please provide all records related to these questions, or certify that all relevant documents have already been provided.

I would appreciate a written response by no later than July 17, 2012. If you have any

questions concerning this matter, please contact Brian Downey of my staff at (202) 224- 5225.


The email in question:

http://www.tropicalboating.com/imagestr/styers-email-1.gif


http://www.tropicalboating.com/imagestr/styers-email-2.gif


http://www.tropicalboating.com/imagestr/styers-email-3.gif

Neverwinter
July 15, 2012, 10:51 AM
And that is a statement there is no current way to verify as being remotely accurate. Unless you have a 6th sense and have an ability to read unreleased documents, theres absolutely no way you can make such a claim with any degree of certainty. Sure, if you want to take Obama on his word, it isn't to cover up any wrongdoing.So why is the alternative taking the 6th sense of people who from the very beginning of the first news article, have predicted that Holder and Obama organized the operation for the purpose of increasing gun control even if actions from the administration so far have led to less control?

Plain and simple without manufacturing excuses and diversions these are certain:

I thus submit my conclusion: Holder must turn over the requested documents regardless of his arguments to the contrary, an independent investigation is required, and in any case, because of the conduct of Holder and the loss of trust in the present justice department, Holder must be replaced.

It matters not which political party is more worthy nor what Bush did or did not do... I feel this is the reasonable bottom line. And I strongly feel that we need to know the purpose of this seemingly crazy program... whether it may have been an effort to create justification for more restrictions to our second amendment, which is of the most vital interest to us here, whether liberal or conservative.
Your list starts falling apart from the second bullet, given the communications which have been revealed showing concern and curiosity on the part of Holder regarding the possibility of gun walking. A concern which led to the request for an investigation by the Inspector General, as I had cited much earlier in the thread.

Neverwinter
July 15, 2012, 11:26 AM
For those who don't know the answer to my question and don't want to wait for an unlikely reply,

So Grassley was looking into this for a month or so before Holder ordered an IG investigation, which by the way was ordered several weeks after the DOJ lied to Congress about gunwalking.

The directive to refrain from such flawed tactics seemed strange at the time, in light of the denial that they occurred. It does not seem as strange now, but raises questions...
I apologize if my earlier citation of an AP article hadn't come from Fox News, but it already covered the answer that you claim wouldn't come. It may have been that it hadn't allowed one to come to the conclusion you list, such as the speculative accusation ex nihilo well played by FNC.
AG has repeatedly ignored the subpoena's.

Thats the double standard.
(Not that cops can run red lights persuing a murderer and I cant. C'mon, give me a little credit why dont you...?)

The two examples provided for both the cop and congressman were specifically intended to illustrate examples where the law, as applied to the rest of us, can result in the hampering of the ability of a government employee to carry out their job.

3) Then why is the excecutive privledge evoked?

I think they basically said its to shield the communications as to how to respond to the inquiry.

There's only one way to do that. Truthfully.

So we're down to 2 options:
a) The comminications said to respond truthfully. If so, there is nothing to hide.

b) If the executive privledge envoked on the communications are anything but saying to respond Truthfully, the the executive privledge is trying to hide wrongdoings which the Supreme Court already ruled againt waaay back in Nixons time.
You're missing the third option:
c)The communications said to respond truthfully, but elements within the DoJ did not do so. Releasing the information would compromise the functioning of the executive branch, as specified in the invocation.

Of course, that requires the reader to exert the intellectual freedom from the presumption that this merely about Holder lying. When we take the Inspector General investigation, the attestation in emails to Holder that gunwalking hadn't happened, and the reversal of the convictions of North and Poindexter, another option arises: The release of the documents specified would compromise the investigation by the Inspector General of wrongdoing in the DoJ. An investigation that if carried out by Congressional committee, would result in evasion of justice by primary perpetrators fed convictions ripe for reversal. The wording for the invocation of executive privilege is much kinder than saying that they won't let Congress screw it up like Iran-Contra.

publius
July 15, 2012, 11:49 AM
I apologize if my earlier citation of an AP article hadn't come from Fox News, but it already covered the answer that you claim wouldn't come. It may have been that it hadn't allowed one to come to the conclusion you list, such as the speculative accusation ex nihilo well played by FNC.


Do you mean this one from post number 62?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6blqmM2jeQ8hxrVDaHVUshQLokA?docId=44ff0778c01e45709c1df986a2be0c4e

It seems to me to undermine the conclusion you earlier reached:

And yet this process had already been initiated on the part of the Inspector General. If this were really about getting justice, it would not have been wise to get a Congressional proceeding going when it has a history of not delivering justice....

As your source shows in the excerpt below, the IG investigation started weeks AFTER the Congressional investigation.

The emails by Holder and Cole followed a hurried assurance by the Justice Department on Feb. 4, 2011, to Sen. Chuck Grassley, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. No such tactic was used, the Justice Department said in a letter to Grassley. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives "makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico," the letter added.

...

On Feb. 23, aides passed along to the attorney general the CBS story alleging gun-walking, and the attorney general shot back, "We need answers on this. Not defensive BS. Real answers."

Five days later, Holder asked the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate.


February 23 plus five days is February 28th. Grassley first handed Holder letters on this subject a month earlier. At that time, no "process had already been initiated on the part of the Inspector General."

danez71
July 15, 2012, 12:03 PM
You're missing the third option:
c)The communications said to respond truthfully, but elements within the DoJ did not do so. Releasing the information would compromise the functioning of the executive branch, as specified in the invocation.

Of course, that requires the reader to exert the intellectual freedom from the presumption that this merely about Holder lying. When we take the Inspector General investigation, the attestation in emails to Holder that gunwalking hadn't happened, and the reversal of the convictions of North and Poindexter, another option arises: The release of the documents specified would compromise the investigation by the Inspector General of wrongdoing in the DoJ. An investigation that if carried out by Congressional committee, would result in evasion of justice by primary perpetrators fed convictions ripe for reversal. The wording for the invocation of executive privilege is much kinder than saying that they won't let Congress screw it up like Iran-Contra.

(bolded by me)

Neverwinter,
I have no predisposed determination... I dont lack intellectual freedom. As stated earlier, I have no party lines in this matter.

You need to drop the condescending undertones. Several of your posts have them. Just because some want the truth to be revealed, it doesnt mean they're intellectually constrained.

No matter how cleverly you try to write it, its still condescending and only serves to indicate that you may have a higher opinion of yourself than you may deserve.


You're missing the third option:
c)The communications said to respond truthfully, but elements within the DoJ did not do so. Releasing the information would compromise the functioning of the executive branch, as specified in the invocation.

No I'm not.

1) Its obvious "elements within the DOJ did not do so". Thats a problem with a lot of people including the oversight committee and millions of people.

2) You state that as a fact using the word "would". You do not know that.

You're missing concept that it its possible to do with out compromising it.


Perhaps you need to (using your words) "exert the intellectual freedom from the presumption" rather than jumping to a conclusion that only serves your predisposed determination.


Now, lets drop that posturing bs. You're obviously intelligent.

You wrote something that I'm genuinely interested in hearing your gut feeling/speculation.

......the presumption that this merely about Holder lying.
And

The wording for the invocation of executive privilege is much kinder than saying that they won't let Congress screw it up like Iran-Contra.


Those two clipets seem to possibly indicate that you think that there is more to this than JUST about Holder lying.

Do you speculate that possibly Obama served up a soft ball in order to aid the investigation that if there is a conviction, that it wont be over turned like North et al?

Neverwinter
July 15, 2012, 12:37 PM
As your source shows in the excerpt below, the IG investigation started weeks AFTER the Congressional investigation.

February 23 plus five days is February 28th. Grassley first handed Holder letters on this subject a month earlier. At that time, no "process had already been initiated on the part of the Inspector General."
It still doesn't reconcile the issues with leaving the investigation to Congressional committee or compromising an ongoing Inspector General investigation.

That really should have been phrased that the continued insistence of Congressional committee as the primary source for justice with the simultaneous dismissal of the Inspector General is a poor recipe for justice.
[quote]Of course, that requires the reader to exert the intellectual freedomYou need to drop the condescending undertones. Several of your posts have them. Just because some want the truth to be revealed, it doesnt mean they're intellectually constrained.

No matter how cleverly you try to write it, its still condescending and only serves to indicate that you may have a higher opinion of yourself than you may deserve.
If you read it that way, then I should clarify further. Exert means to make an effort, it does not presume the incapability. It is not an attack on the poster, but on the argument being put forth. Specifically, arguments which avoid looking at what evidence has been provided and instead preferring a sixth sense about documents to presume a conspiracy which is insidious enough to have planned out the production of the evidence which conflicts with it.

Personally, I'm willing to wait for the Inspector General's report.

[quote]
2) You state that as a fact using the word "would". You do not know that.

You're missing concept that it its possible to do with out compromising it.

I'm willing to look at data showing how often the evidence of internal affairs investigations are released to the public while it is still ongoing.

Old Fuff
July 15, 2012, 01:07 PM
Question:

If the Justice Dept. internal Inspector General's investagation originated in Feb. 2011, why is it still ongoing? I will presume at some risk the they were provided with documents that are apparently are restricted from Congress.

Perhaps we will not see any conclusion until after Jan. 2013 - if then.

danez71
July 15, 2012, 01:21 PM
1) If you read it that way, then I should clarify further. Exert means to make an effort, it does not presume the incapability.

2) Personally, I'm willing to wait for the Inspector General's report.


3) I'm willing to look at data showing how often the evidence of internal affairs investigations are released to the public while it is still ongoing.

In order...

1a) It also does not presume having the capability.


1b) Going with your precise definition, it states the lack of effort and insinuates that being a deficiency of the poster; presumptuous on your part?


2) Nothing wrong with that I suppose as long as you dont want to allow the oversight committee to do their job, as given to them by the government, in the mean time.


2b) If you have a predetermined conclusion, you may only want the the IG to investigate its AG brother.

In my opinion, there isnt anything wrong with the oversight committee looking into it since the Inspector General and the AG/DOJ are all 3 joined at the hip.

The oversight commitee is comprised of people of both parties and is more independant than having the IG investigate its siamese brothers.


3) I didnt say it needed to be release to the public so I dont understand why you would insinuate that I did.

One idea would be to release it to the oversight committee and still be kept from the public.

That would be a good start pressuming they arent hiding anything and truly wont to put this behind them and regain some trust with some of their peers, subordinates, and millions of other people.

3b) Id be interested in that data too. Do you have any data? Or is the lack of data used by yourself to come to a predisposed conclusion and insinuate that it does not happen?


I'll repost this that I said/asked:
Those two clipets seem to possibly indicate that you think that there is more to this than JUST about Holder lying.

Do you speculate that possibly Obama served up a soft ball in order to aid the investigation that if there is a conviction, that it wont be over turned like North et al?

Or is that a diversionary tactic to muddy the waters or to imply a more cerebral thought process than others exert?

Deanimator
July 15, 2012, 06:26 PM
So why is the alternative taking the 6th sense of people who from the very beginning of the first news article, have predicted that Holder and Obama organized the operation for the purpose of increasing gun control even if actions from the administration so far have led to less control?
Incompetence doesn't negate intent.

Mussolini wanted to be Julius Caesar. That he only managed to achieve Peter Griffin doesn't change that.

Tommygunn
July 15, 2012, 06:29 PM
Mussolini wanted to be Julius Caesar. That he only managed to achieve Peter Griffin doesn't change that.

!!! :o You owe me a new keyboard!!!!:D

Fremmer
July 15, 2012, 09:06 PM
congress deserves to know what obama and holder were planning right before holder testified that he didn't know about fast and furious. you know, that statement that eric holder had to "walk back"?

The whole spin that holder suddenly discovered this program and saved us all from it (after losing thousands of guns, and after hundreds of murders occured by those guns) is absurd. Holder testified he didn't know anything, but he did know. So what did he know, and what did obama know, and how did they plan holders dishonest testimony?

And when are the parents of a murdered border patrol agent finally going to get some honest answers from team obama about what really happened?

Deanimator
July 15, 2012, 11:16 PM
And when are the parents of a murdered border patrol agent finally going to get some honest answers from team obama about what really happened?
I'm sure that if he were man enough to look you in the eye and say so, Holder would tell you that compared to the need for a government monopoly on the means of armed force (and the preservation of his career), the peace of mind of Terry's parents (and indeed Terry's life itself) are of no consequence at all.

To this administration, even cops are just "little people"...

Fremmer
July 16, 2012, 01:32 AM
I've seen the interview of the parents. They think obama is invoking the bogus privilege claim to stop the truth comig out about what really happened. They want to know how that rifle was provided to a mexican drug cartel to be used for murdering a man who was defending America 's border! He left behind children and family, and they want the truth, not spin about bush or about or anything else.

What are obama and holder trying to hide? Why didn't they tell the truth when holder testified?

awgrizzly
July 16, 2012, 03:02 AM
Your list starts falling apart from the second bullet, given the communications which have been revealed showing concern and curiosity on the part of Holder regarding the possibility of gun walking. A concern which led to the request for an investigation by the Inspector General, as I had cited much earlier in the thread.

My list is just a simple list of things that are known or suspected but create enough doubt that Holder can no longer hold the trust of the nation. I never said Holder wasn't concerned, I never claimed Holder was an active participant, but it's about as certain as be expected that Holder was trying to avoid implication and suppress information about F&F for whatever reason... he simply didn't come clean and state the truth. This, his refusal to turn over documents, Obama's intercedence, and the apparent delay tactics all serve to provide enough suspicion and doubt to render Holder ineffective as AG. These points aren't arguable and the conclusion directly flows from it regardless of Holder's guilt and role in F&F, or the real purpose of F&F. I don't intend to get embroiled in this with you, this is just the way it is in my assessment. Your mileage may vary.

Apuuli
July 16, 2012, 03:47 AM
It's fascinating how much attention is focused on the individual guns that were used to shoot Terry and where they came from rather than the bandits who did all the aiming and murdering. It's as if without those particular F&F weapons, they would have been throwing rocks and no one would have been killed.

It sounds very similar to how the anti's blame the gun store, the gun manufacturer, and/or what they view as lax gun laws when a psycho or criminal uses a gun to murder someone. But I guess political expedience is more important than consistency.

Of course, this situation is slightly different: guns were knowingly released to criminals rather than being available for a disturbed (but still legal) person to buy or simple for a criminal to procure due to the ease of legal purchases and great numbers of guns sloshing around society in general and on the streets in particular. However, assuming that armed bandits wouldn't otherwise have been armed and blaming anyone but the person(s) who pulled the trigger(s) with murderous intent, is disingenuous at best.

Conspiracies, coverups, and incompetence are entirely separate issues but, in spite of their importance, are not as inflammatory or interesting as waving the bloody shirt.

Davek1977
July 16, 2012, 05:08 AM
Neverwinter wrote:
So why is the alternative taking the 6th sense of people who from the very beginning of the first news article, have predicted that Holder and Obama organized the operation for the purpose of increasing gun control even if actions from the administration so far have led to less control?

Let me remind you that I wasn't the one making absolute statements about things I cannot possibly know...you did. I don't NEED to answer your questions about such predictions, when I haven't made them myself. I simly questioned your ability to have access to information none of the rest of us seem to....after all, to make such absolute statements, you must have information the rest of us don't have, right? Speculation as to the intent doesn't mean that such speculation somehow automatically makes the opposite true, which is essentially wheat you are saying....despite it not making a bit of sense.

beag_nut
July 16, 2012, 04:45 PM
A very quick observation: Both Holder and Obama are super-stupid in not mentioning that Michael Mukasey, the Attorney General under George W. Bush, admitted under oath that what is now called "fast and furious" was begun under his supervision.

publius
July 16, 2012, 08:15 PM
It still doesn't reconcile the issues with leaving the investigation to Congressional committee or compromising an ongoing Inspector General investigation.

That really should have been phrased that the continued insistence of Congressional committee as the primary source for justice with the simultaneous dismissal of the Inspector General is a poor recipe for justice.

The IG investigation would never have begun if not for the Congressional investigation that started a month earlier. What began a month earlier at the DOJ was a coverup, not an investigation. See post 127 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8277419&postcount=127).

That coverup included a false statement to Congress, since withdrawn, that the ATF did not walk guns. The IG investigation into Fast and Furious does not obviate Congress' right to investigate how that came about. I have seen no evidence that their investigation of how the DOJ came to lie to them about gunwalking is interfering with the IG investigation.

Beyond the coverup investigation, the Oversight and Reform Committee exists to allow Congress to independently investigate the execution of the laws they make. This was bad execution, the kind of thing they have a right to independently investigate. The IG is part of the DOJ, in effect one branch investigating itself. The balance of power among the branches is important.

publius
July 16, 2012, 08:18 PM
A very quick observation: Both Holder and Obama are super-stupid in not mentioning that Michael Mukasey, the Attorney General under George W. Bush, admitted under oath that what is now called "fast and furious" was begun under his supervision.

An even quicker observation:

Wide Receiver is not Fast and Furious.

A slightly slower observation, but much funnier:

Lanny Breuer is the only American to fail to note the similarities between the two programs. One wonders how he missed it?

Tommygunn
July 16, 2012, 08:24 PM
A very quick observation: Both Holder and Obama are super-stupid in not mentioning that Michael Mukasey, the Attorney General under George W. Bush, admitted under oath that what is now called "fast and furious" was begun under his supervision.

That was Gunrunner, and it was shut down when it was realized that they couldn't actually track the guns. It also actually involved Mexican police who were cooperating with the project.
In "Fast & Furious" they didn't even bother to either tell the Mexican authorities or to try to track the guns.
Big difference!

danez71
July 16, 2012, 09:37 PM
That was Gunrunner, and it was shut down when it was realized that they couldn't actually track the guns. It also actually involved Mexican police who were cooperating with the project.
In "Fast & Furious" they didn't even bother to either tell the Mexican authorities or to try to track the guns.
Big difference!

The fact that they took a known failed Gunrunner program, re-tooled it to give them no chance of tracking the guns, kept is a secret from Mexico (and others in the USA) and implemented it as Fast and Furious is truely dumb-founding.

Regardless of pary lines, that is completely unacceptable on so many levels.

Tommygunn
July 17, 2012, 12:44 AM
The fact that they took a known failed Gunrunner program, re-tooled it to give them no chance of tracking the guns, kept is a secret from Mexico (and others in the USA) and implemented it as Fast and Furious is truely dumb-founding.

Regardless of pary lines, that is completely unacceptable on so many levels.

The level of ...stupidity is staggering, isn't it.

publius
July 17, 2012, 09:26 AM
The fact that they took a known failed Gunrunner program, re-tooled it to give them no chance of tracking the guns, kept is a secret from Mexico (and others in the USA) and implemented it as Fast and Furious is truely dumb-founding.

Regardless of pary lines, that is completely unacceptable on so many levels.

The fact that most of the media summarize the above by saying the Fast and Furious story is one in which some "agents lost track of guns" is more astounding.

That does not begin to describe what was going on, yet if one searches for that phrase in quotes, the results are numerous. Why?

publius
July 17, 2012, 07:26 PM
DOJ Withheld Fast and Furious Whistleblower Memo (http://washingtonguardian.com/)

“It's inexcusable that the Justice Department withheld evidence of yet another red flag that ATF walked guns,” said Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee whose initial investigation disclosed the agents’ concerns in early 2011. It was Grassley who was the recipient of the Feb. 4, 2011 letter from Justice that inaccurately denied gunwalking had occurred.

“As DOJ's denial was being crafted, some in ATF were alerting senior management that whistleblower protection guidance was in order because another agent had backed up the initial reports of gunwalking,” Grassley said. “The Justice Department is denying the public a full understanding of what it knew and when by sitting on documents like these that might be embarrassing.”


There is nothing about this information that would compromise an ongoing investigation, nothing that merits a claim of executive privilege, and Congress certainly has the right as an independent branch of government to investigate how the DOJ came to lie to them.

Why is this only being released now? What else is being hidden without good cause?

Neverwinter
July 23, 2012, 01:28 AM
1a) It also does not presume having the capability.
1b) Going with your precise definition, it states the lack of effort and insinuates that being a deficiency of the poster; presumptuous on your part?

It's a deficiency of the argument, much like a building that fails to meet building codes because the builder takes shortcuts. If the best builders take faulty shortcuts, they are going to build faulty buildings.

It's a choice to do so, they can choose to act otherwise. Having free will, they are completely within their agency to choose not to follow those presumptions. I'm not sure why you seem to presume the lack of free will on their part.

2) Nothing wrong with that I suppose as long as you dont want to allow the oversight committee to do their job, as given to them by the government, in the mean time.
2b) If you have a predetermined conclusion, you may only want the the IG to investigate its AG brother.

In my opinion, there isnt anything wrong with the oversight committee looking into it since the Inspector General and the AG/DOJ are all 3 joined at the hip.

The oversight commitee is comprised of people of both parties and is more independant than having the IG investigate its siamese brothers.

Sure, then let the IG do it's job. If it holds back information over the course of its inquiry, it doesn't point to some conspiratorial plan, which is how many have taken the decision.

If you're unwilling to accept the investigation by the IG, then why should it exist? Or for that matter, why should any internal affairs division exist in any law enforcement agency, since clearly they can't be trusted to do the job appointed to them?

3) I didnt say it needed to be release to the public so I dont understand why you would insinuate that I did.

One idea would be to release it to the oversight committee and still be kept from the public.

That would be a good start pressuming they arent hiding anything and truly wont to put this behind them and regain some trust with some of their peers, subordinates, and millions of other people.Please, given the leaks from the contempt proceedings which aren't supposed to be officially released, not a chance.

3b) Id be interested in that data too. Do you have any data? Or is the lack of data used by yourself to come to a predisposed conclusion and insinuate that it does not happen?No more than what media coverage indicates.

I'll repost this that I said/asked:

Or is that a diversionary tactic to muddy the waters or to imply a more cerebral thought process than others exert?If I were a betting person, I would speculate that the executive privilege decision was for the purpose of protecting the IG investigation. I do think that this is just more than Holder unknowingly making false statements. Someone down the chain has been, based on the evidence provided.

If one were to take the birth certificate history as a model for how they're playing it, they would definitely keep the truth close to the chest until releasing it would do the most damage to the deniers.

My list is just a simple list of things that are known or suspected but create enough doubt that Holder can no longer hold the trust of the nation. .... This, his refusal to turn over documents, Obama's intercedence, and the apparent delay tactics all serve to provide enough suspicion and doubt to render Holder ineffective as AG. These points aren't arguable and the conclusion directly flows from it regardless of Holder's guilt and role in F&F, or the real purpose of F&F.And I submit the evidence of the past posts of prolific posters that this was a false choice. The possibility of Holder holding the trust of the nation based on information which came out later was never a choice, they had already precluded that choice at an earlier point.

Let me remind you that I wasn't the one making absolute statements about things I cannot possibly know...you did.I said that the statements for the justification of the privilege should be taken at face value. Insinuations otherwise are, as I mentioned, having premonitory information. Although since it started so long ago, there's no reason to expect it to stop now.

Neverwinter
July 23, 2012, 01:43 AM
Lanny Breuer is the only American to fail to note the similarities between the two programs. One wonders how he missed it?
There is nothing about this information that would compromise an ongoing investigation, nothing that merits a claim of executive privilege, and Congress certainly has the right as an independent branch of government to investigate how the DOJ came to lie to them.

Why is this only being released now? What else is being hidden without good cause?
Perhaps the question lies with Mark Chait, given that the memos originated from him.

Perhaps the preoccupation with Holder is a diversion, more as a means to an end rather than finding out the source of the project.

danez71
July 23, 2012, 02:16 AM
1) It's a choice to do so, they can choose to act otherwise. Having free will, they are completely within their agency to choose not to follow those presumptions. I'm not sure why you seem to presume the lack of free will on their part.

2) Sure, then let the IG do it's job. If it holds back information over the course of its inquiry, it doesn't point to some conspiratorial plan, which is how many have taken the decision.


3) If you're unwilling to accept the investigation by the IG, then why should it exist? Or for that matter, why should any internal affairs division exist in any law enforcement agency, since clearly they can't be trusted to do the job appointed to them?


4) If I were a betting person, I would speculate that the executive privilege decision was for the purpose of protecting the IG investigation. I do think that this is just more than Holder unknowingly making false statements. Someone down the chain has been, based on the evidence provided.



(numbered by me)

1) Now wait a minute. Now you're sticking words/sentiments in my mouth.

Dont try to turn this into me presuming the lack of intellectual freedom upon others.

It was YOU that accused ME of having 'intellectual freedom from the presumption....'

Let me refresh your memory by quoting you:

Originally Posted by Neverwinter

You're missing the third option:
c)The communications said to respond truthfully, but elements within the DoJ did not do so. Releasing the information would compromise the functioning of the executive branch, as specified in the invocation.

Of course, that requires the reader to exert the intellectual freedom from the presumption that this merely about Holder lying.

Again, dont try to twist this into me being the accusatory one and degrading others.


2) Im fine with the IG doing its job. I didnt say anything otherwise. If they withhold info, youre right, it doesnt neccessarily indicate a conspiracy; What it DOES indicate is that they dont want to release all of the info.

When an internal investigation withholds info gained from their internal investigation, it portrays they are hiding something.

An outside agency or 'oversight committee' should then review that info.

That is their purpose as given to them by the Govt.

Why hobble the committees purpose and function?


3) Im not unwilling to accept the IG investigation provided that the appropriate outside agency/committee is allowed to do their job.

Why are you unwilling to allow the appropriate outside agency/committee to do their job?


4) I agree that its more than Holder. I'm not assuming its Obama too. Its just that something of this magnitude is not isolated to one person.

I want every person that had authority in this matter, at minimum, axed and possibly prosecuted if appropriate. The subordinates need some type of, at minimum, disciplinary action taken against them too.

Neverwinter
July 23, 2012, 02:28 AM
(numbered by me)

1) Now wait a minute. Now you're sticking words/sentiments in my mouth.

Dont try to turn this into me presuming the lack of intellectual freedom upon others.
It was YOU that accused ME of having 'intellectual freedom from the presumption....'

Let me refresh your memory by quoting you:

Again, dont try to twist this into me being the accusatory one and degrading others.
That statement suggests that people exercise freedom. It doesn't presume inability any more than suggesting that someone go outside to get some exercise is physically incapable of doing so. They specifically made their choice not to, and my statement was discussing that decision.
You're the one who's making the logical jump to the presumption that they are incapable. I have been stating that they are capable of abandoning a faulty argument.

2) Im fine with the IG doing its job. I didnt say anything otherwise. If they withhold info, youre right, it doesnt neccessarily indicate a conspiracy; What it DOES indicate is that they dont want to release all of the info.

3) Im not unwilling to accept the IG investigation provided that the appropriate outside agency/committee is allowed to do their job.

Why are you unwilling to allow the appropriate outside agency/committee to do their job?


4) I agree that its more than Holder. I'm not assuming its Obama too. Its just that something of this magnitude is not isolated to one person.

I want every person that had authority in this matter, at minimum, axed and possibly prosecuted if appropriate. The subordinates need some type of, at minimum, disciplinary action taken against them too.Then we shouldn't have to have any further discussions about the DoJ holding back information from the committee until the IG investigation is done. If you believe statements 2,3 and 4 then you should be fine with the outside organization doing their job after the IG does it's job in identifying who was involved in false information being submitted or facilitating gun walking.

CAVHOOAH
July 23, 2012, 02:50 AM
No, Im pretty sure we will continue talking about this issue....moreso as new events are opened up. But thanks for your very defined opinions, God Bless America.......

"Checks and balances" comes to mind... when I read some of these posts. No I dont credit an agency in this situation to investigate themselfs.....And If I was to hear someone state the oposite.... Id ask them to stop drinking the cool-aid and take a stroll through history of basically any government/country thats graced this globe. Its so simple its stupid. Dont buy into the hype boys....its not at all complicated as whats wanted to be beleved.

Your buddy, CAV

Neverwinter
July 23, 2012, 02:58 AM
No, Im pretty sure we will continue talking about this issue....moreso as new events are opened up. But thanks for your very defined opinions, God Bless America.......

"Checks and balances" comes to mind... when I read some of these posts.

Your buddy, CAV
So, which of the three quoted statements do you disagree with? Without an argument against them, statements suggesting there is an obstruction to justice are simply unfounded.

You are certainly right about checks and balances, given the opposition to executive privilege some have expressed.

Fremmer
July 23, 2012, 03:14 AM
Well, let's see. First holder testified he didn't know about fast and furious. Then he had to "retract" that statement. Then, he started the delay game. He produced a group of documents, and then subsequently produced more documents, many of which were heavily redacted (see the picture) or that had nothing to do with the particular scheme known as fast and furious. Now holder has been held in contempt of congress for refusing to produce thousands of documents that will show how this happened, who knew about it, and why a border patrol agent was murdered when the obama administration allowed hundreds of rifles to be shipped to drug cartels. A border control agent died, and obama is having his investigator investigate his own boss. :rolleyes: When will independent counsel be appointed to find out what really happened?

danez71
July 23, 2012, 03:20 AM
1) You're the one who's making the logical jump to the presumption that they are incapable. I have been stating that they are capable of abandoning a faulty argument.

2) Then we shouldn't have to have any further discussions about the DoJ holding back information from the committee until the IG investigation is done. If you believe statements 2,3 and 4 then you should be fine with the outside organization doing their job after the IG does it's job in identifying who was involved in false information being submitted or facilitating gun walking.

ABSOLUTRLY FALSE!!!!

I'm NOT making that presumption! YOU made the statement and then further defined your statement in an effort to soften it (and defend) your position/statement .

Let me post your quote again.

Originally Posted by Neverwinter

Of course, that requires the reader to exert the intellectual freedom from the presumption that this merely about Holder lying.



As I already said, Im fine with the IG doing their job.

I'll quote myself for you:
2) Im fine with the IG doing its job. I didnt say anything otherwise.

Quit insinuating I said otherwise.


You still havnt said you're ok with the oversight committee doing their job.

CAVHOOAH
July 23, 2012, 01:14 PM
Not hungry for your bait today winter. You know my stance......and the facts. I rest my case untill MORE info is released. You should clear your mind and take another look at whats out there...no matter how many times the FACTS are layed out for you....you refuse to see the oddity of the issue at hand. Not sure how someone with so many big words on tap can be so oblivious, but it is what it is.

publius
July 23, 2012, 02:14 PM
...you should be fine with the outside organization doing their job after the IG does it's job in identifying who was involved in false information being submitted or facilitating gun walking.

The "outside organization" is Congress, an equal branch of government. They do not have to rely on another branch to investigate why it lied to them. They can do it themselves.

The IG's job is to investigate Fast and Furious, not the subsequent lies to Congress.

The IG would not even have this job if Congress had not started looking into it a month before Holder gave them the job.

Those seem to me pretty good reasons for Congress to investigate, especially the things directly related to their oversight and things that the IG is not investigating anyway.

If you enjoyed reading about "AG Holder held in Criminal Contempt" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!