AG Holder held in Criminal Contempt

publius · Jul 12, 2012

Neverwinter said:
...
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....

publius said:
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:

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 · Jul 12, 2012

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 · Jul 12, 2012

Neverwinter said:
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 · Jul 14, 2012

I think Senator Grassley's interest in the email that flew around the day before the DOJ lied to Congress 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:

Neverwinter · Jul 15, 2012

Davek1977 said:
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?

awgrizzly said:
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 · Jul 15, 2012

publius said:
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.

danez71 said:
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 · Jul 15, 2012

Neverwinter said:
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...hQLokA?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 · Jul 15, 2012

Neverwinter said:
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 · Jul 15, 2012

publius said:
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.

danez71 said:
Of course, that requires the reader to exert the intellectual freedom

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Old Fuff · Jul 15, 2012

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 · Jul 15, 2012

Neverwinter said:
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 · Jul 15, 2012

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 · Jul 15, 2012

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

!!!

You owe me a new keyboard!!!!

Fremmer · Jul 15, 2012

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 · Jul 15, 2012

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 · Jul 16, 2012

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 · Jul 16, 2012

Neverwinter said:
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 · Jul 16, 2012

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 · Jul 16, 2012

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 · Jul 16, 2012

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 · Jul 16, 2012

Neverwinter said:
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.

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 · Jul 16, 2012

beag_nut said:
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 · Jul 16, 2012

beag nut said:
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 · Jul 16, 2012

Tommygunn said:
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 · Jul 16, 2012

danez71 said:
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.

AG Holder held in Criminal Contempt

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads