Fast and Furious Report by DOJ Inspector General now available

k_dawg · Oct 2, 2012

I think it absolutely is connected. While the particular firearm may or may not be one that 'walked', the violence clearly escalated due to F&F. And being heavily armed have made the cartel's bolder.

Did you see the pictures of some of the firearms which were allowed to go into Mexico? We're talking some seriously expensive hardware, FN SCARs in 7.62 NATO, etc!
e.g. higher firepower than which we allow our own officers to have.

Shadow 7D · Oct 2, 2012

k_dawg said:
I think it absolutely is connected. While the particular firearm may or may not be one that 'walked', the violence clearly escalated due to F&F. And being heavily armed have made the cartel's bolder.

Did you see the pictures of some of the firearms which were allowed to go into Mexico? We're talking some seriously expensive hardware, FN SCARs in 7.62 NATO, etc!
e.g. higher firepower than which we allow our own officers to have.

No, those $25 M16's are FA, carried in the patrol car, and what they were buying, isn't
why they were getting guns this way IDK, cartels have been reported to be buying stuff by the connex load from china and Africa.

Neverwinter · Oct 6, 2012

Carl N Brown said:
The DOJ OIG was allowed to see tens of thousands of DOJ documents that were withheld from the Committee. The Holder DOJ trusted the DOJ's IG. So the Obama WH witholding documents from its own DOJ Inspector General is the tactical equivalent of a civilian refusing to submit to a strip search in a investigation? I don't buy the analogy. Its more like the police chief refusing to talk to his internal affairs office.

If we're going to use that sort of analogy, it's like the mayor not talking to the internal affairs office of the police department. The police chief hasn't been implicated in all of the police department documents. Why would it make sense that the mayor would be involved in orchestrating misconduct if his conduit into the department isn't involved?

The Inspector General report also claims, for example, that Holder "did not learn about Operation Fast and Furious until late January or early February 2011." However, as The New American and other sources have documented, the disgraced Attorney General was publicly bragging about the deadly scheme as early as 2009

[citation needed] (Not that I expect it from The New American)

Deanimator said:
I don't recall seeing any STATEMENTS by them supporting the conclusions of the report. Can you post a link?

By the way, did they make any statements indicating a desire for the White House and Justice Department to stop stonewalling?

http://honorbrianterry.com/news/the...ks-for-action-by-attorney-general-eric-holder

They said that the executive privilege documents should be released because it might further show the wrongdoing by those blamed in the report.

Is the fact that they are not blaming Obama and Holder for running F&F make them supporters of an AWB? That is what you seem to imply with your post:

EVERYTHING that Obama and Holder have done in the ENTIRE stinking mess points directly at culpability, from the before the fact claim of "working under the radar", to the after the fact attempts to conceal what Obama and Holder knew and when they knew it.

But yet again, for those who support a new assault weapons ban, literally NOTHING done in furtherance of one will EVER be criticized.

By not ignoring the facts of the report and continuing to claim that Holder and Obama were running F&F, one is supporting an AWB by not criticizing them.

Here's a question: Is there anyone here who is willing to be brave enough to recant their belief that Obama and Holder were running F&F if the released executive privilege documents demonstrate no orchestration? Anyone? Or is this all about beliefs instead of evidence? Can you demonstrate that this isn't just another God-of-the-gaps argument where the faith hides under the shelter of whatever has not yet dispelled it?

Davek1977 · Oct 6, 2012

Here's a question: Is there anyone here who is willing to be brave enough to recant their belief that Obama and Holder were running F&F if the released executive privilege documents demonstrate no orchestration? Anyone? Or is this all about beliefs instead of evidence? Can you demonstrate that this isn't just another God-of-the-gaps argument where the faith hides under the shelter of whatever has not yet dispelled it?

Without taking the IG's report as gospel, can you PROVE that the leadership of this administration DID NOT have any ulterior motives with F&F? The availbility of some information doesn't preclude the possibility of further information that could possibly link the President and or AG to having knowledge as to the operation. Your question, though, is impossible to answer without first seeing the documents "protected" under Executive Privilege and what what they consist of. I'm not going to guess as to what the contents are, and then estimate my assumed response to whether or not I think its accurate. Thats putting the cart far ahead of the horse. Let me examine the documents, see if there are obvious holes to the story or not, and go from there. Asking somoene to predict their response to reading a document or documents they are clueless as to the contents of is just silly and serves no purpose whatsoever. You can't judge the accuracy of a report one hasn't read any better than one can measure a group he or she hasn't shot yet. Its impossible.

Deanimator · Oct 6, 2012

By not ignoring the [self-admittedly incomplete] facts of the report

There, fixed that for you.

The only ones who think the report exonerates Obama and Holder are those who support a new AWB, the entire PURPOSE of Fast and Furious.

Neverwinter · Oct 6, 2012

Davek1977 said:
Without taking the IG's report as gospel, can you PROVE that the leadership of this administration DID NOT have any ulterior motives with F&F? The availbility of some information doesn't preclude the possibility of further information that could possibly link the President and or AG to having knowledge as to the operation.

You're asking to prove a negative. You might as well be asking to prove unicorns don't exist.

Your question, though, is impossible to answer without first seeing the documents "protected" under Executive Privilege and what what they consist of. I'm not going to guess as to what the contents are, and then estimate my assumed response to whether or not I think its accurate. Thats putting the cart far ahead of the horse. Let me examine the documents, see if there are obvious holes to the story or not, and go from there. Asking somoene to predict their response to reading a document or documents they are clueless as to the contents of is just silly and serves no purpose whatsoever. You can't judge the accuracy of a report one hasn't read any better than one can measure a group he or she hasn't shot yet. Its impossible.

I apologize if you are not familiar with the concept of a thought experiment. The idea is to think through the conclusions of a hypothetical situation in order to better understand our thinking. You may think that the discussion of whether a cat in a box is dead or alive is silly, but it does have value.

For the sake of the experiment, assume that is a lack of communication concerning gun walking. This means that there is a distinct absence of evidence supporting your hypothesis. Does your hypothesis change now that your knowledge has changed? Why or why not? Do the gaps that you injected into the experiment still remain your support for the hypothesis?

Deanimator said:
There, fixed that for you.

The only ones who think the report exonerates Obama and Holder are those who support a new AWB, the entire PURPOSE of Fast and Furious.

So Brian Terry's family. Got it. Why don't they care about justice for their son and those hundreds of Mexicans, being used like that for political gain?

Sorry, I'm not the one who made the claim that Obama and Holder orchestrated gun walking. It's the people who put forth a claim who have to support that claim with evidence, as opposed to faith.

Zoogster · Oct 6, 2012

The timing of everything quite perfectly coincides with changing political needs to support additional firearm restrictions.
From early calls by Holder for a new AWB not long after taking office. From Obama assuring they were working behind the scenes.
To the political pressure for a new AWB by tying cartel violence to the availability of American firearms.
Including calls from the president of Mexico, and various politicians especially internationally applying such pressure, with clear allies in the United States.
Pressure applied steadily to slowly win over more of the population over time, because the nation was so pro-gun after the Obama election that it couldn't be done right away without first tying gun rights in America to horrible things in the minds of the public and repeating it steadily and often to make it seem more true.
Part of this was the often repeated 90% of illegal guns come from the United States.
To the debunking of the often spouted 90% of illegal guns in Mexico come from the US (implying civilian market) resulting in the gains they worked hard for in passing a new AWB being all but lost.
Along with the fact that even many of the guns that are from the US are actually select fire weapons sold to the Mexican government that make their way to cartels becoming more public knowledge.
Pictures of grenades, grenade launchers, factory full autos, rocket launchers, and a host of other weapons clearly not from the American civilian market common in cartel seized weapon caches being more scrutinized.
To implementation of a program which had it not gone bad allowing them to demonstrate 'proof' that American firearm rights were resulting in guns going to the bad guys. Which certainly would help in trying to rebuild more support for a new AWB. (Even if it required forcing FFLs to make sales they never would have allowed to proceed if not told by the ATF they had to.)

There is even more subtle details, like who was contacting who when certain key events were unfolding.
Sure they could have just been talking about completely unrelated things...

The time line is pretty coincidental. Requiring them to try to allude it is a continuation of an old Bush program (it is not) just to throw the timeline off.
Now the justice department investigates itself and concludes Eric Holder its leader has no ties (even after he is already in contempt for lying before Congress) just in time to wrap things up. That it was just some guys in Arizona doing their own thing and everything has been resolved.

Shadow 7D · Oct 6, 2012

Neverwinter, you must really LOVE obumbles
I mean, like what gives,

so we all get you are wearing blinders
the OIG report says it does not have access to documents that COULD be very vital

Now everybody wants to clear their name, so why wouldn't you release exonerating documents, instead, it's spin, spin, spin
keep the rose colored glasses on, keep plodding on the path, a happy ol horse with your bag of oats with our binders on.

this isn't TIN FOIL HAT territory, this is eye glasses and head scratching territory, where people go 'now why in the hell would the do that or say that if they have nothing to hide'

that leads to honest conclusion there is something to hide.
you tell me what they are hiding, Oh wait, your line is blinders... NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS, MOVE ALONG.....

BTW, are just here to stir the poop
I gather that you don't value RKBA
after all, you sign you post with this

Guns don't kill people, racist vigilantes kill people

Strange, I find that to be the MOST racist and intolerant statement I have encountered in quite a while
but then, the entire thing was MANUFACTURED by racists, race baiters, and leftist media and ANTI GUN organizations.... (that these just happen to be the same...)

You are not wearing blinders,
you are all 3 monkeys
blind, deaf and dumb

Fremmer · Oct 6, 2012

Actually, you need to explain the specific legal basis of your privilege claim. Because I don't think it is real, and we deserve the truth about what happened.

Neverwinter · Oct 7, 2012

Zoogster said:
From early calls by Holder for a new AWB not long after taking office. From Obama assuring they were working behind the scenes.
To the political pressure for a new AWB by tying cartel violence to the availability of American firearms.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-coming-after-guns-under-radar-nra-say/
"To recap: The Washington Post reported that Sarah Brady said Obama told her his administration is "working on it," likely referring to gun control (in what way is unclear in the article). And Brady then tells the Post Obama said, "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

The quote then gets distorted by the NRA to "Obama admits he’s coming for our guns, telling Sarah Brady, ‘We are working on (gun control), but under the radar.’""

Part of this was the often repeated 90% of illegal guns come from the United States.
To the debunking of the often spouted 90% of illegal guns in Mexico come from the US (implying civilian market) resulting in the gains they worked hard for in passing a new AWB being all but lost.
Along with the fact that even many of the guns that are from the US are actually select fire weapons sold to the Mexican government that make their way to cartels becoming more public knowledge.
Pictures of grenades, grenade launchers, factory full autos, rocket launchers, and a host of other weapons clearly not from the American civilian market common in cartel seized weapon caches being more scrutinized.

To implementation of a program which had it not gone bad allowing them to demonstrate 'proof' that American firearm rights were resulting in guns going to the bad guys. Which certainly would help in trying to rebuild more support for a new AWB. (Even if it required forcing FFLs to make sales they never would have allowed to proceed if not told by the ATF they had to.)

This is what is curious about the arguments that I've seen so far. They say that F&F is at fault for Terry and countless Mexicans' deaths, when they know that American guns constitute only a miniscule fraction of the guns used by bad guys, and F&F guns being a smaller portion of that. It's almost like they're trying to capitalize on the deaths for political gain even though their argument directly contradicts other information that they know.

There is even more subtle details, like who was contacting who when certain key events were unfolding.
Sure they could have just been talking about completely unrelated things...

Agreed. The report demonstrates that communication was happening at the state level.

Now the justice department investigates itself and concludes Eric Holder its leader has no ties (even after he is already in contempt for lying before Congress) just in time to wrap things up. That it was just some guys in Arizona doing their own thing and everything has been resolved.

The old "internal affairs offices are corrupt" claim gets trotted out again.

Does the Feb Congressional testimony count as perjury if he was recounting the truth as was presented to him? Is it perjury if you don't know that your statements are based on incomplete information?

Shadow 7D said:
so we all get you are wearing blinders
the OIG report says it does not have access to documents that COULD be very vital

Now everybody wants to clear their name, so why wouldn't you release exonerating documents, instead, it's spin, spin, spin
keep the rose colored glasses on, keep plodding on the path, a happy ol horse with your bag of oats with our binders on.

this isn't TIN FOIL HAT territory, this is eye glasses and head scratching territory, where people go 'now why in the hell would the do that or say that if they have nothing to hide'

that leads to honest conclusion there is something to hide.
you tell me what they are hiding, Oh wait, your line is blinders... NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS, MOVE ALONG.....

I see all of the previous discussion of reasonable search has gone over your head. So far no one has been brave enough to answer the thought experiment which was just posed regarding their reaction to a hypothetical release of the documents and not finding any communication showing collaboration on gun walking. Even if there weren't the executive privilege claim, why should anyone cooperate with such people who argue in bad faith?
What is the point of providing the long form birth certificate when the short form isn't sufficient for them?

<redacting ad hominem and direct disobedience to the forum dictate regarding posts about a certain case>

Thank you for your assistance.

Fremmer said:
Actually, you need to explain the specific legal basis of your privilege claim. Because I don't think it is real, and we deserve the truth about what happened.

See the following article about executive privilege from the Chair in Law at the Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law
Why contempt case against Holder may be doomed

Zoogster · Oct 7, 2012

It's almost like they're trying to capitalize on the deaths for political gain

Absolutely, Republicans saw a potential way to use a scandal to their advantage. That is why it got coverage to begin with. Not because it was a crooked scheme designed to reduce American firearm rights. But just because that is why is has recieved much coverage doesn't detract from it being done.

And there is no doubt it was done intentionally to increase firearm laws.
Dennis Burke, lawyer that played a large role in passing the first AWB, and well connected to Obama (part of transition team to White House after the election) who then went to Arizona and became US Attorney, the man (then given?) ATF agents to use at his disposal, and who the agents asked for permission almost every step of the way....Clearly directing them in an official capacity.
Why were the ATF agents so intent in asking permission on this program every step of the way? Higher ups clearly drilled it into them that they were taking instructions from Burke. Who made that happen?
Burke made it quite clear in conversation that the program would be used to further gun control, specifically assault weapon restrictions.

He knew these guns were being used in some crimes to murder people in Mexico after being intentionally allowed to walk across the border (which really upset some of the ATF agents who were being directed by Burke at the local level), which would help make the case for gun control:

Burke:

It's a T-III investigation that we have been working w/ATF for a long time and IRS is all over some money laundering charges. It’s going to bring a lot of attention to straw purchasing of assault weapons. Some of the weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the Cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby.

The political timeline, combined with the close connectioned of Burke. If the administration or Holder had decided to get something done along the border, who would they have used to make it happen? Someone in Texas? California? No, the prime choice available would have been Burke sitting there in Arizona. Give him federal agents (the ATF had to ask him for permission to do many basic things they can typically do on their own throughout the program) and let him make it happen.

Fast and Furious was going to be used for gun control, that is not in question.

alsaqr · Oct 7, 2012

Neither Grassley nor Issa say that Fast and Furious originated at the white house or DOJ. Fast and Furious originated with the career bureaucrats in the Phoenix office of the BATFE. The AG for AZ approved of the plan. The plan was blessed up the food chain and and it morphed into a monster involving several federal agencies.

Issa say as much in his 3 May, 2012 report. See page 4:

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/5-3-12-Memo-Update-on-Op-Fast-and-Furious.pdf

Fast and Furious Conceived

The ATF Phoenix Field Division began Operation Fast and Furious in the fall of 2009 after suspicious weapons purchases led agents to the discovery of an apparent Phoenix-based arms trafficking syndicate.

Having been encouraged to devise grander strategies to stop the transfers of weapons to Mexican drug cartels, the Phoenix based agents devised a strategy that went beyond simple arrests or weapons confiscations. They would allow the U.S.-based associates of a Mexican drug cartel to continue acquiring firearms uninterrupted.

In doing so, they hoped the weapons, after they were recovered at crime scenes in Mexico, could be traced and linked to cartel operatives including possible high-level financiers, suppliers, and possibly even king-pins.

alsaqr · Oct 7, 2012

With sadness, I am posting the news that in the early A.M. on Tuesday, Oct. 2nd. another gunfight between Mexican smugglers and the Border Patrol occurred southeast of Bisbee, Arizona.

The FBI says the agents fired on each other.

Members did not respond to the tripped sensor as a team: They were split up. Ivie may have fired on the other two agents? See bold.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...-patrol-death-details-20121006,0,865431.story

Three agents fired unknowingly at each other after they separately responded to a tripped sensor in a rugged canyon in southeastern Arizona, Cochise County Acting Sheriff Rod Rothrock told The Times on Saturday.

FBI officials said a preliminary investigation showed that Border Agent Nicholas J. Ivie died in a "friendly fire" shooting that only involved the agents. Another agent was shot in the buttocks and ankle and is recovering at home. A third agent was not injured. Authorities have not released their names.

Ivie, a six-year agent, was shot while he and two other colleagues on horseback patrolled an area a few miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, between Naco and Bisbee. The area is considered a corridor for drug and human smuggling near the Mule Mountains.

The three agents had communicated with each other and knew they were all in the area. Ivie was about 20 yards away from the other two agents and “interpreted defensive postures from the other as aggressive postures,” Rothrock told the Arizona Daily Star, an account he confirmed with The Times.

Deanimator · Oct 7, 2012

So Brian Terry's family. Got it. Why don't they care about justice for their son and those hundreds of Mexicans, being used like that for political gain?

Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexicans were KILLED for political gain. Obama and Holder are responsible for THAT.

alsaqr · Oct 7, 2012

Obama and Holder are responsible for THAT.

At the end of the day Americans insatiable appetite for dope is responsible for that. If there was no demand for dope in the US there would be few killings in Mexico.

Deanimator · Oct 7, 2012

At the end of the day Americans insatiable appetite for dope is responsible for that. If there was no demand for dope in the US there would be few killings in Mexico.

Demand for drugs is responsible for drug trafficking, not discrete acts of murder.

"Americans" using dope didn't sent thousands of guns to criminal gangs in Mexico.

Obama and Holder did.

Neverwinter · Oct 7, 2012

Zoogster said:
Absolutely, Republicans saw a potential way to use a scandal to their advantage. That is why it got coverage to begin with. Not because it was a crooked scheme designed to reduce American firearm rights. But just because that is why is has recieved much coverage doesn't detract from it being done.

As long as they're being honest about their motivations. When the first few posts in this thread focus on working on causing an impact on the next election rather than on criminal conviction, the motivation was already being hinted at.
The people against this supposed guilt-causing executive privilege had no problems maintaining their cognitive dissonance in the face of their previous positions where the president of their team remained clean in their mind when exercising executive privilege.

And there is no doubt it was done intentionally to increase firearm laws.
Dennis Burke, lawyer that played a large role in passing the first AWB, and well connected to Obama (part of transition team to White House after the election) who then went to Arizona and became US Attorney, the man (then given?) ATF agents to use at his disposal, and who the agents asked for permission almost every step of the way....Clearly directing them in an official capacity.
Why were the ATF agents so intent in asking permission on this program every step of the way? Higher ups clearly drilled it into them that they were taking instructions from Burke. Who made that happen?
Burke made it quite clear in conversation that the program would be used to further gun control, specifically assault weapon restrictions.

He knew these guns were being used in some crimes to murder people in Mexico after being intentionally allowed to walk across the border (which really upset some of the ATF agents who were being directed by Burke at the local level), which would help make the case for gun control:

The political timeline, combined with the close connectioned of Burke. If the administration or Holder had decided to get something done along the border, who would they have used to make it happen? Someone in Texas? California? No, the prime choice available would have been Burke sitting there in Arizona. Give him federal agents (the ATF had to ask him for permission to do many basic things they can typically do on their own throughout the program) and let him make it happen.

Fast and Furious was going to be used for gun control, that is not in question.

And you made a good case for Burke continuing his work toward an AWB. But your information is incomplete. If one does a search on "Dennis Burke transition team" and ignores the wingnut sites, you can get to http://www.opensecrets.org/obama/transition.php which show how various people including Burke were preferred for positions because of their donations.

Unfortunately, Grassley and Issa don't support your premises. See alsaqr's post for the link.

Deanimator said:
Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexicans were KILLED for political gain. Obama and Holder are responsible for THAT.

So you're saying that the US is a fundamental source of guns to the cartels that were involved in those deaths? Because that goes against a lot of other information available. Then again, I addressed this particular cognitive dissonance earlier in the post. As mentioned before in the thread, if you're gong to pretend to be involved in a discussion, at least read the posts you're responding to.

alsaqr said:
Neither Grassley nor Issa say that Fast and Furious originated at the white house or DOJ. Fast and Furious originated with the career bureaucrats in the Phoenix office of the BATFE. The AG for AZ approved of the plan. The plan was blessed up the food chain and and it morphed into a monster involving several federal agencies.

Issa say as much in his 3 May, 2012 report. See page 4:

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conten...nd-Furious.pdf

Thank you for that citation. The Terry family has already called for an investigation by Napolitano about the DHS component.

Deanimator · Oct 7, 2012

So you're saying that the US is a fundamental source of guns to the cartels that were involved in those deaths?

So, those guns tied to killings in Mexico were actually dropped by people on their way to hunting camps?

There was never ANY doubt that those in favor of a new AWB would say literally ANYTHING to justify an effort to impose one.

alsaqr · Oct 7, 2012

Demand for drugs is responsible for drug trafficking, not discrete acts of murder.

The demand for dope has caused a shooting war between rival dope cartels over the US dope franchise.

Yeah, what the federal government did in Fast and Furious is criminal and someone should be sent to prison. But we have this peculiar thing about being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Accusations on a website will not get that done.

Neverwinter · Oct 7, 2012

Deanimator said:
So you're saying that the US is a fundamental source of guns to the cartels that were involved in those deaths? Because that goes against a lot of other information available. Then again, I addressed this particular cognitive dissonance earlier in the post. As mentioned before in the thread, if you're gong to pretend to be involved in a discussion, at least read the posts you're responding to.

Click to expand...

So, those guns tied to killings in Mexico were actually dropped by people on their way to hunting camps?

There was never ANY doubt that those in favor of a new AWB would say literally ANYTHING to justify an effort to impose one.

You're ducking the question and responded with the same self-affirmation of cognitive dissonance, just as I predicted. QED.

alsaqr · Oct 7, 2012

Its significant that career bureaucrats of the Phoenix BATFE who ran Wide Receiver also ran Fast and Furious. Think of Wide Receiver as a pilot program for Fast and Furious.

Does anyone else here find it ironic that neither Issa nor Grassley are calling for reform of the BATFE?

Deanimator · Oct 7, 2012

You're ducking the question and responded with the same self-affirmation of cognitive dissonance, just as I predicted. QED.

Those who would impose another AWB support a whitewash of Fast and Furious.

No change.

Neverwinter · Oct 7, 2012

alsaqr said:
Its significant that career bureaucrats of the Phoenix BATFE who ran Wide Receiver also ran Fast and Furious. Think of Wide Receiver as a pilot program for Fast and Furious.

Does anyone else here find it ironic that neither Issa nor Grassley are calling for reform of the BATFE?

Of course not, why would they do so when it produces useful innocents who make posts like

Those who would impose another AWB support a whitewash of Fast and Furious.

No change.

F&F is a ticket to fame and party aggrandizement. Why should the deaths of Brian Terry and numerous Mexicans be prevented if they can be used to attempt to win elections?

Count down to Deanimator's Markov text generator post in 3.. 2.. 1..

Deanimator · Oct 7, 2012

Why should the deaths of Brian Terry and numerous Mexicans be prevented if they can be used to attempt to win elections?

You'd have to ask Obama and Holder since they were willing to kill hundreds of people to curry favor with Josh Sugermann.

Neverwinter · Oct 7, 2012

Deanimator said:
You'd have to ask Obama and Holder since they were willing to kill hundreds of people to curry favor with Josh Sugermann.

Shouldn't you ask the people who orchestrated gun walking as rather than Obama and Holder? I mean, if we're going to actually address gun walking rather than just scoring points for elections as I mentioned.

Sent using Tapatalk 2