Shadow 7D
Member
Neverwinter is just here to stir
*controversy*
*controversy*
Fast and Furious Report by DOJ Inspector General now available
- Thread starter Sebastian the Ibis
- Start date
- Status
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
From the dates of the documents under executive privilege, I'll give you the possibility that they found out after the operation completed. That also makes an assumption about the presence of evidence in the documents, when there is no external indication of such.
The most repetitive commenter that I have been responding to has been assuming that the president was the orchestrator. Would they have made that same assumption for the other EP cases I mentioned?
I take it you weren't here for the A=B=C conversation.
So you have one example out of many in which the assumption that people are making would actually be true. That's not good odds, unless you're a horrible gambler.
You specifically asked if I thought that I was more intelligent than everyone else like Christopher. I have never in this thread made a claim. The only claim is on your part, making that association with intelligence.
I posted an article as a counterexample showing how intelligence is not the only cause for disagreement on an issue:
And then I addressed your belief in the sample of "everyone" that involves the posters in this thread as being unsound.
If you don't think facts are consensus-based, why would you bring up the number of people who agreed as a factor?
There's not much point to agreeing to an analogy that has already been dismantled.
Yes, we now have the foundation for the assumption that every use of executive privilege since Eisenhower was a coverup for criminal direction from the President.
This was precisely the reason for the importance of having it released before the elections.Old Fuff said:
Deanimator
Member
And precisely why the documents were withheld.
The reelection of Obama CLEARLY trumps the law and the right of the people and their representatives to know what the administration is doing.
The comparisons with Nixon are EXTREMELY apt, as are comparisons of the administration's supporters in this to Nixon's farthest fringe of support during Watergate. They remind me of no one so much as fringe Chicago radio personality Warren Freiburg who wanted Nixon to clear the Congress and rule by decree.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Like Watergate, the coverup has become the issue.
So the withheld documents go to the reasons behind the coverup of Fast and Furious rather than to the reasons behind the instigation of Fast and Furious, so we should not care?
Like the reasons why the 4 Feb 2011 DOJ letter claimed there was no gunwalking and was allowed to stand as official position for months until formally withdrawn on 2 Dec 2011 are not important? Why were they defending the indefensible?
Every report whether the Democrat minority report, the Joint Staff majority report, the DOJ OIG report has found emails and documentation way before 4 Feb 2011 that guns were allowed to walk, supposedly to seek a gun trafficking kingpin, that there was gunwalking that required not enforcing existing federal law on straw purchase, dealing w/o FFL and trafficking to Mexico.
(In stopping a black market you choke the source. In the drug running model, the kingpin is the source and street dealers are small fry. In the gun running model, the street traffickers are the source supplying the kingpin and the kingpin is probably replaceable anyway. Applying the drug model--go for the big fish--is the wrong answer to the US to MX gunrunning problem.)
Whether F&F was started with intent to be used to promote gun control, it has been an exploitable crisis used to promote gun control.
So the withheld documents go to the reasons behind the coverup of Fast and Furious rather than to the reasons behind the instigation of Fast and Furious, so we should not care?
Like the reasons why the 4 Feb 2011 DOJ letter claimed there was no gunwalking and was allowed to stand as official position for months until formally withdrawn on 2 Dec 2011 are not important? Why were they defending the indefensible?
Every report whether the Democrat minority report, the Joint Staff majority report, the DOJ OIG report has found emails and documentation way before 4 Feb 2011 that guns were allowed to walk, supposedly to seek a gun trafficking kingpin, that there was gunwalking that required not enforcing existing federal law on straw purchase, dealing w/o FFL and trafficking to Mexico.
(In stopping a black market you choke the source. In the drug running model, the kingpin is the source and street dealers are small fry. In the gun running model, the street traffickers are the source supplying the kingpin and the kingpin is probably replaceable anyway. Applying the drug model--go for the big fish--is the wrong answer to the US to MX gunrunning problem.)
Whether F&F was started with intent to be used to promote gun control, it has been an exploitable crisis used to promote gun control.
danez71
Member
Well... thanks for 'giving' that to me.
Probably.
Oh.. I was here. I take it you werent here when you listed examples of when EP was used and it in fact was a Govt cover up.
I also listed Nixon in which he was directly involved.
How about another? Clinton lost in court just as Nixon did and not so shockingly, it proved that he was hiding something that he was directly involved in.
.
I have two now. I just doubled my odds. And not so oddly, you didnt mention either one. Did you forget about those two? Or did they not fit your side of the debate?
LOL... I didnt claim that you claimed that. I simply asked you a question of which you still havent answered. BTW, Chistopher Columbus was a pretty smart guy, and in the minority of opinion on the matter, and was right.
Yes you did. It tried to associate a persons religion and political affiliation to not beliving or being more skepticle of science. I'm not going there. Good try to divert the conversation and muddy the water though.
Actually, I said 'extreme minority'; not "everyone".
Well I dont think facts are concensus based. That should be evident when I brought up Christohper Columbus. But statisically, usually if most people think A=B=C, they are right. Usually. Christopher Columbus is the counter example. And thats way I asked you if you thought you were the Christopher in this debate.
But it hasnt been dismantled. It was made stronger by your own examples and the two that I gave that you left out.
See.. now there you go again. All or nothing. Its doesnt HAVE to be EVERY use of EP. Why did make that giant leep?
But what we do have the foundation of is that in fact, in recent mordern history, EP has been used as a Govt cover up AND to hide the Presidents own actions at least two times.
Thats your assumption. Not fact.
I think youre being blinded by the assumption that this investigation is solely the result of political motivation and has nothing to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do.
Deanimator
Member
What you fail to understand is that to some people, ANY criticism of ANY attempt to impose a new AWB is "political", even a highly illegal one that kills hundreds of people.
NOTHING is more important than a new AWB... not even human life.
HorseSoldier
Member
That's a good point. As long as the US drug market is a huge cash cow for organized criminals in Mexico, there will be a consequent market for illegal guns in Mexico (from the US and elsewhere). This whole disastrous fiasco was not even conceptually an effective means to even reduce the American component of illegal guns in Mexico (and without even looking at the issue of whether even a 100% elimination of US guns in Mexico would make one bit of difference).
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
A cover up is much more limited than the position that has been repeatedly posted here.
You've doubled from one to two out of how many?
danez71 said:
So the refutation of the opening of your question still stands.
And you would be just as wrong, trying to make conclusion about a population based on a self-selected sample.
Let's see, the issue of intelligence has already been debunked with the link which you have no objection to. The fundamental characteristic that you have been harping on regarding Columbus, namely his extreme minority opinion, has also been debunked.
If you had been following the discussion, you would have read how the A=B link was not supported by the evidence, and yet people were still trying to make the A=B=C link. That's illogical.
So what you're saying is that from those two times out of all the uses, it would be safe to make the assumption that this incident is not like the vast majority of the uses, but of the minority?
It's confessed outright in the second post in the thread. "The guys at the top get off and the whole matter can be quickly forgotten before the election."
If it weren't politically motivated, we wouldn't have seen the negative reversal on the reactions from those who supported earlier uses of EP.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
From the standards expressed in your posts, the Terry's don't find their son's life important as part or their support for a new AWB.Deanimator said:
By the way, would you like to support or refute danez71's statement that you would have probably made the same assumption about presidential guilt for the other EP cases mentioned?
Carl N. Brown
Member
Post #131. That theory conveniently fits the famous Rahm Emmanuel quote: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Legislation and political action initiated in response to a Moral Panic has usually resulted in bad law and bad policy. See the history of gun control in the US.
Taking the discredited practices of "gun walking" and "controlled delivery" ended Oct 2007 under Wide Receiver and restarting "gunwalking" Nov 2009 in Fast and Furious, amounts to creating a crisis to exploit. Or exploiting an unintentionally created crisis, whichever came first, the serpent or the egg.
In order to save some human lives (with an assault weapon ban), we had to sacrifice some human lives (by allowing gunwalking). Sounds typical of Big Government advocates.
Legislation and political action initiated in response to a Moral Panic has usually resulted in bad law and bad policy. See the history of gun control in the US.
Taking the discredited practices of "gun walking" and "controlled delivery" ended Oct 2007 under Wide Receiver and restarting "gunwalking" Nov 2009 in Fast and Furious, amounts to creating a crisis to exploit. Or exploiting an unintentionally created crisis, whichever came first, the serpent or the egg.
In order to save some human lives (with an assault weapon ban), we had to sacrifice some human lives (by allowing gunwalking). Sounds typical of Big Government advocates.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Who would want to be the Christopher Columbus in this debate?
Most half-educated folks since 300 BC believed the world was round. The Spanish Court in 1490s believed China and the Indies were about 8,000 miles west of Portugal. Columbus believed China was only 3,000 miles away. (Washington Irving's 1800s Columbus book was satirical not historical.)
Most half-educated folks since 300 BC believed the world was round. The Spanish Court in 1490s believed China and the Indies were about 8,000 miles west of Portugal. Columbus believed China was only 3,000 miles away. (Washington Irving's 1800s Columbus book was satirical not historical.)
Deanimator
Member
I don't know their opinions on an AWB.
I DO know Obama's and Holder's.
It wasn't Terry's parents who intentionally sent firearms to known criminals in order to generate support for an AWB.
It was Obama and Holder.
I haven't the slightest doubt that Nixon was guilty of that of which he was accused and much more besides.
Those who support a new AWB will support Watergate to do so.
But then I've also seen them support the Holocaust to do so.
For those who support an AWB... or worse, hundreds of lives or millions, it's all the same to them.
Grandpa Eichmann in that Lakewood McDonald's was a lot more typical of anti-gunners than a lot of people want to believe.
Shadow 7D
Member
Wait
lets move this a step further
we know how the white house operates
look at the Bengazi attack, SOMEONE was watching real time LIVE video of it, there were marines, drones, CIA and other resources in strike range, the situation being beamed live into the Situation Room.....
Yet
Folks,
Nothing to see here
Just 'Innocent Muslims (religion of peace
)
spontaneously (after being told all about it thanks to a US 'apology' ad)
demonstrating......
SO
From an administration that KNOWINGLY lied to the people for at least 12 days in the face of a HUGE amount of evidence to the contray, you want me Neverwinter to think that nothing is being hidden by the EO, which is covering an obstructionist justice department...
lets move this a step further
we know how the white house operates
look at the Bengazi attack, SOMEONE was watching real time LIVE video of it, there were marines, drones, CIA and other resources in strike range, the situation being beamed live into the Situation Room.....
Yet
Folks,
Nothing to see here
Just 'Innocent Muslims (religion of peace
)spontaneously (after being told all about it thanks to a US 'apology' ad)
demonstrating......
SO
From an administration that KNOWINGLY lied to the people for at least 12 days in the face of a HUGE amount of evidence to the contray, you want me Neverwinter to think that nothing is being hidden by the EO, which is covering an obstructionist justice department...
DammitBoy
Member
Is it possible that the President or Holder initiated the gun walking program?
Yes.
Do we have all the documents that could prove or disprove this supposition available from the "transparent" Obama White House?
No.
Why?
Because the White House is protecting itself or Holder by withholding documents from the public and congress.
End of story.
Yes.
Do we have all the documents that could prove or disprove this supposition available from the "transparent" Obama White House?
No.
Why?
Because the White House is protecting itself or Holder by withholding documents from the public and congress.
End of story.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
It was in your posts that you named people AWB supporters who didn't agree with your assumption about the guilt of Obama and Holder. You do know their opinions on an AWB because they made the press release agreeing with the conclusion of the IG report. You also know that they don't care about the death of their son and the Mexicans, because they don't agree with your assumptions regarding Obama and Holder's guilt.Deanimator said:
A grieving family has an excuse for making emotional, unfounded assumptions. It's expected for those touched by tragedy, like those spree shooting bystanders who talk about how we'd all be safer with less guns.
You're making the assumption of guilt based on who they are, not the evidence. The unwillingness to consider the thought experiment of having your mind changed by the contents of the EP documents was the first sign. The willingness to project that sentiment of identity-based guilt on others was another.
That doesn't answer the question. No one here doubts that Nixon was guilty. To rephrase: Was Bush guilty for Tillman's death? The deficiency in the Katrina response? The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib?Deanimator said:
You can't say "yes" to the question, because it makes you out to be a wild conspiracy theorist. You can't say "no", because it further supports the earlier allusions to identity-based guilt.
danez71 said:
k_dawg said:
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
What many of the people who make this claim neglect to mention about their position is that even if the documents being withheld by executive privilege are released and contain no evidence to prove the supposition, they will still claim that Obama and Holder are guilty. The reluctance of response to the thought experiment earlier in the thread shows this.DammitBoy said:
Let us presume - only for argument - that the documents being withheld by the Obama Administration either indicate that the President and Attorney General were in no way directly or indirectly involved in F&F, or contain no evidence one way or the other. Given that Obama is (apparently) in a tight race to keep his job, wouldn't it be advantageous to have released the papers, and in so doing defused the issue? While it is clear that F&F is nowhere close to the top of the list, it could make a critical difference in a close vote in those states that have a common border with Mexico, and with other voters who are associated with various Gun Rights organizations.
Given this reality, it would seem that if they were clean of anything damaging it would be logical to release them. While it is true that some individuals would not change their mind regardless of the evidence, it is probable that not every voter meets this description.
It is unlikely that Obama can make a case for innocence by hiding favorable evidence, and clearly it’s unlikely his advocates can successfully do it for him.
Given this reality, it would seem that if they were clean of anything damaging it would be logical to release them. While it is true that some individuals would not change their mind regardless of the evidence, it is probable that not every voter meets this description.
It is unlikely that Obama can make a case for innocence by hiding favorable evidence, and clearly it’s unlikely his advocates can successfully do it for him.
DammitBoy
Member
Fluff and nonsense. There is no other reason to withhold them.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
Arizona, New Mexico and Texas? Of those, the only one that went to Obama was NM. AZ has twice as many electoral votes as NM, and TX 7 times. Both are not going to Obama, so it would be pointless pandering.
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, this does have shades of the Birthers. When the Birther movement got into full swing, the short form birth certificate was already released. From that point, the reasonable people who actually cared about evidence knew that the Birther movement was going nowhere. The people who cannot be reasoned with were the ones who continued to claim that Obama wasn't a citizen. It is pointless to reason with them because their opinions persist despite the facts.
At this point, with the release of the IG report, the ones who persist in their presumption of guilt(e.g. Deanimator above your post, or DammitBoy below) do match that description of those who will not change their mind regardless of the evidence.
DammitBoy
Member
Actually, Neverwinter, you come across as someone who will not change their mind, even if Obama was caught eating live babies.
The IG report was an internal one, and based on only that information and documentation that the Administration and Justice Department were willing to release to it. Thus after reviewing only a part of the total they decide that neither the president or attorney general were guilty of any involvement, and those who are outside looking in are supposed to accept their findings without question?
If you were on a jury and knew that possibly important information had been withheld so you couldn't consider it, would you find the defendant guilty?
In this case it is the defendant who is withholding information, and then expects we will assume he is innocent.
Why do you expect people to decide what their opinion is, when they know that what they are being told is based entirely on selected evidence?
A cover up need not cover up illegal activity by that individual. Scooter Libby commited no crimes other than lying to cover up legal activity.
Nixon did not commit the crime of the Watergate break up.
In any event, given your hypothetical question about pigs flying, then they would be guilty of fraudulently claiming executive priviledge.
danez71
Member
.
The wink alludes to that you agree that this is all politically motivated and that it doesnt have anything to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do.
Care to confirm or deny?
Uh... I believe I was NOT reluctant to respond.
No. Besides being a GIANT leap of non-logic on your part, a sensible person cant answer 'yes' or 'no' because the question doesnt make sense to answer.
Its like asking someone 'do you always pick your nose when you kiss your girl friend?' If cant answer yes for obvious reasons, and if you answer No, then it means that only only pick your nose sometimes when you kiss your girlfriend.
Thats pretty much the pot calling the kettle black right there.
So... why dont let release the info that they are hiding?
You never have really directly said why they are choosing to hide the info instead of releasing it in order to make this a non-issue and put it behind them.
Carl N. Brown
Member
If ATF Phoenix SAC William Newell and Case Agent Hope MacAllister (blamed along with Group Supervisor David Voth) are correct in claiming that upper management in the DOJ and administration knew and approved of what they were doing, and scapegoated them, then the withheld documents might reflect that.
BTW there are two sets of withheld documents, one set at the Holder DOJ level and one set at the White House level.
Holder and Obama expressed support in the 2008 campaign for renewing the AWB. Starting Apr 2009 Obama and Calderon held several press events blaming Mexican Drug War violence on the sunset of the AWB. A government report claimed 87% of Mexican crime guns came from the US. That was actually 3,480 guns of 4,000 guns that were in ATF records of guns made in the US or imported into the US, out of the total of 30,000 Mexican drug crime guns seized 2004-2008. US Dept of Homeland Security and the independent Strategic Forecasting pointed out the 87% fallacy (3,480 is 12% of 30,000). Then in Nov 2009, Phoenix ATF restarted the discredited practice of "gunwalking" and "Fast and Furious" put 1,961 guns into cartel hands, and hundreds more US guns started showing up at Mexican crime scenes. It was not stopped until after Brian Terry was killed 14 Dec 2010. 4 Feb 2011 the Holder DOJ put out a letter denying "gunwalking" was done; withdrew the letter 2 Dec 2011. Yes, there was gunwalking. Then Holder claimed he put an end to gunwalking while simultaneously claiming he did not know about it until after the operation had ended. And the great and wonderful wizard of Obama says there is no need to look behind the curtain. It is all just coincidence.
(On the other hand, arguing Bush/Obama over Wide Receiver/Fast and Furious is kinda like arguing Bush Sr/Clinton over Ruby Ridge/Waco. In Ruby Ridge and Waco the tragic outcomes were dictated in both by the way ATF lied to other agencies and the way HRT Commander Dick Rogers ran the FBI HRT, but the Clinton Administration defended Waco but did not defend Ruby Ridge, when the real problem was the way ATF and FBI acted in both situations.)
But Obama being for renewing the AWB before he had no position is not assuring.
Last edited:
- Status