I'd call that pretty transparent. Anyone with a lick of sense can see right through the lies.
AG Holder held in Criminal Contempt
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
I'd call that pretty transparent. Anyone with a lick of sense can see right through the lies.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
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.
zxcvbob
Member
That is a false analogy; my firearms are not the subject of a subpoena.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
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
Member
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?
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'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
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
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?
This is open and transparent, obama style?
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.
Last edited:
Cosmoline
Member
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
Member
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.
Exactly.
publius
Member
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:
Congress has a legitimate interest in those other 72,000 documents, not to mention the already "released" ones that are all black.
The IG has some 80,000 documents related to their investigation.
Congress has some 8,000, many of which look like this:
Congress has a legitimate interest in those other 72,000 documents, not to mention the already "released" ones that are all black.
Mousegun
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 737
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
Member
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/docume...scuss-bush-era-gun-walking-program.php?page=1
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
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.
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...rpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no
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.
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.
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.atomd said:
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.Cosmoline said:
danez71
Member
(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
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
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.
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.
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.
And the purpose for invoking executive privilege isn't to shield wrongdoing.
publius
Member
Neverwinter said:
When was the IG investigation into Fast and Furious ordered, and by whom?
publius
Member
Neverwinter said:
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
Member
Try explaining that to the BATFE, who once produced an OFFICIAL TRAINING VIDEO on how to LIE UNDER OATH.
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
Member
alsaqr said:
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
Member
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
Scramble Some Eggs:
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
Scramble Some Eggs:
Plain and simple without manufacturing excuses and diversions these are certain:
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.
- 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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
