AG Holder held in Criminal Contempt

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

DOJ Withheld Fast and Furious Whistleblower Memo

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

danez71 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

Please, given the leaks from the contempt proceedings which aren't supposed to be officially released, not a chance.

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

Click to expand...

No more than what media coverage indicates.

I'll repost this that I said/asked:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

awgrizzly said:

My list is just a simple list of things that are known or suspected but create enough doubt that Holder can no longer hold the trust of the nation. .... This, his refusal to turn over documents, Obama's intercedence, and the apparent delay tactics all serve to provide enough suspicion and doubt to render Holder ineffective as AG. These points aren't arguable and the conclusion directly flows from it regardless of Holder's guilt and role in F&F, or the real purpose of F&F.

Click to expand...

And I submit the evidence of the past posts of prolific posters that this was a false choice. The possibility of Holder holding the trust of the nation based on information which came out later was never a choice, they had already precluded that choice at an earlier point.

Davek1977 said:

Let me remind you that I wasn't the one making absolute statements about things I cannot possibly know...you did.

Click to expand...

I said that the statements for the justification of the privilege should be taken at face value. Insinuations otherwise are, as I mentioned, having premonitory information. Although since it started so long ago, there's no reason to expect it to stop now.

publius said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

Perhaps the question lies with Mark Chait, given that the memos originated from him.

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

Neverwinter said:

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

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


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


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

Click to expand...

(numbered by me)

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

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

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

Let me refresh your memory by quoting you:

Originally Posted by Neverwinter

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

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

Click to expand...

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


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

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

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

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

Why hobble the committees purpose and function?


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

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


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

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

danez71 said:

(numbered by me)

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

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

Let me refresh your memory by quoting you:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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


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

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

Click to expand...

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

No, Im pretty sure we will continue talking about this issue....moreso as new events are opened up. But thanks for your very defined opinions, God Bless America.......

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

Your buddy, CAV

CAVHOOAH said:

No, Im pretty sure we will continue talking about this issue....moreso as new events are opened up. But thanks for your very defined opinions, God Bless America.......

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

Your buddy, CAV

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Neverwinter said:

1) You're the one who's making the logical jump to the presumption that they are incapable. I have been stating that they are capable of abandoning a faulty argument.

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

Click to expand...

ABSOLUTRLY FALSE!!!!

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

Let me post your quote again.

Originally Posted by Neverwinter

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

Click to expand...

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

I'll quote myself for you:

2) Im fine with the IG doing its job. I didnt say anything otherwise.

Click to expand...

Quit insinuating I said otherwise.


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

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

Neverwinter said:

...you should be fine with the outside organization doing their job after the IG does it's job in identifying who was involved in false information being submitted or facilitating gun walking.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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