Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Fast and Furious Report by DOJ Inspector General now available

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Sebastian the Ibis, Sep 20, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Obama and Holder... INSTEAD OF... Obama and Holder?

    That's the level of gibberish to which one must stoop in order to support a new AWB, and it's attempted justification, Fast and Furious.
     
  2. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    You need to read the IG report and Grassley and Issa's statements if your fiction still stands. alsaqr posted it just a few posts above you, if you actually care about the facts. At this point, you have to work to convince the rest of us.

    Sent using Tapatalk 2
     
  3. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    You need to comprehend that I'm not in favor of an AWB OR a whitewash of hundreds of murders facilitated in furtherance of one.
     
  4. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    And Grassley and Issa? Or do their statements shatter the fragile cognitive dissonance that you seem to have to reaffirm every few posts or so?

    Sent using Tapatalk 2
     
  5. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Oh yeah, the CONTEMPT CITATION was just a pun.

    No matter how much you want an AWB, that doesn't justify hundreds of murders.
     
  6. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    Do you know what the contempt charge is, and why it doesn't support the claims that you're making?

    Sent using Tapatalk 2
     
  7. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,029
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    On the OIG Report: while Phoenix ATF SAC Newell, GS Voth and CA MacAllister cannot honestly deny what is documented about what they did, their lawyers claim that the Report depicts them as rogue agents who made up Fast and Furious on their own, when they claim there was more involvement at higher levels in the administration than has been released and they were just following orders like good ATF agents.

    It will be interesting to see what comes of Newell, Voth and MacAllister as this goes on.

    On other fronts, the close cooperation between DOJ Office of Public Affairs Director Tracy Schmaler and Media Matters staffers on Fast and Furious is shown through emails obtained in a FOIA request by Daily Caller. The emails show Schmaler and Media Matters swapping emails on how to discredit whistleblowers and critical reporters on Fast and Furious as stories were announced in various media, often spinning a Media Matters response favorable to DOJ after the stories were announced but before the stories were actually released.

    It makes some people wonder what role Tracy Schmaler may have played in the Katerine Eban "The Truth about the Fast and Furious Scandal" CNN/Fortune 27 June 2012 article, released as the contempt citation was made against Holder. Eban's main claims there was (a) no gunwalking strategy in Fast and Furious at all and (b) gun traffickers like Uriel Patino who bought 723 guns under OF&F could not be arrested on federal straw purchase, dealing without a license or illegal arms export because lax Arizona state laws promoted by the GOP and NRA kept Phoenix ATF and USAO from enforcing federal gun laws (illustrating the need for a new AWB).

    The OIG Report documents that (a) gunwalking was the primary tactic in OF&F and (b) buyers like Patino could have been stopped on the first straw purchase notification from the FFLs, but Phoenix ATF and USAO let the guns walk try to catch a "kingpin" (Tucson ATF and Phoenix FFLs told the IG that their experience was after the first FFL report of a cartel straw purchaser to ATF, that was the last time the FFL saw the straw unless the FFL was called to identify the straw at trial--illustrating the need to enforce existing federal kaw to handle the problems in OF&F).

    I thought the Eban article was simply relying on Group VII Supervisor David Voth's lawyer's letter to the Committee, but finding out about Tracy Schmaler's cooperation with Media Matters to attempt to destroy Sipsey Street Irregulars blogger Mike Vanderboegh who was an early critic of OF&F and finding the same slander in Eban's article, I begin to wonder.

    After all folks, we are dealing with Chicago politicians doing things the Chicago way in Washington D.C..
     
  8. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    But don't you know? EVERYBODY is to blame, EXCEPT Obama and Holder. YOU have more responsibility than Obama and Holder. Why? You're not Obama or Holder.

    In a word, NOTHING.

    What happened to Lon Horiuchi? He actually killed a woman holding a baby. I hardly expect MORE to happen to them.
     
  9. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,388
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    Bingo!!

    Nothing will happen to any career bureaucrat or political appointee. In the end congress and the white house will have blustered and accomplished nothing. Another opportunity to revamp the long out of control BATFE will have passed.
     
  10. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    The BATFE needs to be "revamped" the way the Gestapo, Kempetai and Stasi were.
     
  11. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,737
    Location:
    CAAZ
    How are the AZ gun laws more lax than the federal gun laws?
     
  12. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    And what happened to the supremacy clause?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 9, 2012
  13. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,029
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    Arizona has no gun laws in areas of federal jurisdiction, like straw purchase, dealing without an FFL, or international trafficking.

    The Supremacy Clause was most clearly explained in the Ruby Ridge trial, when Weaver defense attorney Spence asked FBI HRT Commander Rogers: when you drew up your Rules of Engagement, did you consider Idaho state law on use of deadly force? Rogers: NO. I don't operate under state law. I operate under federal law which supercedes all state law.

    Under the Supremacy Clause, lax (actually no) Arizona state laws on FFLs and international trafficking COULD NOT stop Phoenix ATF and USAO from enforcing Federal Law. Fast and Furious LET guns walk in a scheme allegedly to lead Phoenix ATF and USAO to a cartel kingpin--in Mexico where they had no jurisdiction. I still can't fathom that premise.

    But the Katherine Eban "The Truth about the Fast and Furious Scandal" Fortune/CNN 27 June 2012 picked up the theme (from Group VII Supervisor David Voth's lawyer's letter) that there was no deliberate gunwalking because lax Arizona gun laws prevented enforcement of fedeal law on straw buying, dealing w/o FFL and trafficking to Mexico. The DOJ OIG Report names Voth as one of the culprits to blame for F&F.

    Chris Matthews on MSNBC bought that Eban/Fortune manure, and Zornick at The Nation stated he had ignored the Fast and Furious scandal until he read the Eban article. Both these left-wing ideologue ignoramuses pondefecated how Eban's Truth was unquestionable, that the GOP/NRA claim that F&F was a plot to further more gun control is the bunk (but guess what: they both claim that the failure of Fast and Furious points out the need for MORE GUN CONTROL, like laws on straw purchase, dealing w/o a license and international smuggling that supercede weak state laws promoted by GOP/NRA har har)

    20-year ATF agents told the IG that before Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious, they had no problem interdicting straw purchasers, unlicensed dealers, or traffickers headed to Mexico. The Phoenix gun dealers who cooperated under F&F told the IG that the first time they reported a straw purchaser, that was the last time they saw the straw unless they were called to testify at trial. Arizona ATF said it was unusual to them under F&F to be told NOT to interdict, and gun dealers said they were told to contunue gun sales to straws as part of the investigation. It turned out the kingpin was a paid FBI informant.

    The point should be, existing federal gun laws were not enforced, but the Left is using Fast and Furious to call for more gun laws, and to bring back the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4800406...ews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-wednesday-june/
    'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Wednesday, June 27, 2012

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/168673/facts-get-way-gops-fast-and-furious-investigation#
    George Zornick, "Facts Get in the Way of GOP's Fast and Furious Investigation", The Nation, 29 Jun 2012.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2012
  14. k_dawg

    k_dawg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    816
    Talk about the goal post being moved. I do not believe anyone has made the point that Obama was 'running' F&F. Not even Holder would have. Obama does not 'run' much of anything. He [ or any President ] does not 'run' much of anything. He primarily establishes policy, agendas and goals.

    You display a profound ignorance for what the leaders of the Executive Branch actually do.

    However, your question presupposes facts which are a logical impossibility:

    If the documents show zero involvement by Obama, then they are not documents protected by 'executive priviledge'.

    By definition, if there ARE any documents protected by 'executive priviledge', they involve the Office of the President of the United States.

    So, we have only two logical outcomes:

    Either Obama is lying about Executive Priviledge, or he is lying about his involvement.

    I am not sure which is worse.
     
  15. k_dawg

    k_dawg Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Messages:
    816
    In fact, it proves that 'more gun laws', especially at the Federal level have the peverse effect of creating more of a problem.

    If you did not have such corruption in the ATF, and if they simply enforced the current laws on the books, and did not force the dealers and local law enforcement to become unwilling participants in criminial activity designed to allow guns to 'walk'; this would never have happened in the first place.

    A key part of F&F was the federal gov't sanctioning AND directing behavior already illegal.
     
  16. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Washington state
    Ah, 'k_dawg" I believe you may have cracked a code.
    Either he knew and that justifies Exec privilege, or he didn't and that moots EP.

    There was a new development in F&F today (Wednesday) that I covered on Examiner.com. Here's a link.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/fast-furious-white-house-link-is-back-u-s?cid=db_articles

    What I find intriguing, or make that disappointing, is the general public's lack of caring about this. It's deplorable. We've got a government agency that "appears" to have gone rather rogue at least in Arizona, flooding northern Mexico with guns, resulting in countless deaths down there and in a law enforcement murder up here.

    That plain sucks.

    It's been suggested more than once by more than one person that if an "R" administration was still in charge, this story would be Page One, above the fold, every day until impeachment...

    For my profession, that's just plain sad.
     
  17. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,095
    One thing I find so ironic it would be humorous if not dealing with the deaths of human beings:
    People directing Fast and Furious planned on and expected to let guns go to Mexico, be involved in crime, and then use that to prove things to their advantage.
    They express happiness when officials in Mexico are killed with these weapons, knowing it helps establish American guns as a problem.

    The more deaths they could get these weapons involved in down in Mexico the happier they became, as it helped make the case more strongly.
    These are high and low level Mexican officials and politicians.
    Yet suddenly a US border patrol agent is killed, and things are tragic.
    No offense to our fine Border Patrol that often does a tough job, but 1 US agent turns the program on its head and scares those involved, but many in Mexico was a cause for celebration each time they happened.

    High level Mexicans mean nothing and are even a worthy sacrifice whos deaths are worth celebrating because it makes for a better case, but 1 low level US agent is a tragedy.






    Also the big difference between these programs and things like Wide Receiver is the clearly different motivations and plans. Sure both involve guns going to bad guys. However previously they involved law enforcement on the other side of the border, people with jurisdiction on both sides of the border (including US agents working with Mexicans) and the plan was always to recover the weapons even though they sometimes failed.
    Fast and Furious was very different in that they often had no intention of recovering the weapons, but rather hoped to find them at crimes scenes in Mexico and from there prove how they got there and how they were connected to shops in the USA.
    The motivation of the earlier programs was much better, even though they failed enough that they decided it was unwise to continue because it was supplying guns to the bad guys that were unrecovered often enough.
    The motivation of the later program though was clearly more sinister. To demonstrate a problem with American gun liberties by insuring guns could get to the bad guys (and even preventing FFLs from stopping sales as needed), and could then be traced to America once they were found at crime scenes in Mexico.
    Collateral damage to prove a political point I guess is what they considered lives of Mexicans. The ends of a new AWB justified the means of helping the bad guys and then pointing the finger at the well tracked guns they used.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2012
  18. 481

    481 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,950
    It is offensive enough when our Government does something like this, but then to do so for the purpose of creating a "problem" whose solution is more firearms legislation? Unbelieveable. :mad:

    Sadly, none of this will be sorted 'til well after the election.
     
  19. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Washington state
    Zoogster wrote:
    I think you have it, which is similar to what I stated at the Gun Rights Policy Conference about two weeks ago during a presentation on F&F. People died, and this was all done in our name, by an agency of our government, and I'm pretty certain our tax money paid for that.

    As a reporter, I'm supposed to retain some semblance of skepticism and objectivity. As a citizen, I am, well, disappointed, to put it diplomatically.
     
  20. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,388
    Location:
    South Western, OK
  21. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    Okay, so consider the question as you would phrase it, "Here's a question: Is there anyone here who is willing to be brave enough to recant their belief that Obama and Holder were the cause of F&F gun walking if the released executive privilege documents demonstrate no policy, agenda or goals endorsing gun walking?"

    By all means, lead us through your critical thinking process.

    Perhaps you should read the link that was provided about the legal analysis from the OSU professor.

    This perspective is unusual, but not surprising given the desire to dismiss the report as a whitewash because it doesn't blame Obama and Holder. It's not about the facts, it's about the presumption of blame on two people despite it. The rejection of the thought experiment only hinted at this opinion, but that comment truly laid out the perspective at work here. Nothing contained within those executive privilege documents could ever change their minds, as they have already prepared for the assumption that the lack of gun walking endorsement that might emerge "could be inaccurate". It can only support what they already know, that these people are guilty.
     
  22. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,737
    Location:
    CAAZ

    (my suspicion is that Obama said 'we need to prove guns are bad, make it happen' and Holder parroted the orders and did.)

    Sure. Get me those documents and if there isnt any thing indicating "policy, agenda or goals endorsing gun walking" then I'll change my suspicion.


    Until then, you can speculate that there isnt anything to hide in those documents they are hiding (aka executive protection) from everyone.

    And the rest of the common sense folks will continure to speculate that they are hiding something in the documents they are hiding.

    No. You're wrong. Its all about the facts. Including the facts that are being hidden in those documents they are hiding.

    You're making the presumption that the man in charge (Holder) was so bad at his job that he knew nothing about what was going on right under his nose.

    You're also making the presumption that you know the answers and that everyone else is making presumptions and speculating.



    Maybe you should try some of your own thinking experiements and think about why they are hideing so many facts in those documents.

    Maybe you should also try some thinking experiments on your whole position in this matter.

    Think about Neverwinter.... you are greatly out numbered on this issue.

    Do you honestly think that you are so much more intelligent than eveyone else that only you have a clear understanding?

    Do you really think you're the Christoppher Columbus in this matter? That you are the progressive thinker and are willing to stake your life that your extremely minority opinion is right?

    Oh wait... Thats right. Even Christopher Columbus had some science to support his beliefs.

    Where-as you just have a bunch of hidden facts, incomplete reports/investigation and speculation to based your presumptous opinion on.


    It works both ways. Now try it yourself.... and on yourself..... before recommending it to others.
     
  23. Neverwinter

    Neverwinter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,049
    Thank you for stepping up.
    Although the "common sense" people are willfully ignorant of the history regarding their logic of executive privilege as an admission of guilt. Not to mention the intentional ignorance regarding the legal underpinnings of the executive privilege claim which lead them to the false belief that the documents must have proof of Obama's involvement.

    That is what the report says, isn't it? That these people were carrying out the gun walking operation, and the information wasn't being passed up to Holder?

    My posts in this thread have been the demonstration of my thinking experiences. They contain the conclusions, reasoning, and counterexamples behind the objection to prejudices of guilt being applied here.

    Unlike some other posters here, I have thought about history and how executive privilege has been applied in previous presidential terms. A simple observation of the conclusions from historical uses of EP with the same presumptions at work here would provide ample counterexamples. EP was invoked over the investigation of Pat Tillman's death. Applying the logic from here would mean that Bush was the cause of Tillman's death. EP was invoked over the investigation of Abu Ghraib mistreatment. Applying the logic from here would mean that Bush was the cause of the mistreatment. EP was invoked over misuse of mob informants. Applying the logic from here would mean that Bush was the cause of the misuse. The list goes on and on.

    I've gone through the complement of the thought experiment that I posted. If the released documents showed policy, agenda and goals endorsing gun walking, I would recant my objections to the belief that Obama and Holder were the cause of F&F gun walking.

    Despite your suggestions to the contrary, facts aren't consensus-based. If you found yourself on a 15th century voyage, and everyone around you was convinced that you had landed on India, that doesn't make it true. This site represents a small self-selected microcosm of individuals, and making broad claims regarding majority opinion of the entire population based on it would be faulty. And before you start accusing people of being less intelligent, see the following study regarding delusion among intelligent, educated individuals.
    http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf
     
  24. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    In each of the cited cases the White House was determined to, if possible, protect the president from negative consequences that would occur if the documents in question were made public. Looking backwards, it would seem obvious that releasing the document would not have reflected favorably on the president and/or his advisors. How is this different than this present instance? Since the current president has refused to release the documents that were requested are we supposed to believe that President Bush was somehow or in some way guilty, but Obama is not? :uhoh:
     
  25. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,737
    Location:
    CAAZ
    Nope. I disagree. Watergate ring a bell? Guilty!

    I think you're being willingfully ignorant to the fact that several times when presidents have evoked EP, dare I say, they in fact were hiding something. In fact, you mentioned some of them down below.

    I also believe you're making the leap that just because EP was evoked that everyone is assuming Obama was the decision maker. Youre making it an all or nothing issue. The documents could flesh out that Obama knew nothing until after the fact and that Holder only knew after the program was in full progess and his subordinates initiated everything.



    The report also says its incomplete because lack of documents. But somehow you're willfully ignoring that part.



    But you have come to a wrong or biased conclusions. More on that below.



    Now we're getting some where....



    Nope. You're making a giant leap to an incorrect conclusion.

    The correct conclusion to the logic is that when EP was evoked on this issue, it was in fact hiding and covering up government involvement that was greater than initially reported before and after the initial investigation.

    In short, the EP was in fact a Govt cover up.



    Nope. Youre again making a giant leap to an incorrect conculsion. Again, in this example, the EP was coving up governement involvment beyond what was admited by the government before and after the initial 'investigation'.

    In short, the EP was in fact a Govt cover up.


    What you have done is listed examples of how the government was covering up things by evoking EP that was later proven after getting the documents.

    I listed another using Nixon. Again, a Govt cover up.



    I never said that or eluded to it either. Again, you're making giant leaps here.

    I asked you if you really think you're the Chistopher Columbus in this matter. Everyone was wrong but Columbus was right.

    So please dont twist what I said to fit your agenda. The question still stands BTW.


    Whoa Whoa Whoa..... I NEVER accused anyone of being less intelligent!! I asked if you thought you more intelligent than everyone else.

    I'll quote myself:

    So again, do not twist what I said to fit your own agenda.

    You have done things like that several times in this thread. Twice with me from just one post of mine.

    I suggest you stop that practice as that only undermines any point you're trying to make.


    By your own examples, EP had historically been unsed as a Govt cover up and at least one time in recent modern history, it was used to cover up the Presidents' own involvment in crime.

    You have just made the case even stronger that the EP is hiding something... based on history, the govenments involvement including, but not limited to, the possibility of hiding the Presidents and/or Holders involvement.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page