Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on June 07, 2012, 10:13:51 PM
-
Our esteemed Attorney General:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/holder-claims-emails-using-words-fast-and-furious-don-t-refer-operation-fast-and
This is just too over the top. Holder needs to be impeached. "The reference to 'Fast and Furious' did not refer to 'Fast and Furious" but to 'Wide Receiver' instead." Yeah, right. Gotta give the man credit -- he has cajones.
-
Cojones--or he understands all too well the current state of the culture--viz., that mendacity usually goes not only unpunished but rewarded.
-
It is certainly plausible that an email saying "fast and furious" captured by a text search wouldn't have anything to do with the operation. It's a common phrase.
What isn't so sensible to me is why any email paid for by taxes should be off limits to congressional scrutiny. Nor is it even remotely believable that the DOJ would be selling guns to crooks without high level approval - what mid-level government manager in his right mind would think he could do that on his own?
I'm surprised this hasn't received more traction. It's probably because the conduct was so egregious it's been written off as a conspiracy theory, despite the justice department essentially admitting it sold guns to cops.
-
It is certainly plausible that an email saying "fast and furious" captured by a text search wouldn't have anything to do with the operation. It's a common phrase.
I disagree it's a common phrase. It's so common that the only place I have heard it in 68+ years on this planet is in the name of this operation. Did you even read the article?
Among three of the emails (see Jason Weinstein Email Fast, Furious.pdf), the second, dated “October 17, 2010 11:07 PM,” was sent by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein to James Trusty and it states: “Do you think we should have Lanny participate in press when Fast and Furious and Laura’s Tucson case [Wide Receiver] are unsealed? It’s a tricky case, given the number of guns that have walked, but it is a significant set of prosecutions.”
In the third email, dated Oct. 18, 2010, James Trusty writes back to Weinstein: “I think so, but the timing will be tricky, too. Looks like we’ll be able to unseal the Tucson case sooner than the Fast and Furious (although this may be just the difference between Nov. and Dec).”
“It’s not clear how much we’re involved in the main F and F [Fast and Furious] case,” reads the email, “but we have Tucson [Wide Receiver] and now a new unrelated case with [redacted] targets. It’s not any big surprise that a bunch of US guns are being used in MX [Mexico], so I’m not sure how much grief we get for ‘guns walking.’ It may be more like ‘Finally, they’re going after people who sent guns down there.’” (See Jason Weinstein Email Fast, Furious.pdf)
And then, incredibly, Holder came back with this:
In his testimony, Holder said that the emails only referred to Operation Wide Receiver.
Holder told the committee: “That refers to Wide Receiver, not to Fast and Furious. The e-mail that you [Rep. Chaffetz] just read [between Trusty and Weinstein] – now this is important – that email referred to Wide Receiver, it did not refer to Fast and Furious. That has to be noted for the record.”
-
Hawkmoon, fast and furious is a saying that's certainly older than the popular series of movies going back ten years or so - I don't think it's reasonable to say that it is uncommon.
But anyway, I was agreeing with you that Holder's behaviour is inappropriate and that he probably is concealing something illegal.
-
Hawkmoon, fast and furious is a saying that's certainly older than the popular series of movies going back ten years or so - I don't think it's reasonable to say that it is uncommon.
But anyway, I was agreeing with you that Holder's behaviour is inappropriate and that he probably is concealing something illegal.
Yes, "fast and furious" is a fairly common phrase. But, in circles that use code names when a word or phrase becomes a code name things change.
-
He reminds me of a kid with icing and cake crumbs all over his face saying "I didn't eat the cupcakes". Unfortunetly, whether or not congress tales him to the woodshed seems more a political matter than a question of right and wrong.
-
Eric Holder? You mean the next Supreme Court justice if Obama is re-elected?
-
Personally, I think Holder is just comfortable in the fact that Democrats in Congress will attempt to cover for him no matter what he does. I imagine he could pull out a gun and unload it on the crowd in the middle of Congress and some Dem Congressmen would still oppose any concrete action against him.
Say what you want about others, but Democrats and those siding with them seem to do anything and everything they can to ignore or cover up anything that might be negative about this administration.
-
Holder is just a symptom of the final crack. Liar and racist and totalitarian. If the GOP were worth a fig they'd be raising hell on the floor of Congress. That they aren't tells us how far down the road we really are.
-
Holder is just a symptom of the final crack. Liar and racist and totalitarian. If the GOP were worth a fig they'd be raising hell on the floor of Congress. That they aren't tells us how far down the road we really are.
Indeed, it's arguably "bigger" than Watergate and Iran-Contra, with a couple Monica's thrown in.
And I guess we're just supposed to feel lucky it got "exposed", and that it's ultimate purpose of undermining the 2nd Amendment and RKBA and try and gin up legislative traction for more bans, restrictions, or maybe the UN Small Arms Treaty, failed.
-
Indeed, it's arguably "bigger" than Watergate and Iran-Contra, with a couple Monica's thrown in.
And I guess we're just supposed to feel lucky it got "exposed", and that it's ultimate purpose of undermining the 2nd Amendment and RKBA and try and gin up legislative traction for more bans, restrictions, or maybe the UN Small Arms Treaty, failed.
Did it fail though?
Outside of RKBA circles how many folks know the extent of F&F vs. the whole "US gunz kill Mexicans!!!!!" thing? I'm not convinced that, as far as drumming up voter support, the scheme didn't work.
-
Again, it's because the press/media is totally enraptured with this POTUS. Had this been GWB or Reagan it would have reached Nixonian proportions by now and the Congressional hearing would make Watergate/Iran-Contra pale in comparison.
The left's howls for the head of the POTUS would be broadcast/printed/blasted on the interwebz 24/7 to the point that he would not be able to govern. (That's what they did to Nixon.)
But this, the silence is defining?
-
But this, the silence is defining?
Beautiful freudian slip there. (don't correct the spelling) :)
-
It appears that all the Fast and Furious guns went to the Sinaloa Cartel. Thousands of them. All the cartels are wanting guns... so why is only one outfit getting them?
-
It appears that all the Fast and Furious guns went to the Sinaloa Cartel. Thousands of them. All the cartels are wanting guns... so why is only one outfit getting them?
Makes one wonder if digging deeper, there were quid-pro-quo agreements that in exchange for letting the guns get "found" so they could be "traced" to provide adequate fodder for anti-RKBA agitprop, that law enforcement efforts, at least from a U.S. perspective would be focused on other competing cartels.
-
That would be spectacularly stupid. That being said, I would not put it past the jokers over at DOJ to try something that monumentally stupid.
-
That would be spectacularly stupid. That being said, I would not put it past the jokers over at DOJ to try something that monumentally stupid.
The only way they'd consider it "stupid" is if they documented it somehow.
DHS has made it clear they already consider vets and RKBA-types a bigger threat than Al Queida or the Zetas or the Cartels.
-
Obama is invoking executive privilege on the documents congress demanded:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/politics/holder-contempt/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
-
Let's hope someone wiki-leaks the material - I'm really interested to see what it is they hid.
-
What justification exists for "executive privilege" against congressional subpoenas? Let me guess.... national security?
-
Obama only acts in his own self interest. Any executive priveledge claimed is just to preserve his own position.
Documents? what are they besides old paper and bytes anyway? not like its a birth certificate or anything.
Eric the withHolder is starting to make Janet Reno look like a really good AG.
-
IANAL, but Fox is reporting that Executive Privilege attaches only if the President was directly involved. Best case, the DOJ doesn't understand Executive Privilege. Worst case, Holder perjured himself before Congress and the President lied through his teeth to the American public. I vote for the latter.
-
Intervening to save Holder from the Contempt hearing, Obama has declared Fast & Furious a sensitive matter protected by executive privilege.
The contempt hearing is scheduled for... right now. And it is reportedly still on.
I am still of the belief that this is larger than Iran-Contra and should be front page on ever newspaper with continuous coverage from ALL the major networks.
-
How can the idiot n chief invoke executive privilege for documents he has stated have no white house involvement? Yes, this is bigger than Iran-Contra. Makes Nixon look like a baby. We have a Tyrant wannabe running this county, with an AG that is more racist than any KKK grand Poobah
-
The meeting yesterday between the committee and Holder was to put it mildy... contemptuous. He might has well told the committee to go get xxx... excuse me, climb a tree.
Executive Privilige was granted over the Justice Department providing the requested documents. That would suggest the President is involved. This only makes me more suspicious and I think this whole deal goes to the very top. The black helicopter folks have said Fast & Furious program was modified modified during the Obama Administration to gain public support for more civilian gun control that extends over the entire US. This latest action certainly gives some circumstancial support for this belief.
Remember Nixson?
This whole thing is a slap in the face to our Congress. Read CONTEMPT! It is consistant with Obama's approach to governing since he took office. Many Democrats say it's a "witch hunt". Well.... this latest action certainly pushes that belief. Where there is smoke there is fire.
-
Well, I guess that's the White House confirming this wasn't a few wildcard middle manager ATF guys in BFE Arizona.
As I understand it, Executive Privilege can only be used if the President's office is in some way involved?
-
I seem to remember that Richard Nixon used executive privilege as a stonewalling technique as the Senate Watergate Committee investigation deepened. He claimed executive privilege to prevent aides from testifying and to withhold tapes he made of his White House conversations.
George Bush claimed executive privilege to avoid having his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, testify before the 9/11 Commission, citing separation of the executive and legislative branches of government. After public and political pressure, Bush finally relented.
Obama is not the first to use executive privilege.
-
This oughta get real interesting.... [popcorn]
-
I seem to remember that Richard Nixon used executive privilege as a stonewalling technique as the Senate Watergate Committee investigation deepened. He claimed executive privilege to prevent aides from testifying and to withhold tapes he made of his White House conversations.
George Bush claimed executive privilege to avoid having his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, testify before the 9/11 Commission, citing separation of the executive and legislative branches of government. After public and political pressure, Bush finally relented.
Obama is not the first to use executive privilege.
GW used it 6 times, Clinton 14, HW Bush 1 and Reagan 3 times (source Fox news).
Obama also blasted GW over the use of EP calling for transparency and openness.
-
I seem to remember that Richard Nixon used executive privilege as a stonewalling technique as the Senate Watergate Committee investigation deepened. He claimed executive privilege to prevent aides from testifying and to withhold tapes he made of his White House conversations.
George Bush claimed executive privilege to avoid having his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, testify before the 9/11 Commission, citing separation of the executive and legislative branches of government. After public and political pressure, Bush finally relented.
Obama is not the first to use executive privilege.
And your point would be...?
He's not the first to use executive privilege.
However, the most salient point in this is that Executive Privilege is only applicable if the EXECUTIVE is involved.
Appointees confirmed by Congress are not covered under Executive Privilege. (E.G. the AG)
The story has been that Obama had no clue about F&F. Asserting Executive Privilege means that he (or his close advisors) were involved.
-
Were this a Republican administration, the press would be handing out pitchforks and torches on the White House lawn.
-
I seem to remember that Richard Nixon used executive privilege as a stonewalling technique as the Senate Watergate Committee investigation deepened. He claimed executive privilege to prevent aides from testifying and to withhold tapes he made of his White House conversations.
George Bush claimed executive privilege to avoid having his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, testify before the 9/11 Commission, citing separation of the executive and legislative branches of government. After public and political pressure, Bush finally relented.
Obama is not the first to use executive privilege.
It didn't work for Tricky Dicky -- he was forced to turn over the tapes and all hell broke loose.
And it ought not work for Obama, either.
How can the idiot n chief invoke executive privilege for documents he has stated have no white house involvement? Yes, this is bigger than Iran-Contra. Makes Nixon look like a baby. We have a Tyrant wannabe running this county, with an AG that is more racist than any KKK grand Poobah
GOOD, POINTED and SUCCINCT question!
He CAN'T claim EP. It didn't work for Nixon and this claim is far more specious.
-
Nothing but racist, election year political grandstanding by the republicans. Nothing to see here, move along before we have to have DHS declare all of you terrorists.
-
This is pretty transparent. Obama is going to cover for Holder on F&F because he's going to need cover from Holder over a bigger issue with the leaked national security information about Iran. They choose to hang together rather than hang seperately.
-
IANAL, but Fox is reporting that Executive Privilege attaches only if the President was directly involved. Best case, the DOJ doesn't understand Executive Privilege. Worst case, Holder perjured himself before Congress and the President lied through his teeth to the American public. I vote for the latter.
Then our slogan will be, "OBAMA LIED; PEOPLE DIED!" :laugh: =D :laugh: =D
Wait. That's kind of sad. =|
-
It didn't work for Tricky Dicky -- he was forced to turn over the tapes and all hell broke loose.
And it ought not work for Obama, either.
Nixon didn't have John "Crybaby" Boehner looking out for him; making sure the investigation never gets out of committee.
-
"Wide Receiver" was the Bush era program. Approximately 650 guns were intentionally leaked to Mexico. That number was widely eclipsed by Fast and Furious, Obama era, which was thousands.
Honestly, I suspect neither the Bush or Obama administration directly knew that much about it at a cabinet level. This is not phrased thus in any official releases, but I highly suspect it was an attempt by BATFE upper middle brass to restore their image. While yes, BATFE abuses have continued since Waco and Ruby Ridge PR diseasters. 2A activists have successfully hobbled BATFE brass from "big abuses", like another Waco or Ruby Ridge. Only time 2A activists and slabs of cash are trumped are by big PR crisis involving firearms such as Columbine.
BATFE for many years has been claiming that the Mexican drug cartels are armed by American firearms. This is categorically deceptive. It has some truth, if you claim Mexican military weapons purchased from the US which are a large bulk of the numbers. They tried to make their claims true, by pressuring firearms dealers to make illegal sales. Considering that the BATFE has sole and extreme authority over Federal Firearm Licenses necessary to sell firearms commercially... The choice became "Break the law or lose your license".
The problem is not the Obama administration, per se. The problem is the Obama administration is protecting the BATFE instead of throwing the agency to the wolves, which must occur. The BATFE must be made an independent agency, not under DHS, DOJ or any other department so they have no superiors to cover for them. To send a message, the BATFE middle and upper ranks must be decimated, extreme oversight must be established, agency authority must be sharply reduced and BATFE personnel violating US laws must be tried in court. . Not for the numerous laws broken, the thousands of people killed or the threat to national security. So they do not do this again. Or something even worse.
Wide Receiver and other operations were illegal, violated the national sovereignty of Mexico, et al. But it was dwarfed by Fast and Furious. Wide Receiver used informants. Fast and Furious used government coercion and threats. Wide Receiver killed dozens. Fast and Furious killed thousands.
It. does. not. matter. Either operation justifies gutting the BATFE's authority like a trout so that the NEXT operation is does not follow the path of escalation.
-
To send a message, the BATFE middle and upper ranks must be decimated, extreme oversight must be established, agency authority must be sharply reduced and BATFE personnel violating US laws must be tried in court. . Not for the numerous laws broken, the thousands of people killed or the threat to national security. So they do not do this again. Or something even worse.
Or pick one to prosecute and seek the death penalty.
-
Nixon didn't have John "Crybaby" Boehner looking out for him; making sure the investigation never gets out of committee.
You think John "Crybaby" Boehner is somehow a demorat and looking out for Obama? :facepalm: [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil][tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil][tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil][tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil][tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil][tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil][tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil][tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil]
[popcorn]
-
To send a message, the BATFE middle and upper ranks must be decimated
I don't think one in ten is nearly enough, maybe allow one in ten to live.
-
As Dana Loesch just put it, the President has "assumed ownership" of the debacle.
Wisconsin; now this. Unless the Court is very kind to the healthcare bill in their upcoming decision, June will be a disastrous month for Prof. Obama.
-
You think John "Crybaby" Boehner is somehow a demorat and looking out for Obama?
He's worse than that. I think he's a weak ineffectual Republican, and he's afraid someone will call him a "racist" if he goes after Obama.
-
I am also concerned about Boehner's efforts following this vote by the committee. I have a feeling that Boehner would just like to let it blow over until after the election. But if these people broke the law, I seek more than contempt charges. I suspect that this goes all the way to the White House which is about the only way that Executive Privilege applies and it confirms many suspicions.
Holder protects his president. The President protects Holder. Will have to wait and see how this goes forward. But I am not holding my breath. Unless new information comes out (and it might), it will all blow away after the election. It does little to instill confidence in my government.
-
I am also concerned about Boehner's efforts following this vote by the committee. I have a feeling that Boehner would just like to let it blow over until after the election. But if these people broke the law, I seek more than contempt charges. I suspect that this goes all the way to the White House which is about the only way that Executive Privilege applies and it confirms many suspicions.
Holder protects his president. The President protects Holder. Will have to wait and see how this goes forward. But I am not holding my breath. Unless new information comes out (and it might), it will all blow away after the election. It does little to instill confidence in my government.
What irritates me even more is that these committee votes take place along party lines.
Neither party owns right or wrong - they blindly follow their own party's lead.
If the USAG is breaking the law, it is not a party issue, but a simple legal issue.
The BATFE needs to be thrown to the wolves, and devoured.
-
IANAL, but Fox is reporting that Executive Privilege attaches only if the President was directly involved. Best case, the DOJ doesn't understand Executive Privilege. Worst case, Holder perjured himself before Congress and the President lied through his teeth to the American public. I vote for the latter.
I think it's all of the above. And our "constitutional law professor" POTUS, or the folks advising him, doesn't exactly understand Executive Privilege either. Either that, or they do know, but they're so desperate to stop this that they're willing to implicate Obama through association as long as nothing can be proven.
Kobiashi Maru Mr. President.
-
"Wide Receiver" was the Bush era program. Approximately 650 guns were intentionally leaked to Mexico. That number was widely eclipsed by Fast and Furious, Obama era, which was thousands.
Honestly, I suspect neither the Bush or Obama administration directly knew that much about it at a cabinet level. This is not phrased thus in any official releases, but I highly suspect it was an attempt by BATFE upper middle brass to restore their image. While yes, BATFE abuses have continued since Waco and Ruby Ridge PR diseasters. 2A activists have successfully hobbled BATFE brass from "big abuses", like another Waco or Ruby Ridge. Only time 2A activists and slabs of cash are trumped are by big PR crisis involving firearms such as Columbine.
BATFE for many years has been claiming that the Mexican drug cartels are armed by American firearms. This is categorically deceptive. It has some truth, if you claim Mexican military weapons purchased from the US which are a large bulk of the numbers. They tried to make their claims true, by pressuring firearms dealers to make illegal sales. Considering that the BATFE has sole and extreme authority over Federal Firearm Licenses necessary to sell firearms commercially... The choice became "Break the law or lose your license".
The problem is not the Obama administration, per se. The problem is the Obama administration is protecting the BATFE instead of throwing the agency to the wolves, which must occur. The BATFE must be made an independent agency, not under DHS, DOJ or any other department so they have no superiors to cover for them. To send a message, the BATFE middle and upper ranks must be decimated, extreme oversight must be established, agency authority must be sharply reduced and BATFE personnel violating US laws must be tried in court. . Not for the numerous laws broken, the thousands of people killed or the threat to national security. So they do not do this again. Or something even worse.
Wide Receiver and other operations were illegal, violated the national sovereignty of Mexico, et al. But it was dwarfed by Fast and Furious. Wide Receiver used informants. Fast and Furious used government coercion and threats. Wide Receiver killed dozens. Fast and Furious killed thousands.
It. does. not. matter. Either operation justifies gutting the BATFE's authority like a trout so that the NEXT operation is does not follow the path of escalation.
I thought I had heard the program during the Bush era did not see any guns actually leave the US, that they pulled the plug when they couldn't track the guns. Is that not the case? What were the circumstances around that one?
-
I thought I had heard the program during the Bush era did not see any guns actually leave the US, that they pulled the plug when they couldn't track the guns. Is that not the case? What were the circumstances around that one?
According to what I have read, the Mexican government was aware and involved in that operation.
-
You think John "Crybaby" Boehner is somehow a demorat and looking out for Obama?
I knew he wasn't as soon as he implemented his oft-repeated 2010 campaign promise to roll back the Federal budget to 2008 levels . . .
-
"Wide Receiver" was the Bush era program. Approximately 650 guns were intentionally leaked to Mexico. That number was widely eclipsed by Fast and Furious, Obama era, which was thousands.
Sorry man, you've been lied to about that one.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/holder-retracts-claim-bush-team-knew-about-fast-and-furious/article/2500157
-
OK, the House committee voted to find Holder in contempt.
Now it has to be submitted to the full House for a vote.
Then what?
Trial? By who? Or is a contempt citation by the full House sufficient, just like a judge's contempt citation doesn't require a trial?
Is there any chance - even in theory - that we'll see Holder in an orange jumpsuit doing a perp walk, and what will it take to get there?
-
OK, the House committee voted to find Holder in contempt.
Now it has to be submitted to the full House for a vote.
Then what?
Trial? By who? Or is a contempt citation by the full House sufficient, just like a judge's contempt citation doesn't require a trial?
Is there any chance - even in theory - that we'll see Holder in an orange jumpsuit doing a perp walk, and what will it take to get there?
I dunno, but I'd pay money to see that.....
-
Two interesting possibilities in theory. (the second is the more interesting IMHO)
1) the House impeaches Holder and send him over to the Senate for prosecution.
2) they send the Sergeant at Arms, perhaps accompanied by the Capitol Police, to arrest Holder and lock him up on *civil* contempt charges. There he sits until Issa is satisfied that he has fully complied with the subpoena, or until Congress adjourns, whichever occurs first (it would be the adjournment)
Of course I predict that nothing will happen except Obama and Holder accuse the Republicans of being racists.
-
AAaarrRRRrrGGggghHHhh!!!
So dang annoying!!!
The media will cover up for their hero, hoping the scandal wont be talked about until after B.O is reelected.
( watergate story broke before the election too)
Hopefully enough of us can speak up so history doesn't repeat it self!
-
I just had an evil tho't. >:D
Remember about a year ago when Obama accidentally said that Holder didn't know anything about Fast and Furious -- and the implications of that statement (how does Obama *know* that Holder doesn't know.) Now Obama invokes executive privilege, which shatters his plausible deniability (have you noticed how Hillary has kept her mouth shut? She's not as arrogant and narcissistic as O and her deniability is still intact)
Issa should approach Holder about testifying against the president and try to pin the whole thing on him.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-eatdrink062.gif&hash=6351767d570339129b1d7a62ffad11efc1c95342)
-
Issa should approach Holder about testifying against the president and try to pin the whole thing on him.
That would be one way to crack that nut, but there is enough dirt on both Obama and Holder to put them both in prison for a long, long time. Obama has everything over Holder, which is why Holder isn't going to appoint a special prosecutor over the classified secrets Obama leaked.
An AG with any shred of integrity would already have appointed a special prosecutor, this is why Obama can't allow Holder to be removed and replaced with someone else.
-
Kobiashi Maru Mr. President.
Except for the part about the press covering for both of them (Obama and Holder).
-
Gordon: "Disgraceful!"
James: "Disgusting!"
Henry: "Despicable!"
-
Did...
Did you just quote Thomas?
-
It seemed appropriate :lol:
-
Just to give them a chance to amend and revise their statements - could DOJ/POTUS get away with not turning over documents if they cited the Separation of Powers clause?
Oh, heck! Someone call them up and suggest they try it. But don't tell them how to Google Nixon (Watergate), Clinton, or Johnson - who all tried and lost. K?
stay safe.
-
It will all come out.
They are just delaying to try and get past the election.
-
Two topics discussing exact same thing, merged.
-
Two topics discussing exact same thing, merged.
No wonder "First Unread Post" was so confused :facepalm:
-
Gordon: "Disgraceful!"
James: "Disgusting!"
Henry: "Despicable!"
Coffee ejected from my nose. :facepalm:
-
Did everybody hear Nancy Pelosi's take on this? "Voter suppression"? You mean, like when some alien cancels out my legitimate vote, since he wasn't asked for ID?
-
Except for the part about the press covering for both of them (Obama and Holder).
I don't disagree. I just meant in terms of the original goal of creating a "Reichstag fire" for gun control, and that Obama was put in an no-win situation.
No exec priv for Holder, and the dirty laundry is aired. Grants exec priv to Holder, and the guilt by association factor is immense. I never meant that it was possible for a racial minority Democrat to actually go down Nixon-style over anything short of murder... of puppies... on live TV...
Although, as to the media... If the MSM decides in its collective consciousness that "he won't win anyway", there's a chance someone's aspirations to be the next Woodward & Bernstein might be enough to make them overcome their nominal ingrained liberal bias.
-
Did a bit more research...
Ye gods. ATF brass, DOJ and White House intimidation of whistle blowers, reporters and agents. The Aug 15 2011 bribe to Mexico of $500m, laundered through Merida Initiative, if Mexico STFU. Hell, the transcripts of Acting Director Melson testifying before Congress alone are downright disturbing. Apparently ATF agents were supposed to take the fall for the DOJ, according to Melson who has since been reassigned to the DOJ.
according to July 26 2011 Oversight Committee testimony by ATF Attaches to Mexico, they were specifically ordered not to inform the Mexican government and keep MX officials in the dark. It was not a failure to notify re F&F, it was intentional. According to the personnel who implemented it, Agents Darren Gil and Carlos Canino. There is an difference between failure to notify, and intentionally smuggling weapons into a foreign country while intentionally making false statements to said foreign government.
Holder likely committed perjury re when he was notified about F&F, and possibly who authorized what. Napolitano also likely committed perjury regarding other agencies involvement in F&F. That is why Obama clamped down on them at Holder's request, and bloody quickly. Minimum of two cabinet members would face perjury charges, and gods alone know what other lawsuits and criminal charges. In addition, the DOJ IG has a report ready to lay the blame solely on the BATFE, and call it a rogue operation strictly by BATFE personnel. This is to intentionally ignore DOJ, Border Customs, Immigration, DEA, FBI, etc were part of the task force involved...
It physically pains me to say this... but... a lot low level ATF agents are the heroes here. They expressed their doubts, leaked information to the proper authority to defy the DOJ gag orders, risked their careers and their lives. Several have also been crucified by testifying before Congress in defiance of the DOJ gag order.
The other heroes are gun dealers and gun bloggers. The gun dealers for thankfully retaining evidence that the BATFE used coercion to force them to make illegal transactions, and the gun bloggers for actually getting the word out.
The "good" news is, worst case. The documents are blocked, the Congressional investigation is shut down by sympathetic Republicans, and the coverup is more or less successful. The BATFE is going to slapped down hard. They are the official fall guy if the DOJ successfully manages to block the release of those documents. If Obama wins a second term, he will not be touching gun control with a ten foot pole, because it would restart investigation into the DOJ's role in F&F.
The best case is DOJ officials are sent to prison for numerous crimes, including accessory to several hundred murders, violating international arms trafficking laws, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. BATFE is also sharply restricted.
If this actually came out in the news, it'd make Watergate look like a picnic.
-
More fuel to the fire. This is a repeat of the Bush era "Wide Reciever", which was recognized as a failure and shut down. So this administration looked at a failed operation, restarted it, tried to hide it from the public and the Mexicans.
I love the blame bush aspect, when in fact this adminstration is repeatedly doing things that the bush administration tried. :facepalm:
-
If this actually came out in the news, it'd make Watergate look like a picnic.
As has been noted many times: no one died as a result of Watergate. That ALONE should have the press digging into and publicizing this scandal. Imagine the ratings from that, government cover-up of operation that aided criminals in the murder of two law enforcement agents and hundreds (or more) of Mexicans.
Strangely they have no interest at all. Funny that.
-
Best case (fantasy) IMHO is Clinton is forced to resign (she's the only one smart enough to maintain plausible deniability; Obama had it and threw it away), and Obama, Holder, Napolitano, and a few other senior DOJ and ATF officials are lead away in handcuffs -- and Holder eventually gets the death penalty. It wouldn't hurt my feelings too much if Alberto Gonzales ended up in prison for a year or two also. Joe Biden is left scratching his head wondering WTF happened. ???
Ultimately I don't think anything will happen except the Oversight Committee republicans, and Issa in particular, will be branded as "racists".
-
More fuel to the fire. This is a repeat of the Bush era "Wide Reciever", which was recognized as a failure and shut down. So this administration looked at a failed operation, restarted it, tried to hide it from the public and the Mexicans.
I love the blame bush aspect, when in fact this adminstration is repeatedly doing things that the bush administration tried. :facepalm:
:facepalm:
I keep hearing this. It isn't exactly true. Under wide receiver, Mexican officials were in on it and cooperated. The guns were actually tracked via electronic beepers installed in the guns. Neither these two circumstances were even attempted by Eric the WithHolder's F&F team.
Wide Receiver did fail of course; that much is true. The cartel critters discovered they were being tracked by aircraft and drove around in circles until the aircraft had to return for refueling. Apparantly Bush's Men From UNCLE did not anticipate this by handing off the recon to a fully fieled replacement aircraft.
The above is why I will never believe that FAST & FURIOUS was never anything other than attempt to glean support for another round of gun control laws.
And that F&F is another homage to Einstein's old warning that "the definition of insanity is to try the same thing over again expecting different results." >:D ;)
-
But when you believe you are both smarter and justified, you just know you'll get it right.
-
:facepalm:
I keep hearing this. It isn't exactly true. Under wide receiver, Mexican officials were in on it and cooperated. The guns were actually tracked via electronic beepers installed in the guns. Neither these two circumstances were even attempted by Eric the WithHolder's F&F team.
Wide Receiver did fail of course; that much is true. The cartel critters discovered they were being tracked by aircraft and drove around in circles until the aircraft had to return for refueling. Apparantly Shrubbie's Men From UNCLE did not anticipate this by handing off the recon to a fully fieled replacement aircraft.
The above is why I will never believe that FAST & FURIOUS was never anything other than attempt to glean support for another round of gun control laws.
And that F&F is another homage to Einstein's old warning that "the definition of insanity is to try the same thing over again expecting different results." >:D ;)
Well no *expletive deleted*it man. It wasnt an accusatory post. I skipped over all the details on wide reciever because i didnt feel like hammering out a long post.
But it did fail. And repeating it was stupid to boot.
-
The "good" news is, worst case. The documents are blocked, the Congressional investigation is shut down by sympathetic Republicans, and the coverup is more or less successful. The BATFE is going to slapped down hard. They are the official fall guy if the DOJ successfully manages to block the release of those documents. If Obama wins a second term, he will not be touching gun control with a ten foot pole, because it would restart investigation into the DOJ's role in F&F.
The best case is DOJ officials are sent to prison for numerous crimes, including accessory to several hundred murders, violating international arms trafficking laws, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. BATFE is also sharply restricted.
That's my thoughts on this. In the worst-case scenario where they all "get away with it", we still more or less "won", in that we discovered and stopped the false-flag operation designed to make a big case against RKBA. And those that tried will be terrified to poke the bear further.
That they'll likely mostly get away with this is sad and effed-up, but it's sad and effed-up in ways America already IS sad and effed-up, if you know what I mean.
-
>violating international arms trafficking laws, perjury<
Would it be possible for this fact to actually be used against us?
"See... Americans can't be trusted to allow dealing in arms!"
-
They will be terrified to poke the bear further if they get away with it? Really? As if there's only one bear rather than an entire clan of bears...
We keep sliding into the pit of lawlessness and tribalism, and we are damn near the point of no return.
-
Pinning the death of the ICE agent, or anyone else linked to Fast & Furious guns, on the ATF doesn't sit well with me. Seems like it follows the same logic as blaming the gun shop or the gun manufacturer or the gun itself. That's something we don't do. They did screw up, but Mexican cartels kill people every day without guns the ATF was supposed to keep track of.
-
Pinning the death of the ICE agent, or anyone else linked to Fast & Furious guns, on the ATF doesn't sit well with me. Seems like it follows the same logic as blaming the gun shop or the gun manufacturer or the gun itself. That's something we don't do. They did screw up, but Mexican cartels kill people every day without guns the ATF was supposed to keep track of.
:facepalm: Maybe I'm missing something here, but they didn't the ATF KNOWLINGLY pass guns along to KNOWN bad guys? You want to compare that to honest gun shops and gun makers selling guns to the public? It seems obvious who is using the logic of the gun-grabbers. =|
-
Pinning the death of the ICE agent, or anyone else linked to Fast & Furious guns, on the ATF doesn't sit well with me. Seems like it follows the same logic as blaming the gun shop or the gun manufacturer or the gun itself. That's something we don't do. They did screw up, but Mexican cartels kill people every day without guns the ATF was supposed to keep track of.
So illegally obtaining firearms, passing them along to known criminals, across an international border with no permission from the other side of that border and no plan to track them, in an effort to make gun manufacturers look bad, is the same as a manufacturer or dealer selling to someone who to the best of their knowledge is legit but who then goes out and shoots someone.
Right. Not seeing and difference there. [/sarcasm]
Are you kidding me?
-
Pinning the death of the ICE agent, or anyone else linked to Fast & Furious guns, on the ATF doesn't sit well with me. Seems like it follows the same logic as blaming the gun shop or the gun manufacturer or the gun itself. That's something we don't do. They did screw up, but Mexican cartels kill people every day without guns the ATF was supposed to keep track of.
BATFE, apparently or allegedly at the direction of the DOJ, intentionally ordered gun dealers to knowingly sell to the Mexican cartels. The BATFE knew, and stated so in internal memos/emails, that this would eventually cause the fatalities of both US and Mexican citizens. While yes, they could get guns otherwise, it is still being an accessory to murder.
In other words, the entity that committed the criminal acts disagrees with your position.
-
First we have LZ Granderson's "These aren't the guns you're looking for. Just ignore the man the behind the curtain."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/26/opinion/granderson-fast-furious/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
What follows is my friend Mike Cantelon's post from his FB page. He's says it better than I.
LZ Granderson says put on the blinders. You don't need to know that your elected officials and thier appointees are a bunch of criminals. These are not the droids you're looking for ...
*Ahem.* Anyhow, LZ says that sometimes our government needs to "get its hands dirty" so we should just look away and let it happen. Sorry, buddy; honor and integrity are two of my guiding principals. I don't approve of sending guns to Iranian terrorists any more than I approve of sending guns to Mexican narco-terrorists. I wanted bin Laden captured alive. And I didn't go out the night he was killed to celebrate with the masses; I stayed home and prayed for him, for his family, and for those Seals. If there are any hands getting dirty on my behalf, they should be my own. I don't hide behind my government, and I don't want them hiding anything from me either; especially when it is a crime. The American people have the right to know, and should know, when a crime is being committed in thier names. I have honored my country with my actions, and I expect it to return the favor. I don't think it is too much to ask that the people I pay to run this government behave with honor and integrity.
And another thing, Project Wide Receiver and Project Road Runner were not "earlier versions of Fast and Furious under President Bush." Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me. The Bush administration actually tracked the guns and tried to prevent them from leaving the country. Under Eric Holder and the Obama administration, the DoJ actually refused to allow the firearms to be tracked, and told to CIA and ICE to look the other way after they raised alarms over BATFE and FBI tactics. In Wide Receiver and Road Runner, a few guns slipped away due to shoddy surveillance, and the majority were intercepted at the border (which is why it was named "Wide Receiver"); whereas in Fast and Furious they were given away WITH NO SURVEILLANCE and NO ATTEMPT TO INTERCEPT THE GUNS. The operations were run completely different; and some claim the goals of the operations were different too.
-
What kind of guns were being "walked"? Do we know what kind, or how many were full-auto?
-
AFAIK, Zero full auto. All were semi-auto EBRs, AK's and other evil looking guns.
-
(stuff I didn't say)
It's blaming the source of the tool.
The BATFE knew, and stated so in internal memos/emails, that this would eventually cause the fatalities of both US and Mexican citizens.
Interesting, got a link?
-
It's blaming the source of the tool.
And ignoring the source in this case is ignoring culpability
-
Yeah, why would we blame the ATF for allowing guns to be illegally sold to Mexican drug cartels? It's not like keeping guns from being sold to Mexican drug cartels is their job, or anything.
-
Yeah, why would we blame the ATF for allowing guns to be illegally sold to Mexican drug cartels? It's not like keeping guns from being sold to Mexican drug cartels is their job, or anything.
I absolutely agree they failed at their job. They are at fault for the drug cartels getting those guns, they are not at fault for the actions of the cartels.
-
Here's a question:
Would a reasonable person have presumed that by ordering guns to be sold to Mexican drug cartels, the drug cartels would use said guns to, oh, I dunno, commit crimes? Up to and including murder?
-
The distinction seems to be "knowingly".
Joe the Gunshop Owner sells me a Beretta. My record is clean, I can pass the idiot test... he has no reason to doubt what's going on. So he isn't culpable if I use that weapon to commit a crime.
The ATF orders Joe to sell guns to folks KNOWING they are bound for Mexico, and likely to be used for crimes? That makes everyone involved an accessory to the crime...
-
Private citizens aren't allowed to knowingly sell guns to criminals, the federal government shouldn't be allowed to either
-
Would a reasonable person have presumed that by ordering guns to be sold to Mexican drug cartels, the drug cartels would use said guns to, oh, I dunno, commit crimes? Up to and including murder?
A reasonable person can presume that drug cartels will be committing those crimes regardless of ATF involvement.
I believe if they had tracked those guns perfectly, arrested the people as they had hoped, the cartel still would have killed the same people the same way with different guns. Same thing if the ATF never started the program. The cartels are responsible for killing those people, the ATF is responsible for poorly executing a terrible plan.
-
A reasonable person can presume that drug cartels will be committing those crimes regardless of ATF involvement.
I believe if they had tracked those guns perfectly, arrested the people as they had hoped, the cartel still would have killed the same people the same way with different guns. Same thing if the ATF never started the program. The cartels are responsible for killing those people, the ATF is responsible for poorly executing a terrible plan.
So if you drive the getaway car at a bank robbery where someone gets killed, you're not responsible because the robber would have just found someone else to drive? Good luck with that. (look up the Felony Murder Rule) Perhaps some high-ranking government official shouldn't get the death penalty for this, but that should be the starting point for plea bargain negotiations.
-
the ATF is responsible for poorly executing a terrible plan.
The ATF did not "poorly execute a terrible plan."
They willfully, deliberately put in place an operation designed to arm the most vicious of drug cartels. It's as if Elliot Ness had provided guns to Al Capone.
The intent and purpose of which was to "prove" that 90% of Mexican crime guns came from the US. So that this administration would have "do something" to stop it. Like put further curbs on our rights.
The blood of innocent Mexicans and Americans (that one is an LEO does not make his murder greater than the others) is on Eric Holder's hands and by claiming Executive Privilege, now Obama's.
Last I checked, murder is illegal. And the ATF KNEW that at some point these guns would be used to kill.
On March 23, President Barack Obama appeared on Univision and spoke about the "gunwalking" controversy. He said that neither he nor Attorney General Holder authorized Fast and Furious. He also stated, "There may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made, and if that's the case then we'll find out and we'll hold somebody accountable."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20046151-10391695.html
Fine, do it Mr President. You said you would.
-
They willfully, deliberately put in place an operation designed to arm the most vicious of drug cartels. It's as if Elliot Ness had provided guns to Al Capone.
The intent and purpose of which was to "prove" that 90% of Mexican crime guns came from the US. So that this administration would have "do something" to stop it. Like put further curbs on our rights.
The blood of innocent Mexicans and Americans (that one is an LEO does not make his murder greater than the others) is on Eric Holder's hands and by claiming Executive Privilege, now Obama's
The Bush administration started it, did they have the same design & intent? It was a terrible plan, it should have never been put in place as wide receiver, much less revived as fast & furious. Incompetence seems more believable to me than conspiracy.
So if you drive the getaway car at a bank robbery where someone gets killed, you're not responsible because the robber would have just found someone else to drive?
So if you sell someone a car later used for getaway at a bank robbery where someone gets killed, you're responsible? The chain of responsibility cannot go on forever until you find someone you dislike.
-
The Bush administration started it, did they have the same design & intent? It was a terrible plan, it should have never been put in place as wide receiver, much less revived as fast & furious. Incompetence seems more believable to me than conspiracy.
No, you need to read up on the two, their differences and stop listening to the "It was Bush's fault/The same thing!!" crowd/MSM. Wide Receiver actively tried to track the guns and prevent them from going across the border. When guns managed to go over, the program was shut down. Fast and Furious willfully and deliberately allowed guns to walk, BATFE agents were told by their supervisors to break off surveillance and tracking of the guns the moment they left the gun store(s). No attempt was made to follow them, or even let the Mexican .gov know or work with them.
So if you sell someone a car later used for getaway at a bank robbery where someone gets killed, you're responsible? The chain of responsibility cannot go on forever until you find someone you dislike.
You are obviously not versed on Accessory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_%28legal_term%29) laws. No, you would not be. You have to have some knowledge that a crime had been or was going to be committed.
If Joe Gunshopowner knowing and willfully sold guns to prohibited persons (Straw Buyers) he would be guilty of a Federal Offense. The Gunshop Owners told the ATF that either a) They knew these to be prohibited persons and/or b) They suspected they were prohibited persons. In all cases the ATF told them to proceed with the sale(s).
-
No, but if you sell a car to someone you *know* has a history of intentionally running people over with cars, then yes, you may be found at the least civilly liable...
-
So if you sell someone a car later used for getaway at a bank robbery where someone gets killed, you're responsible? The chain of responsibility cannot go on forever until you find someone you dislike.
That depends; was it illegal for you to sell that car? Did you know at the time you sold it that the car would be used to commit a felony?
-
If you are selling a gun, and the buyer informs you that 1. it is illegal for them to possess that gun & 2. they plan to use it to commit murder then yes you are in fact guilty of being an accessory, regardless of if they would be able to illegally acquire it somewhere else.
-
Here's a fairly evenhanded account. From the Washington Post. Not exactly that seething hotbed of anti-Obama-ism and Pro 2A.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-anti-gunrunning-effort-turns-fatally-wrong/2011/07/14/gIQAH5d6YI_story.html
-
If someone is trolling, and you take the bait and respond, are you responsible for the trolling?
-
If Joe Gunshopowner knowing and willfully sold guns to prohibited persons (Straw Buyers) he would be guilty of a Federal Offense. The Gunshop Owners told the ATF that either a) They knew these to be prohibited persons and/or b) They suspected they were prohibited persons. In all cases the ATF told them to proceed with the sale(s).
That's how sting operations work. Undercover agents selling drugs, firearms, or whatever else in order to arrest people buying are not breaking the law.
That depends; was it illegal for you to sell that car? Did you know at the time you sold it that the car would be used to commit a felony?
As noted above - law enforcement is allowed to do things that would otherwise be considered illegal during sting operations under controlled circumstances. They were obviously not controlled properly for fast & furious.
If someone is trolling, and you take the bait and respond, are you responsible for the trolling?
If someone's comment adds nothing to the discussion should they be ignored? :angel:
-
That's how sting operations work. Undercover agents selling drugs, firearms, or whatever else in order to arrest people buying are not breaking the law.As noted above - law enforcement is allowed to do things that would otherwise be considered illegal during sting operations under controlled circumstances. They were obviously not controlled properly for fast & furious.
"not controlled properly"? :facepalm: No attempt was made to arrest the buyers; the field agents were ordered to stand down when they tried to follow them. A better analogy would be a police captain stealing guns and drugs from the evidence room and selling them on the street -- to raise money for the Christmas party. If someone dies from it, he should be prosecuted for murder. (in the 2nd degree or 1st? I'm not sure) If he pitched the idea to the chief first and the chief OK'd it, the chief is just as guilty.
(and I'm sure someone can come up with a much better analogy than that)
-
If someone dies from it, he should be prosecuted for murder. (in the 2nd degree or 1st? I'm not sure) If he pitched the idea to the chief first and the chief OK'd it, the chief is just as guilty.
I guess I just disagree with this concept then. If he sells someone drugs and they OD, he should be prosecuted for selling drugs, not murder. If he sells someone a gun and they kill someone - not his problem and he should enjoy his Christmas party (other than the stealing evidence part, which I'm not really sure how that fits in this analogy). I believe in personal responsibility. Selling guns isn't wrong, killing people is.
-
I guess you call that "adding to the discussion." ;/
-
That's how sting operations work. Undercover agents selling drugs, firearms, or whatever else in order to arrest people buying are not breaking the law.As noted above - law enforcement is allowed to do things that would otherwise be considered illegal during sting operations under controlled circumstances. They were obviously not controlled properly for fast & furious.
If someone's comment adds nothing to the discussion should they be ignored? :angel:
If undercover agents were selling hundreds of kilos of cocaine to a gang, with no attempt to actually CATCH that gang, yes, some folks would be asking awfully pointed questions. We know how sting operations work. We know leakage occurs. That is a FAR cry from intentionally coercing gun owners into making illegal sales, not attempting to recover the weapons and trying to engineer restrictions on civil rights from criminal activity. Especially when it involves intentionally arming essentially a civil war next door to the US, with the express intention on getting folks killed.
It's not an undercover investigation if you never try, and probably never wanted to, catch the bad guys.
-
Kind of hoping Congress takes the ire over the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare out on Holder today.
-
If you are selling X, and the buyer tells you they will use X to commit a crime, and you sell it to them anyway you are in fact guilty as an accessory. That IS personal responsibility.
-
Kind of hoping Congress takes the ire over the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare out on Holder today.
I am hoping for a b****-slap of epic proportions....
-
I hear the Black Caucus, as well other colorful Cauci, may walk out. Would that they would keep walking...
-
Preferably east, about 75 miles.... matter of fact, most of the elected idjits can just take a 75 mile walk east.
ETA: 50 miles wasn't enough....
-
I hear the Black Caucus, as well other colorful Cauci, may walk out. Would that they would keep walking...
Right on.
-
I guess I just disagree with this concept then. If he sells someone drugs and they OD, he should be prosecuted for selling drugs, not murder. If he sells someone a gun and they kill someone - not his problem and he should enjoy his Christmas party (other than the stealing evidence part, which I'm not really sure how that fits in this analogy). I believe in personal responsibility. Selling guns isn't wrong, killing people is.
The part highlighted is the criminal part. Same as allowing prohibited persons to buy guns (they are prohibited for a reason).
Knowingly and willfully selling guns to Bad People(tm) is where you get to take responsibility for what Bad Things(tm) happen with those guns afterward. The BATFEIO is supposed to keep guns out of Bad People's(tm) hands, not give them guns with pretty pink bows on them.
You can "disagree" with the concept of Accessory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_%28legal_term%29) all you want. But you might want to read up on it before you run afoul of it....
-
House votes that Holder is in Contempt. 255-68-1. House Democrats lead by the Black Caucus walk out.
How soon before I get to see Holder do the perp walk?
[popcorn] [popcorn] [popcorn]
-
Not sure who Katherine Eban is, but I've never read anything so vacuoius regarding F&F. She totally negelcts what the Gun Shop owners have testified too, and blames everything on weak laws. And there's not one word about NICS checks, just 4473's. If you had never bought a gun you'd never know what a complete farce this article is.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
-
House votes that Holder is in Contempt. 255-68-1. House Democrats lead by the Black Caucus walk out.
How soon before I get to see Holder do the perp walk?
[popcorn] [popcorn] [popcorn]
About the same time Romney becomes conservative....contempt without impeachment is toothless....
-
They *could* send the Sgt at Arms to Holder's office and arrest him right now if they wanted, and hold him behind bars until Issa is satisfied that all the documents have been turned over (that could take months to verify, even if Holder surrendered them immediately) They would have to release him when congress adjourns -- when is that, in December?
BTW, where can I find out who voted for what?
-
House votes that Holder is in Contempt. 255-68-1. House Democrats lead by the Black Caucus walk out.
How soon before I get to see Holder do the perp walk?
[popcorn] [popcorn] [popcorn]
You won't. It's just more meaningless grandstanding by some in Congress.
-
Not sure who Katherine Eban is, but I've never read anything so vacuoius regarding F&F. She totally negelcts what the Gun Shop owners have testified too, and blames everything on weak laws. And there's not one word about NICS checks, just 4473's. If you had never bought a gun you'd never know what a complete farce this article is.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
That is a pretty long article, and I haven't finished it. It starts with the repeated claim that no guns were walked. About half-way down, it describes a case of ATF gun-walking in some detail. It laments that the NRA keeps a gun database from being established, but describes ATF agents building a database. It claims the Obama Administration has capitulated to Congress. Capitulation is a funny way to describe the claiming of executive privilege.
This seems to be the new tactic that some of the pundits are using, to claim there never was any scandal. Maybe they should tell that to Holder and Obama, so they can stop hiding things. After all, even if no crimes were committed, the procedural stuff can still nail you. Ask Scooter Libby.
Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check. There are no waiting periods and no need for permits, and buyers are allowed to resell the guns. "In Arizona," says Voth, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich."
Reporters are always reporting stuff like that as if we are supposed to be shocked and dismayed to read it.