Jump to content

Obama's Mexican Gunrunning Operation


Recommended Posts

Obama's responsibility for the operation is very limited. About the same as Bush's when his adminstration did it.

 

He is responsible for the coverup because he has kept stonewallers and incompetents on board and tolerated the retaliation against whistleblowers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's Judge Jackson or Judge Berman Jackson. It isn't Judge Berman unless you're watching reality court TV at the laundromat. Actually, I did mean only those documents. Again, the Kenyan’s EP was

Maybe he'll be nicer now that his period is over.

People who have time to read things like the relevant Inspector General's report instead of just spewing insults and talking points know that the reality is that the stupid program was shut down under

Posted Images

"You don't let guns walk. I've never let a gun walk." -- ATF Special Agent Rene Jaquez

 

SOP for domestic stuff. Bust it and settle for the small fry in the US.

 

How do you infiltrate a foreign gun running operation without selling guns?

 

SOP, huh?

 

It's funny that the defense being offered by coverup architects Weinstein and Breuer is that the tactics employed in Fast and Furious were so completely aberrant that they could not believe it had happened. Oh, and they forgot/failed to connect the fact that this outrageous tactic had been employed before in the same overall project and by the same people.

 

More from the IG report.

 

Weinstein also told us that in his view, Operation Wide Receiver did not make the February 4 letter inaccurate. That, of course, was not his decision to make, and senior Department officials reached a different conclusion than Weinstein after they learned about Operation Wide Receiver and its significance to the accuracy of the February 4 letter. Attorney General Holder stated that if Weinstein had shared his knowledge about Operation Wide Receiver, the February 4 letter may have been written in a more “nuanced” way and not been as “forward leaning.”317 Weich told the OIG that while he was sympathetic to Weinstein’s claim that he had simply failed to “make the connection” between Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious, it was indisputable that the information would have changed the way he would have approached the February 4 letter.

 

Because of her role in coordinating the drafting process, we found Burton’s observations on this point particularly significant. Burton did not learn of Operation Wide Receiver until several weeks after the February 4 letter was issued. She told the OIG that it was impossible to speculate on whether the letter would have been written differently had she known. However, she stated that with knowledge of Operation Wide Receiver, Sen. Grassley’s allegations “wouldn’t have been as unheard of as it seemed at the time.” She added that Operation Wide Receiver “would have been relevant to the questions we were asking internally.”

 

Breuer stated that the relevance of Operation Wide Receiver to Operation Fast and Furious would have been “tenuous, but it would have suggested that at least on one other occasion in the agency’s history when involved in a gun trafficking case, agents lost track of guns, and we're aware that guns were ending up in Mexico.”

 

As noted earlier in this chapter, in a written statement provided in connection with his November 1, 2011, testimony before Congress, Breuer publicly apologized for not “drawing a connection” between Operation Wide Receiver and the allegations about Operation Fast and Furious. Breuer stated that it was a mistake not to have alerted others in the Department to the similarities between the two investigations, and that he regretted not doing so. We agree that Breuer should have informed senior Department leadership that ATF had used tactics similar to those alleged in Sen. Grassley’s letters in a prior investigation. Moreover, given Weinstein’s far greater involvement than Breuer’s in drafting the February 4 response, and his more extensive knowledge of both Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious, we were troubled by Weinstein’s failure to recognize in his interviews with the OIG the relevance of Operation Wide Receiver to the January 2011 allegations.

 

We believe that knowledge of ATF’s use in Operation Wide Receiver of the same type of investigative tactics at issue in Sen. Grassley’s letters would have been highly relevant to the Department’s drafting process. We believe Weinstein should have drawn a connection between the two investigations so that he could have told others working on the response about it and let those individuals make their own judgments about its relevance in responding to Sen. Grassley.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IG summarized the culpability of Weinstein and Breuer in Fast and Furious and the ensuing coverup this way:

 

d. Assistant Attorney General Breuer

 

We determined that Breuer did not authorize any of the investigative activities in Operation Fast and Furious, including wiretaps. Breuer did not review the wiretap applications and took no actions concerning them. We also found no evidence indicating that AAG Breuer was aware in 2009 or 2010 that ATF agents in Operation Fast and Furious were failing to interdict firearms. Breuer told us that he did not learn about “gun walking” allegations in Operation Fast and Furious until public revelations in 2011.

 

However, as we described in Chapters Three and Five, in April 2010 Breuer learned about Operation Wide Receiver and that ATF had allowed guns to “walk” in that case. Breuer told us that upon learning this information, he told Deputy Assistant Attorney General Weinstein to talk to ATF leadership to make sure that they understood that the Criminal Division planned to move forward with the case, but that the investigation had used “obviously flawed” techniques. Given the significance of this issue and the fact that ATF reports to the Deputy Attorney General, we believe Breuer should have promptly informed the Deputy Attorney General or the Attorney General about the matter in April 2010. Breuer failed to do so.

 

e. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Weinstein

 

We found that given his level of knowledge about Operation Fast and Furious and his familiarity with the “gun walking” tactics employed by ATF in Operation Wide Receiver, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Weinstein was the most senior person in the Department in April and May 2010 who was in a position to identify the similarity between the inappropriate tactics used in Operations Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious.

 

As we described in Chapters Three and Five, Weinstein learned in early April 2010 after reviewing the prosecution memorandum in Operation Wide Receiver that ATF had allowed guns to “walk” in that case, which Weinstein defined to include choosing not to interdict firearms despite having the legal basis and ability to do so. According to Weinstein, after he informed Breuer of this, Breuer agreed that Weinstein should bring the matter to the attention of ATF leadership. Breuer also told us that he told Weinstein to talk to ATF leadership to make sure that they understood that the Criminal Division planned to move forward with the case, but that the investigation had used “obviously flawed” techniques.

 

Weinstein, an official from the Criminal Division’s Gang Unit, and two public affairs officials met with Hoover and McMahon on April 28, 2010, after the investigative phase of Operation Wide Receiver had concluded. As we described in Chapter Three, the Gang Unit official told us that the discussion of “gun walking” during that meeting was not in the nature of “finger-wagging” or admonishment of ATF. In addition, although Weinstein told us he described the improper tactics, he said that he did not have to go into detail about the issue because he understood from Hoover’s reaction that he “immediately got why it was so troubling.” Based on contemporaneous e-mails and the notes and statements of those who attended the meeting, we concluded that Weinstein did not admonish ATF for the failure to interdict firearms in Operation Wide Receiver or otherwise convey in forceful terms the Criminal Division’s view that such tactics were unacceptable and would not be condoned. We found that the discussion at the meeting focused instead on how to avoid negative press for ATF arising from the fact that guns had “walked” in the investigation, as well as issues arising from the ATF’s use of an FFL as a confidential informant and an agent’s acceptance of a gift from the FFL.

 

We further found that at the April 28 meeting, McMahon told Weinstein that ATF had another case – Operation Fast and Furious – that, like Operation Wide Receiver, involved a high volume of firearms that had been trafficked. Weinstein told us that he understood from the discussion that ATF had been aggressively seizing guns in that investigation but that ATF would have to answer questions about the guns they did not seize. We found, however, that Weinstein failed to ask questions about Operation Fast and Furious to ensure that his understanding was correct that the case did not involve tactics like those used in Operation Wide Receiver. We also found that when he reported back to Breuer about the April 28 meeting, Weinstein told Breuer about the discussion involving Operation Wide Receiver but did not mention Operation Fast and Furious.

 

Following their meeting on April 28, Weinstein and McMahon continued to communicate about Operation Fast and Furious, and Weinstein learned enough about the investigation to ask OEO about the possibility of obtaining a roving wiretap in the case and to describe it in an e-mail on May 7 to the head of OEO as an “investigation of a gun-trafficking ring responsible for sending well over 1,000 guns across the SWB into Mexico” and “perhaps the most significant Mexico-related firearms-trafficking investigation ATF has going.”

 

Yet, Weinstein told us that when he received the first wiretap application he was asked to review for Operation Fast and Furious just two weeks later, on May 18, 2010, he did not review the agent’s affidavit in support of the application. Moreover, although Weinstein told us that he reviewed the OEO cover memoranda accompanying that application, he failed to recognize that the memoranda clearly suggested that ATF agents had monitored purchases of firearms that they knew were illegal, and allowed a known straw purchaser to continue his illegal activities for a gun trafficking organization that sold weapons to a drug cartel in Mexico. We found that given Weinstein’s heightened awareness of the “gun walking” issues in Operation Wide Receiver and his knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious, his review of the first OEO cover memorandum that he received should have caused him to read the affidavit and ask questions about the operational details of Operation Fast and Furious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are attacking the field agents.

 

Who is? In what manner? Where is the evidence?

 

By accusing them of deliberately allowing arms to go to the Cartels.

 

An accurate accusation is not an attack.

 

Or did Eric Holder's Inspector General attack the field agents too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The IG summarized the culpability of Weinstein and Breuer in Fast and Furious and the ensuing coverup this way:

 

...Weinstein told us that when he received the first wiretap application he was asked to review for Operation Fast and Furious just two weeks later, on May 18, 2010, he did not review the agent’s affidavit in support of the application. Moreover, although Weinstein told us that he reviewed the OEO cover memoranda accompanying that application, he failed to recognize that the memoranda clearly suggested that ATF agents had monitored purchases of firearms that they knew were illegal, and allowed a known straw purchaser to continue his illegal activities for a gun trafficking organization that sold weapons to a drug cartel in Mexico. We found that given Weinstein’s heightened awareness of the “gun walking” issues in Operation Wide Receiver and his knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious, his review of the first OEO cover memorandum that he received should have caused him to read the affidavit and ask questions about the operational details of Operation Fast and Furious.

 

The IG did not buy the bullshit "I just read the cover letters" excuse about the wiretap applications, mainly because even the cover letter pointed to the fact that the ATF was allowing guns to walk again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The Washington Post has decided it's time to try to rehabilitate the image of Jason Weinstein, perhaps the only person in America to fail to see a connection between Project Gunrunner's Operation Wide Receiver and Project Gunrunner's Operation Fast and Furious, at least until he was done drafting the false response (since withdrawn) that the Justice Department sent to Congress....

 

That article concludes with Jason Weinstein saying how he deserves a badge of honor.

 

“In a thousand years, you don’t expect this phase of your career to end this way,” Weinstein said. “But there’s a badge of honor for surviving these things, and I’m determined to earn it.”

 

Buying that line of BS instead of questioning it makes it seem to me that the Washington Post is making the same mistake that the IG found Weinstein made. He

 

failed to act in the best interests of the Department by advocating for ATF rather than responsibly gathering information about its activities.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Holder has no respect for those who voted him in contempt, meaning no respect for Congressional oversight.

 

“Attorney General Holder’s admission that he does not respect the Democratic and Republican Members of Congress who voted to hold him in contempt offers a window into why Washington is so dysfunctional,” Issa said in a statement. “Finding out why the Justice Department made false denials about Operation Fast and Furious, and only corrected the record after ten months of public pressure, is a legitimate exercise of congressional authority. The Attorney General clearly believes he is above the law and is not accountable to the duly elected representatives of the American people or the institutions of our democracy.”

 

Issa is right about that, and the stonewallers were and are wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More stunning than a forgotten bag of return deposit bottles!

Imagine a sinister motive behind the return deposit program. IMAGINE it!

I hear some Obama scammers are collecting bottles in NY and returning them using government property in Michigan for a 100% profit. The Postmaster General is covering this up!.

 

Seinfeld_s7e22.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holder has no respect for those who voted him in contempt, meaning no respect for Congressional oversight.

 

No, it doesn't. I can have no respect for a particular police officer whilst still respecting the need for police. Holder can have no respect for members of Congress without it meaning he has no respect for Congressional oversight. You, like Issa, are deliberately mixing the target of disrespect as it furthers you desire to hold the man in (personal) contempt.

 

Stick to the facts, Tom. Semantics never plays well and smacks of desperation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time for a new game. "Benghazi!".

 

Object: First one who gets everybody to forget Mitt made an ass of himself, both on next morning AND during the debate on this issue, gets to shout "Benghazi!" and wins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holder has no respect for those who voted him in contempt, meaning no respect for Congressional oversight.

 

No, it doesn't. I can have no respect for a particular police officer whilst still respecting the need for police. Holder can have no respect for members of Congress without it meaning he has no respect for Congressional oversight. You, like Issa, are deliberately mixing the target of disrespect as it furthers you desire to hold the man in (personal) contempt.

 

Stick to the facts, Tom. Semantics never plays well and smacks of desperation.

 

One fact is, he lied to the whole Congress, indicating a lack of respect for their oversight. He told a different story to his Inspector General.

 

Another is, he kept the stonewallers Weinstein and Breuer in his department long after it was clear that they needed to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much better Tom. If you'd said that to start with rather than playing bullshit semantics like Issa, you'd look less like a partisan tool.

 

I already did the compare/contrast with Holder's testimony to Congress vs the story he told his IG and did not think it was necessary to repeat the same information, so I just talked about it without showing it again. Would it be even better if I showed once again how he lied to Congress?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much better Tom. If you'd said that to start with rather than playing bullshit semantics like Issa, you'd look less like a partisan tool.

 

I already did the compare/contrast with Holder's testimony to Congress vs the story he told his IG and did not think it was necessary to repeat the same information, so I just talked about it without showing it again. Would it be even better if I showed once again how he lied to Congress?

 

It would be better if you stopped making false claims such as "Holder has no respect for those who voted him in contempt, meaning no respect for Congressional oversight."

 

The former doesn't mean the latter. Either you're an idiot for thinking it does or acting the role of partisan tool in spreading that which you know is false. Either way, it would do you & your argument good to refrain from the semantic bullshit. It doesn't play well and smacks of desperation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true, Bent, and he actually probably has more respect for the ones who called him out on his lies and voted him in contempt than for the partisans who simply accepted his lies. It was the lying to the entire Congress that showed he has no respect for their oversight, not his cheap shot in the press at those who refused to accept his lies. My mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's true, Bent ... My mistake.

 

I'll pretend you had the actual integrity not to try the "I was wrong but..." game.

 

Very nice of you. I'll return the favor by pretending that you see something wrong with Holder's lies, his staff's stonewalling, and the partisans in Congress who were willing to accept it instead of voting him in contempt. ;)

 

where's the rule of law?

That old chestnut?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Very nice of you. I'll return the favor by pretending that you see something wrong with Holder's lies, his staff's stonewalling, and the partisans in Congress who were willing to accept it instead of voting him in contempt. ;)

 

The good thing about that is you don't need to ignore anything I've actually said to the contrary. Here's an interesting fact that might have skipped by you... you don't need to be obsessed with a wrong-doing to believe it to be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the assumption. I note that you have said nothing at all about the lies and partisanship of people in power, being obsessed with me and all. ;)

 

So what is your opinion on the topic? Does lying to Congress indicate a lack of respect for their oversight? It does to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry for the assumption. I note that you have said nothing at all about the lies and partisanship of people in power, being obsessed with me and all. ;)

 

If a couple of comments correcting mistakes you happen to make indicates an "obsession", you might want to consult a mental health professional about your pages of posts on the one subject. :rolleyes:

 

So what is your opinion on the topic? Does lying to Congress indicate a lack of respect for their oversight? It does to me.

 

You're already proven more than willing to play semantics with facts, so I'm not inclined to offer my less-than-black/white opinion as further material for your games. I'll stick to facts, as they can be proven. Feel free to IMAGINE whatever makes you feel better about the whole thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the previous page of this thread and you will find direct quotes from Holder to Congress and from Holder's Inspector General's report. Fact is the stories don't match, and the proof is there. I've given my opinion on those facts. Why don't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
In May of 2011, when Eric Holder told Congress that he "probably" learned of Operation Fast and Furious from media reports "a few weeks" earlier, I knew it was a lie. Everyone knew it was a lie. If true, it would mean that for months, his underlings did not tell him about a significant investigation of one of his agencies. It was just plain not believable.

 

He did not even try that lie on the Inspector General.

 

I have long speculated that if he did not learn of it sooner, he must have learned of it when Senator Grassley handed him letters inquiring about it. Senators don't deliver unimportant mail in person.

 

Uh, yep.

 

Attorney General Holder told the OIG that he did not learn of the link between the firearms recovered at the Terry murder scene and Operation Fast and Furious until 2011. Holder stated that he probably learned about the link in February 2011, after he received Senator Grassley’s January 27 and 31, 2011, letters and first learned of Operation Fast and Furious.

 

At the time of his appearance, the Department was still standing by their claim that the ATF did not walk guns. That claim was withdrawn months later. I'll have a lot more on that later.

 

Of that we are all WELL aware, Tom :P

 

Fact is, Holder lied under oath to Congress, indicating no respect for their oversight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, BS, I know you edited out the facts that are relevant to the topic and responded only to the part about me, and while your obsession is, I suppose, flattering, I was trying to get you to actually respond to the facts by putting them back in my post. Good to see you're still more interested in me than in the fact that Holder lied under oath to Congress. I'm way more important than the Attorney General, and you're at least consistent. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you cling to the notion that there is no such thing as mistakes when it comes to Holder and Obama, Tom? Did Ron Paul lie when he described the Byzantine Empire as free from wars?

 

I never said they were incapable of mistakes, but if you are suggesting that Holder's testimony to Congress that he had recently learned of Fast and Furious in media reports, when he told his IG that he had actually learned of it much earlier during internal investigations in response to letters personally handed to him by Senator Grassley was a "mistake" then I would just suggest you're living in La La Land. He knew what had gone on in his department for the past several months and had been personally involved, as he told his IG. Furthermore, the IG found that his and the DOJ's presentation in May 2011 to Congress was deceptive and that they should not have been still trying to defend the false denial of gunwalking at that late date, let alone for months afterward, knowing what they knew. His appearance was in support of a lie and he lied in his appearance. It was no mistake, it was politics as usual.

 

I don't know the Ron Paul statement that you're talking about, but see a bit of difference in that it's ancient history and Ron Paul was not personally involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you cling to the notion that there is no such thing as mistakes when it comes to Holder and Obama, Tom? Did Ron Paul lie when he described the Byzantine Empire as free from wars?

 

I never said they were incapable of mistakes, but if you are suggesting that Holder's testimony to Congress that he had recently learned of Fast and Furious in media reports, when he told his IG that he had actually learned of it much earlier during internal investigations in response to letters personally handed to him by Senator Grassley was a "mistake" then I would just suggest you're living in La La Land. He knew what had gone on in his department for the past several months and had been personally involved, as he told his IG. Furthermore, the IG found that his and the DOJ's presentation in May 2011 to Congress was deceptive and that they should not have been still trying to defend the false denial of gunwalking at that late date, let alone for months afterward, knowing what they knew. His appearance was in support of a lie and he lied in his appearance. It was no mistake, it was politics as usual.

 

I don't know the Ron Paul statement that you're talking about, but see a bit of difference in that it's ancient history and Ron Paul was not personally involved.

 

You think Holder was down in Phoenix running the program himself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you cling to the notion that there is no such thing as mistakes when it comes to Holder and Obama, Tom? Did Ron Paul lie when he described the Byzantine Empire as free from wars?

 

I never said they were incapable of mistakes, but if you are suggesting that Holder's testimony to Congress that he had recently learned of Fast and Furious in media reports, when he told his IG that he had actually learned of it much earlier during internal investigations in response to letters personally handed to him by Senator Grassley was a "mistake" then I would just suggest you're living in La La Land. He knew what had gone on in his department for the past several months and had been personally involved, as he told his IG. Furthermore, the IG found that his and the DOJ's presentation in May 2011 to Congress was deceptive and that they should not have been still trying to defend the false denial of gunwalking at that late date, let alone for months afterward, knowing what they knew. His appearance was in support of a lie and he lied in his appearance. It was no mistake, it was politics as usual.

 

I don't know the Ron Paul statement that you're talking about, but see a bit of difference in that it's ancient history and Ron Paul was not personally involved.

 

You think Holder was down in Phoenix running the program himself?

 

You think the program was still running in early 2011 when Senator Grassley handed Holder those letters?

 

His lies were part of the coverup, not the program.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you cling to the notion that there is no such thing as mistakes when it comes to Holder and Obama, Tom? Did Ron Paul lie when he described the Byzantine Empire as free from wars?

 

I never said they were incapable of mistakes, but if you are suggesting that Holder's testimony to Congress that he had recently learned of Fast and Furious in media reports, when he told his IG that he had actually learned of it much earlier during internal investigations in response to letters personally handed to him by Senator Grassley was a "mistake" then I would just suggest you're living in La La Land. He knew what had gone on in his department for the past several months and had been personally involved, as he told his IG. Furthermore, the IG found that his and the DOJ's presentation in May 2011 to Congress was deceptive and that they should not have been still trying to defend the false denial of gunwalking at that late date, let alone for months afterward, knowing what they knew. His appearance was in support of a lie and he lied in his appearance. It was no mistake, it was politics as usual.

 

I don't know the Ron Paul statement that you're talking about, but see a bit of difference in that it's ancient history and Ron Paul was not personally involved.

 

You think Holder was down in Phoenix running the program himself?

 

You think the program was still running in early 2011 when Senator Grassley handed Holder those letters?

 

His lies were part of the coverup, not the program.

 

The final report says Holder didn't try to cover it up, and since Obama won re-election, Issa has moved on. It's a conspiracy theory that has been discredited, and more importantly, is no longer of any use. Issa and you should consider yourselves fortunate Boehner allowed a contempt vote before that report came out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The final report says Holder didn't try to cover it up,

 

If you mean the IG report, no, it did not. It said he did not originate the program, but noted the deception from his department, including his appearance before Congress.

 

Part three of the final report from Congress has not yet been issued and the House rules were changed in December to carry forward the investigative powers into the next Congress. Have you forgotten that you are discussing this with someone who has read the reports from the IG and Congress and is paying attention to this issue or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The final report says Holder didn't try to cover it up,

 

If you mean the IG report, no, it did not. It said he did not originate the program, but noted the deception from his department, including his appearance before Congress.

 

Part three of the final report from Congress has not yet been issued and the House rules were changed in December to carry forward the investigative powers into the next Congress. Have you forgotten that you are discussing this with someone who has read the reports from the IG and Congress and is paying attention to this issue or something?

 

Not at all. I'm sure your reading of it is why you have decided to forget you were talking about Holder and changed the subject to "the department" right here, actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The final report says Holder didn't try to cover it up,

 

If you mean the IG report, no, it did not. It said he did not originate the program, but noted the deception from his department, including his appearance before Congress.

 

Part three of the final report from Congress has not yet been issued and the House rules were changed in December to carry forward the investigative powers into the next Congress. Have you forgotten that you are discussing this with someone who has read the reports from the IG and Congress and is paying attention to this issue or something?

 

Not at all. I'm sure your reading of it is why you have decided to forget you were talking about Holder and changed the subject to "the department" right here, actually.

 

The IG discussed Holder's appearance before Congress and said the DOJ should not have been defending the false denial of gun walking at that time. Holder was not the only one to testify, but was among those that the IG said were defending the false denial. The Congressional reports were more blunt on the subject since they wee not talking about their boss like the IG was, but I have refrained from quoting them to avoid the predictable messenger attacks. The fact is, they reached the same conclusion, namely that Holder and his underlings attempted to cover up what the ATF was doing and only abandoned that attempt in December of 2011.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The final report says Holder didn't try to cover it up,

 

If you mean the IG report, no, it did not. It said he did not originate the program, but noted the deception from his department, including his appearance before Congress.

 

Part three of the final report from Congress has not yet been issued and the House rules were changed in December to carry forward the investigative powers into the next Congress. Have you forgotten that you are discussing this with someone who has read the reports from the IG and Congress and is paying attention to this issue or something?

 

Not at all. I'm sure your reading of it is why you have decided to forget you were talking about Holder and changed the subject to "the department" right here, actually.

 

The IG discussed Holder's appearance before Congress and said the DOJ should not have been defending the false denial of gun walking at that time. Holder was not the only one to testify, but was among those that the IG said were defending the false denial. The Congressional reports were more blunt on the subject since they wee not talking about their boss like the IG was, but I have refrained from quoting them to avoid the predictable messenger attacks. The fact is, they reached the same conclusion, namely that Holder and his underlings attempted to cover up what the ATF was doing and only abandoned that attempt in December of 2011.

 

Nope. They didn't conclude that Holder deliberately tried to cover it up, which explains why Issa has moved on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, BS, I know you edited out the facts that are relevant to the topic and responded only to the part about me, and while your obsession is, I suppose, flattering, I was trying to get you to actually respond to the facts by putting them back in my post.

 

Which could have been done simply by quoting your post rather than changing mine. You could have chosen an honest quote, instead you chose to misrepresent my post. Funny how often misrepresenting someone's position coincides with my commenting on the matter. Almost like that's the point of my post - not who posted it. I wonder why that might be? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nope. They didn't conclude that Holder deliberately tried to cover it up, which explains why Issa has moved on.

 

I'll be sure to give you and Olsonist a heads up when Issa and Grassley issue part 3 of their final report, which I suppose you do not think will happen, since they have moved on in your world.

 

If you really believe that Holder's lie to Congress was a mistake, do you also believe that the mistake was only uncovered on the day the IG released his report, and that's why people close to him started resigning then? Or why did the resignations happen at that time?

 

The IG concluded that the DOJ should have stopped standing by their false denial of gunwalking long before they finally withdrew that denial in December 2011. Another innocent mistake?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. They didn't conclude that Holder deliberately tried to cover it up, which explains why Issa has moved on.

 

I'll be sure to give you and Olsonist a heads up when Issa and Grassley issue part 3 of their final report, which I suppose you do not think will happen, since they have moved on in your world.

 

If you really believe that Holder's lie to Congress was a mistake, do you also believe that the mistake was only uncovered on the day the IG released his report, and that's why people close to him started resigning then? Or why did the resignations happen at that time?

 

The IG concluded that the DOJ should have stopped standing by their false denial of gunwalking long before they finally withdrew that denial in December 2011. Another innocent mistake?

 

The mistake was known long ago. You are just making shit up now Tom.

 

You know that, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. They didn't conclude that Holder deliberately tried to cover it up, which explains why Issa has moved on.

 

I'll be sure to give you and Olsonist a heads up when Issa and Grassley issue part 3 of their final report, which I suppose you do not think will happen, since they have moved on in your world.

 

If you really believe that Holder's lie to Congress was a mistake, do you also believe that the mistake was only uncovered on the day the IG released his report, and that's why people close to him started resigning then? Or why did the resignations happen at that time?

 

The IG concluded that the DOJ should have stopped standing by their false denial of gunwalking long before they finally withdrew that denial in December 2011. Another innocent mistake?

 

The mistake was known long ago. You are just making shit up now Tom.

 

You know that, right?

You have NO imagination whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. They didn't conclude that Holder deliberately tried to cover it up, which explains why Issa has moved on.

 

I'll be sure to give you and Olsonist a heads up when Issa and Grassley issue part 3 of their final report, which I suppose you do not think will happen, since they have moved on in your world.

 

If you really believe that Holder's lie to Congress was a mistake, do you also believe that the mistake was only uncovered on the day the IG released his report, and that's why people close to him started resigning then? Or why did the resignations happen at that time?

 

The IG concluded that the DOJ should have stopped standing by their false denial of gunwalking long before they finally withdrew that denial in December 2011. Another innocent mistake?

 

The mistake was known long ago. You are just making shit up now Tom.

 

You know that, right?

 

Specifically, what do you imagine I made up? My post you quoted is simple and accurate.

 

People resigned when the report from the IG was released. Coincidence? Or did the report reveal mistakes they already knew they had made, but did not resign until we had confirmation?

 

The IG did say that the DOJ should not have defended their false denial letter as long as they did. Do you agree with the IG that it was a mistake to defend that lie?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are imagining arguments that I am not making, Tom.

 

So far you have suggested that Holder's lie about how and when he learned of Fast and Furious was a mistake, the proof being that Ron Paul may have made a mistake on ancient history for which you provided no source.

 

Next you said that the IG report did not find that Holder and his underlings attempted to cover up the gun walking and persisted in denials long after they should have withdrawn the denial letter. That's just flat wrong.

 

Next you said I'm making up "stuff" but won't say what stuff any more than you will confront the reality of what happened by commenting on why people resigned when the IG report came out.

 

Triple fail, four if you count failure to source your attempted Ron Paul distraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gross mis-characterization my comments and the findings of the IG report.

 

You haven't read it, have you? I note you have posted absolutely nothing from it.

 

From the IG report:

 

 

 

 

On February 28, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder requested the OIG to conduct a review of Operation Fast and Furious, and we agreed to conduct the review. This report describes the results of the OIG’s review.

 

Yet Holder testilied in May 2011 that he had only heard of Fast and Furious a few weeks before in media reports.

 

Here are some more excerpts from the IG report regarding whether Holder and his staff knew their Feb 4 letter was false, and when they knew it...

 

On the evening of December 14, 2010, CBP Agent Brian Terry was shot near Rio Rico, Arizona, while conducting border patrol operations. He was transported for emergency medical services but succumbed to his injuries.

 

Our investigation determined that Burke received an e-mail from the Department of Homeland Security at approximately 3:30 a.m. on December 15, 2010, notifying him of an agent’s murder. The Attorney General and Acting Deputy Attorney General received notification of the murder at approximately 10:00 a.m. the same day from e-mails that DOJ staff forwarded to them from Burke.

 

At approximately 11:00 that morning, Holder e-mailed Grindler, Wilkinson, and three other staff members to ask whether more details about the shooting were available. Wilkinson informed Holder that he would “look into it,” and a few minutes later sent an e-mail to Burke asking him to “provide any additional details as they become available to you.”

 

Holder told the OIG that he did not recall receiving more information other than the basic fact of the shooting, though he said it was possible he may have had a conversation with Wilkinson about it. Wilkinson told us that he did not recall having any such conversations with Holder. We found that Wilkinson forwarded to Holder during the afternoon of December 15 three e- mails from the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office that furnished additional information about the shooting and Agent Terry. These e-mails provided further details about the circumstances surrounding the firefight that resulted in Agent Terry’s death and law enforcement’s efforts to find and arrest the suspects.

 

Information soon became available that linked two weapons at the Terry murder scene to Operation Fast and Furious.223 Burke learned of this connection on the evening of December 15 and e-mailed Wilkinson, stating “[t]he guns found in the desert near the murder [sic] BP officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about – they were AK-47s purchased at a Phoenix gun store.” Wilkinson told us that he did not recall advising the Attorney General of this information, and we found no evidence that he did so.

 

*****

 

Attorney General Holder told the OIG that he did not learn of the link between the firearms recovered at the Terry murder scene and Operation Fast and Furious until 2011. Holder stated that he probably learned about the link in February 2011, after he received Senator Grassley’s January 27 and 31, 2011, letters and first learned of Operation Fast and Furious. We found no evidence that the Attorney General was told by anyone at the Department, or by anyone at ATF, about the connection prior to Senator Grassley’s letter on January 27, 2011.

 

Holder told us that he would not have expected to be informed about the link between the weapons found at Terry’s murder scene and Operation Fast and Furious absent some knowledge that “inappropriate tactics” were used in the investigation.

 

...

 

As we also discuss in Chapter Six, Attorney General Holder and other senior Department leaders in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, including Grindler, were not told about ATF’s use of flawed tactics in Operation Wide Receiver until several months after Agent Terry’s shooting. Holder told us that knowledge of Operation Wide Receiver at the time of Agent Terry’s death “certainly would raise . . . your sensitivity. It happened once before.” He stated that “if you had that knowledge and if you remembered it at the time, let’s see with an agent dead here and we got some guns connected to an investigation on Wide Receiver, what happened there . . . , you might start asking questions like that.”

 

******

 

OIG Analysis

 

We found no evidence that Attorney General Holder was informed about Operation Fast and Furious, or learned about the tactics employed by ATF in the investigation, prior to January 31, 2011. We found it troubling that a case of this magnitude and that affected Mexico so significantly was not directly briefed to the Attorney General. We would usually expect such information to come to the Attorney General through the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. However, as discussed below, neither ATF nor the U.S. Attorney’s Office sufficiently advised the Office of the Deputy Attorney General about the investigation itself or of any operational concerns regarding the investigation.

 

We also concluded that although Holder was notified immediately of Agent Terry’s shooting and death, he was not told in December 2010 about the connection between the firearms found at the scene of the shooting and Operation Fast and Furious. We determined that Holder did not learn of that fact until sometime in 2011, after he received Sen. Grassley’s January 27 letter. Both Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler and Counsel to the Attorney General and Deputy Chief of Staff Wilkinson were aware of this significant and troubling information by December 17, 2010, but did not believe the information was sufficiently important to alert the Attorney General about it or to make any further inquiry regarding this development.

 

*****

 

We concluded that Attorney General Holder should have been informed by no later than December 17, 2010, that two firearms recovered at the Terry murder scene were linked to an ATF firearms trafficking investigation.

 

...

 

In sum, a federal law enforcement agent had been murdered and two of the firearms found at the scene were illegally purchased by a straw purchaser who had been under ATF investigation at the time of the purchase (which had occurred nearly a year earlier). These facts alone, we found, should have prompted Grindler to ask questions about the case and to inform Attorney General Holder of the alarming information.

 

*****

 

Lastly, had the Department’s senior leadership taken immediate action after learning that weapons found at the scene of a federal law enforcement agent’s murder were linked to a straw purchaser in an ATF firearms trafficking investigation, the Department likely would have gathered information about Operation Fast and Furious well before it received the inquiry from Sen. Grassley about the very same issue in late January 2011. The Department, however, did not do so. As a result, when Sen. Grassley’s letter arrived on January 27, 2011, the Department was caught unprepared and, as we discuss in Chapter Six, rushed to send out a response letter in one week.

 

*****

 

On February 9, 2011, Sen. Grassley wrote to Attorney General Holder to express dissatisfaction with the Department’s response to his request for a briefing:

 

Unfortunately, the reaction to my request has, so far, been little more than delay and denial. I finally received a letter at close of business on Friday, February 4, in response to my request. It came not from the ATF, but from the Justice Department. In that letter, the Department categorically denied that the ATF “knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser . . . .”

The Department said the ATF “makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.”

Sen. Grassley’s letter continued, “However, as I explained in my initial letter to Acting Director Melson, the allegations I received are supported by documentation.”

 

****

 

On February 16, 2011, Sen. Grassley again wrote to Attorney General Holder, this time to request specific documents concerning Operation Fast and Furious and to inquire about ATF’s contact with the FFLs. Regarding the February 10 briefing, Sen. Grassley wrote, “When asked whether ATF had encouraged any gun dealer to proceed with sales to known or suspected traffickers such as Avila, the briefers said only that they did not have any ‘personal knowledge’ of that.”

 

*****

 

Amid these congressional inquiries, the news media also began focusing attention on Operation Fast and Furious, including a CBS broadcast on February 23, 2011, reporting that ATF had “facilitated the delivery of thousands of guns into criminal hands.” That same day, Grindler forwarded to Holder a summary of the broadcast entitled “CBS News Uncovers Gunrunning Scandal Within the ATF.” Holder replied to Grindler and Deputy Attorney General Cole, “Ok. We need answers on this. Not defensive bs – real answers.”

 

****

CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson e-mailed the Department’s Office of Public Affairs Director Tracy Schmaler on March 8, 2011, to ask about allegations that prior to Operation Fast and Furious ATF “knowingly allowed weapons to get into the hands of suspected cartel suppliers similar to the allegations in Fast and Furious,” including in an operation called Wide Receiver. CBS ran the story on March 8, 2011. On March 9, Schmaler e-mailed officials in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and the Office of the Attorney General, including Goldberg, Monaco, Smith, Grindler, and Wilkinson, to summarize the story. The e-mail contained an excerpt from Attkisson’s interview of an ATF agent in which Attkisson stated that “multiple sources tell cbs news the questionable tactics were used in more than one operation and date as far back as 2008 in the tucson area. One case was called ‘wide receiver.’”

 

That same day, a colleague of Schmaler’s in the Office of Public Affairs (who had attended the meeting with ATF officials on April 28, 2010, with Weinstein and Trusty that is described in Chapter Three) forwarded a portion of Schmaler’s e-mail to Raman, Weinstein, and James Trusty, stating, “Here’s the tease CBS apparently did last night about their continuing coverage – note mention of wide receiver.” Hoover forwarded a web posting of Attkisson’s report to Brad Smith and Monty Wilkinson on March 10, writing in his e-mail message, “I hope the AG understands that we did not allow guns to ‘walk’.” Wilkinson forwarded this message to Attorney General Holder, who replied, “Do they really, really know?” Despite this email traffic, we saw no substantive reaction within the Department at the time to the media reports about Operation Wide Receiver until after an Associated Press story about that investigation ran in October 2011, which we discuss below.

 

 

****

On April 13, 2011, Sen. Grassley wrote to Attorney General Holder to again express frustration with the Department’s failure to provide requested documents. Sen. Grassley wrote that this “failure to cooperate is especially troubling in light of the February 4, 2011, reply to my initial letter.” The letter asked for a written response to the following question:

 

Do you stand by the assertion in the Department’s reply that the ATF whistleblower allegations are “false” and specifically that ATF did not sanction or otherwise knowingly allow the sale of assault weapons to straw purchasers? If so, please explain why in light of the mounting evidence to the contrary.

 

*****

 

On May 3, the day after receiving Weich’s May 2 letter, Sen. Grassley and Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Darrell Issa responded in a joint letter to Attorney General Holder, writing, “we were surprised and disappointed to see the Department repeat, in slightly different language, its denial” of the January 2011 allegations. The May 3 letter continued:

 

In its latest denial, the Department seems to focus more on whether ATF knew guns were being trafficked to Mexico than whether the ATF knew they were being purchased by straw buyers. While it might be typical in Washington for lawyers to narrowly parse statements and argue over fine distinctions to confuse the issue, those are not the kind of answers we believe the Justice Department should give to Congress when asked straightforward questions about such a serious matter as this one.

 

Below his signature, Sen. Grassley handwrote a post script to Attorney General Holder:

 

You should check to see if you are getting accurate information from your staff.

 

You might be ill-served.

 

****

Attorney General Holder testified on November 8, 2011, before the Senate Judiciary Committee about a wide range of matters. When Sen. Grassley asked him about the Department’s February 4 letter, Holder stated:

 

There was information in that letter that was inaccurate. The letter could have been better crafted, we were relying on – in the crafting of that letter people were relying on information provided to them by people who were, we thought, in the best position to know what was accurate. People in the U.S. Attorneys' Office, people at ATF, people who themselves have now indicated in their congressional testimony before the House that they were not aware of the tactics that were employed. As a result of that, the information that is contained in the February 4th letter to you was not in fact accurate. And that is – I regret that.

 

Holder’s November 8 testimony represented the first explicit public acknowledgement by a Department official that the February 4 letter was not accurate.

 

****

 

As described in this chapter, the Department withdrew the February 4, 2011, letter on December 2, 2011. Prior to withdrawing the letter, Department officials made written and oral statements to Congress about the February 4 letter that we believe were in tension with what they learned through their otherwise responsible (albeit belated) post-February 4 effort to understand ATF’s investigative activities in Operation Fast and Furious.

 

Most notably, in responding to a question from Sen. Grassley to Attorney General Holder on April 13, 2011, as to whether the Department stood by “the assertion . . . that the ATF whistleblower allegations are ‘false’ and specifically that ATF did not sanction or otherwise knowingly allow the sale of assault weapons to straw purchasers,” Weich, on behalf of the Department, wrote in a letter dated May 2:

 

It remains our understanding that ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious did not knowingly permit straw buyers to take guns into Mexico.

 

*****

 

We found that Weinstein stated the information about Avila in a similar way in a February 16 e-mail to Grindler, who was seeking information for Attorney General Holder about “whether a gun sold in the operation was used in the shooting [of Agent Terry].” Weinstein wrote to Grindler, in relevant part:

 

Two of the guns sold during the investigation were found near the scene of the shooting of Agent Terry. These guns had been purchased about 11 months earlier, by a person later determined to be part of the trafficking ring. ATF was not notified of the sales until after they had been completed.

 

Similar to his interpretation of Hoover’s statement to Burton, Weinstein’s e- mail suggested that Avila was not even a suspect when he purchased these guns.

 

Weinstein described his role in the drafting process as helping to collect information and draft the Department’s response. However, it appeared to the OIG that Weinstein’s participation went beyond this description. E-mail records and the testimony of witnesses we interviewed showed Weinstein to be a staunch supporter of ATF and its law enforcement mission, and that he described himself as such. We believe that in his zeal to protect ATF’s interests, Weinstein lost perspective and provided Burton – and later Grindler – with distorted information about ATF’s view of Avila’s status as a straw purchaser. Thus, in helping to draft the Department’s response to the very serious allegations leveled at ATF, we believe Weinstein failed to act in the best interests of the Department by advocating for ATF rather than responsibly gathering information about its activities.

 

****

 

The Department received several letters from Members of Congress after issuing its February 4 response. In responses to these subsequent inquiries about Operation Fast and Furious on March 2, March 8, April 4, and April 18, the Department declined to provide substantive comments about the investigation in light of its February referral of the matter to the OIG. However, in responding to an April 13 letter from Sen. Grassley to Attorney General Holder asking whether the Department stood by “the assertion . . . that the ATF whistleblower allegations are ‘false’ and specifically that ATF did not sanction or otherwise knowingly allow the sale of assault weapons to straw purchasers,” Weich, on behalf of the Department, wrote in a May 2 response:

 

You have asked whether it remains our view that “ATF did not sanction or otherwise knowingly allow the sale of assault weapons to straw purchasers.” In fact, my letter, dated February 4, 2011 said: “At the outset, the allegation described in your January 27 letter – that ATF ‘sanctioned’ or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them into Mexico – is false.” It remains our understanding that ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious did not knowingly permit straw buyers to take guns into Mexico. You have provided us documents, including internal ATF emails, which you believe support your allegation. As you know, we have referred these documents and all correspondence and materials received from you related to Operation Fast and Furious to the Acting Inspector General, so that she may conduct a thorough review and resolve your allegations. While we await her findings, the Attorney General has made clear to prosecutors and agents working along the Southwest Border that the Department should never knowingly permit firearms to cross the border.

 

...

 

We believe that the Department should not have made this statement in its May 2 response to Sen. Grassley. Regardless of whether there was any intent to draw a distinction between straw purchasers and third parties, senior Department officials knew or should have known by the time the letter was drafted that while ATF may not have allowed straw purchasers to buy firearms so that they themselves could take the guns to Mexico, ATF had in many instances allowed straw purchasers to buy firearms knowing that a third party would be transporting them to Mexico. The review of the Operation Fast and Furious case file that had been conducted to this point by Department officials, including the Title III affidavits, indicated that suspects were buying guns for the purpose of getting them into Mexico. Moreover, ATF was aware from later seizures that some of those firearms did in fact end up in Mexico. Thus, the May 2 letter was true only in the most literal sense, even if it was not intended to be read that way.

 

As I've been saying all along, the letters from Senator Grassley alerted Holder to Fast and Furious and the allegations of gunwalking in late January and early February 2011 but he and his Department denied and played weasel word games until December before finally admitting that the ATF was walking guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you read it and not realize he lied to Congress and kept incompetents and stonewallers in high offices?

 

Are you ever going to answer why people resigned when that report came out?

 

The subject I am talking about is your hatred for Holder. You keep citing stuff that says there is no proof, and they do not believe, he participated in a conspiracy as evidence of the opposite.

 

That people waited for the official reports to resign is no surprise, it's typical in LE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, maybe the excerpts were a bit too long for you to actually read, like the report itself.

 

 

On February 28, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder requested the OIG to conduct a review of Operation Fast and Furious, and we agreed to conduct the review. This report describes the results of the OIG’s review.

 

...

 

We found no evidence that Attorney General Holder was informed about Operation Fast and Furious, or learned about the tactics employed by ATF in the investigation, prior to January 31, 2011. We found it troubling that a case of this magnitude and that affected Mexico so significantly was not directly briefed to the Attorney General. We would usually expect such information to come to the Attorney General through the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. However, as discussed below, neither ATF nor the U.S. Attorney’s Office sufficiently advised the Office of the Deputy Attorney General about the investigation itself or of any operational concerns regarding the investigation.

 

We also concluded that although Holder was notified immediately of Agent Terry’s shooting and death, he was not told in December 2010 about the connection between the firearms found at the scene of the shooting and Operation Fast and Furious. We determined that Holder did not learn of that fact until sometime in 2011, after he received Sen. Grassley’s January 27 letter.

 

He ordered an investigation into something that he did not learn about until months later? Not credible.

 

He told the IG, and the IG concluded it was true, that he learned about FnF in February 2011, after Grassley started pestering him about it. Issa and Grassley continued to write a stream of letters asking for information about gunwalking in that operation until his appearance before Congress in May. He had plenty of time to prepare for that appearance, yet showed up and said he had only learned about Fast and Furious a few weeks earlier in media reports. Not credible, and no chance it was a mistake as you suggested.

 

He had to have known that Weinstein had screwed up royally long before the IG report actually came out and said so. Heck, I knew about it and was talking about it in this thread long before. Holder should have fired him when he realized it, and the fact he did not tells me Weinstein was doing what Holder wanted him to do: cover up, deny, and delay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, maybe the excerpts were a bit too long for you to actually read, like the report itself.

 

 

On February 28, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder requested the OIG to conduct a review of Operation Fast and Furious, and we agreed to conduct the review. This report describes the results of the OIG’s review.

 

...

 

We found no evidence that Attorney General Holder was informed about Operation Fast and Furious, or learned about the tactics employed by ATF in the investigation, prior to January 31, 2011. We found it troubling that a case of this magnitude and that affected Mexico so significantly was not directly briefed to the Attorney General. We would usually expect such information to come to the Attorney General through the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. However, as discussed below, neither ATF nor the U.S. Attorney’s Office sufficiently advised the Office of the Deputy Attorney General about the investigation itself or of any operational concerns regarding the investigation.

 

We also concluded that although Holder was notified immediately of Agent Terry’s shooting and death, he was not told in December 2010 about the connection between the firearms found at the scene of the shooting and Operation Fast and Furious. We determined that Holder did not learn of that fact until sometime in 2011, after he received Sen. Grassley’s January 27 letter.

 

He ordered an investigation into something that he did not learn about until months later? Not credible.

 

He told the IG, and the IG concluded it was true, that he learned about FnF in February 2011, after Grassley started pestering him about it. Issa and Grassley continued to write a stream of letters asking for information about gunwalking in that operation until his appearance before Congress in May. He had plenty of time to prepare for that appearance, yet showed up and said he had only learned about Fast and Furious a few weeks earlier in media reports. Not credible, and no chance it was a mistake as you suggested.

 

He had to have known that Weinstein had screwed up royally long before the IG report actually came out and said so. Heck, I knew about it and was talking about it in this thread long before. Holder should have fired him when he realized it, and the fact he did not tells me Weinstein was doing what Holder wanted him to do: cover up, deny, and delay.

 

It's easy for me to understand why Holder would consider Chuck "Death Panels" Grassley an unreliable source of information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul! Death Panels! Anything but the resignations of Holder's deputies after the IG report came out! :rolleyes:

 

Anyone who believes in the existence of death panels must be nutz. Crazier still would be to advocate for them. ;)

 

What the heck was the Inspector General thinking when he took the allegations being made by ATF agents seriously? Grassley listened to them, thus proving they must have been wrong. Any association with a bad messenger automatically disproves the message, after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The authorities who read the suicide note concluded she was a straw buyer. Now they will have to explain why.

 

How does this relate to Virginia gun shows? Gun dealers need a license everywhere.

 

Everywhere? Private citizen to private citizen, like in Arizona?

 

Our laws distinguish between those involved in the business of selling weapons and those not involved in that business.

Screenshot_loophole.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

More on the legal ineffectiveness of current gun regulation law and the 'distinction between a gun dealer, a private purchase and a strawman purchases'.

(In other words, how the Gun Lobby contorts US law with loopholes protecting the status quo, subsequently blame-shifting back to 'enforcement'.)

 

 

Gotta keep selling the precious....remember: the boogeyman is hiding in the bushes-I'll tell you one thing; he's not getting the TV set.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fab, do you know what happened to the straw purchasers in the topic operation?

 

They were charged with their crimes, months after the operational phase of Fast and Furious was over and the evidence to charge them had been gathered. In other words, they could have been charged at any time prior to Brian Terry's death, but were not charged until after he was killed. I agree with Holder's Inspector General that they could have, and should have, been charged for their crimes much sooner. Allowing known straw buyers to continue their activity was reckless, irresponsible, and unnecessary. We do have laws that can be enforced, when those in power choose to enforce them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fab, do you know what happened to the straw purchasers in the topic operation?

 

They were charged with their crimes, months after the operational phase of Fast and Furious was over and the evidence to charge them had been gathered. In other words, they could have been charged at any time prior to Brian Terry's death, but were not charged until after he was killed. I agree with Holder's Inspector General that they could have, and should have, been charged for their crimes much sooner. Allowing known straw buyers to continue their activity was reckless, irresponsible, and unnecessary. We do have laws that can be enforced, when those in power choose to enforce them.

 

...alternatively, we can have highly paid lobbyists create practically unenforceable laws, pass them to GOP ninnies with a big check, to preserve the status quo, and blame-shift to law enforcement.

http://youtu.be/KINQSpGFFo4

Link to post
Share on other sites

More on the legal ineffectiveness of current gun regulation law and the 'distinction between a gun dealer, a private purchase and a strawman purchases'.

(In other words, how the Gun Lobby contorts US law with loopholes protecting the status quo, subsequently blame-shifting back to 'enforcement'.)

 

 

A federal grand jury indicted Nguyen, 24, on three counts: knowingly making a false statement in connection with a firearm purchase; providing guns to Spengler, a felon; and possessing guns while illegally using marijuana.

 

...

 

Each of the three charges against Nguyen carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

 

While a judge could sentence Nguyen to maximum penalties if she were convicted, federal sentences typically rely on advisory sentencing guidelines, which consider criteria such as the offense and a person’s past criminal conduct.

 

In turn, sentences are often less — and sometimes significantly so — than the possible maximums.

 

...

 

The Nguyen case has been cited by legislators attempting to enact stricter penalties against “straw purchasers” who knowingly buy guns for people not allowed to have them, like Spengler.

 

One of the men shot Christmas Eve, firefighter Ted Scardino, testified at a forum in Washington, D.C., this week, encouraging Congress to pass a law that would give 25 years in prison to people who make straw purchases when they have reason to suspect the recipient intends to commit a violent crime.

 

In the Nguyen case, Hochul said, “there is no allegation (she) was aware that William Spengler would kill two first responders and seriously injure two others. ... (But) this case should serve as a warning to any individual who attempts to facilitate the actions of a criminal.”

 

According to the article, she was to be arraigned yesterday. Seems like she will most likely lose the case, especially in light of her lie about the guns being stolen.

 

So a person being prosecuted and convicted for straw buying is evidence that the straw buying laws are unenforceable, just like the same thing happening to the Fast and Furious straw buyers and many others?

 

The prosecutor says there is no evidence she suspected his intent, but she's still the example cited in calling for a new 25 year maximum sentence for those who do?

 

She's facing up to ten years and a quarter million dollar fine. She probably won't get the maximum, but max sentences are rarely handed out in any kind of case, including firearms cases, because they are for the worst offenders. She is not one of those, despite what the other guy did with the guns. She'll do time and be fined, which is evidence of exactly the opposite of your claim: our laws are enforceable and are being enforced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More on the legal ineffectiveness of current gun regulation law and the 'distinction between a gun dealer, a private purchase and a strawman purchases'.

(In other words, how the Gun Lobby contorts US law with loopholes protecting the status quo, subsequently blame-shifting back to 'enforcement'.)

 

 

A federal grand jury indicted Nguyen, 24, on three counts: knowingly making a false statement in connection with a firearm purchase; providing guns to Spengler, a felon; and possessing guns while illegally using marijuana.

 

...

 

Each of the three charges against Nguyen carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

 

While a judge could sentence Nguyen to maximum penalties if she were convicted, federal sentences typically rely on advisory sentencing guidelines, which consider criteria such as the offense and a person’s past criminal conduct.

 

In turn, sentences are often less — and sometimes significantly so — than the possible maximums.

 

...

 

The Nguyen case has been cited by legislators attempting to enact stricter penalties against “straw purchasers” who knowingly buy guns for people not allowed to have them, like Spengler.

 

One of the men shot Christmas Eve, firefighter Ted Scardino, testified at a forum in Washington, D.C., this week, encouraging Congress to pass a law that would give 25 years in prison to people who make straw purchases when they have reason to suspect the recipient intends to commit a violent crime.

 

In the Nguyen case, Hochul said, “there is no allegation (she) was aware that William Spengler would kill two first responders and seriously injure two others. ... (But) this case should serve as a warning to any individual who attempts to facilitate the actions of a criminal.”

 

According to the article, she was to be arraigned yesterday. Seems like she will most likely lose the case, especially in light of her lie about the guns being stolen.

 

So a person being prosecuted and convicted for straw buying is evidence that the straw buying laws are unenforceable, just like the same thing happening to the Fast and Furious straw buyers and many others?

 

The prosecutor says there is no evidence she suspected his intent, but she's still the example cited in calling for a new 25 year maximum sentence for those who do?

 

She's facing up to ten years and a quarter million dollar fine. She probably won't get the maximum, but max sentences are rarely handed out in any kind of case, including firearms cases, because they are for the worst offenders. She is not one of those, despite what the other guy did with the guns. She'll do time and be fined, which is evidence of exactly the opposite of your claim: our laws are enforceable and are being enforced.

 

...and the spirit of the law, which is to prevent the gun from getting into the hands of those who should not have them, and innocent people are dead, because of unenforceable deterrents advocated by the gun lobby were put into place as a political expedient.

 

Each year thousands of guns are purchased, then (either legally) sold to creeps or conveniently 'stolen' by criminals, and making everybody less safe. Yet any technology to track weapons, vehemently opposed by the gun lobby, and 2nd 'precious hobbyists'. Your answer? Buy a gun.

 

The Law, in this case, and most others is practically, and selectively enforced because police, and the judiciate, set priorities with limited money. That generally does not result in the DA's office chasing paper straw men and windmills, (which, number in the tens of thousands). Yet Graham and is lame ilk, (including yourself), tacetly support these ineffective laws, and invoke blame-shifting to law enforcement, which ultimately, is a strategy to sell more guns. I find this shamefully disgusting. In the Webster NY case, it looks like the criminal actually went along with Ms. Ngyuen to pick out his favorite killing devices, just before they were "stolen" from her house. Even the staunchest NRA Drone cannot obfuscate-go-through-the necessary-mental-gymnastic-contortions to argue against the blame-shifting strategy credibily to convince any rational thinker to your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the prosecutor plans to enforce the prison sentence and fine that is in her future, or he would not be wasting his time. I don't see why an example of the enforcement of laws against straw buying is proof that enforcement of the laws against straw buying is not possible. It seems to prove the opposite to me. She will be punished for her crime and I don't have any problem with her being punished for her crime. If it were true that the law is unenforceable and she winds up not being punished for her crime, I would have a problem with that, but I don't see that happening. She's going to prison.

 

I watched the Graham video and don't agree with Graham's position. He is saying that people who fail a background check should be prosecuted. I'm not sure failing a background check is even a crime if no gun was sold. Just as people wrongly wind up on the "no fly" lists and others, people fail background checks when they should not. I agree with the police chief that prosecuting people who attempt to buy guns and fail the background check, if it's even possible, would be a waste of resources.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why an example of the enforcement of laws against straw buying is proof that enforcement of the laws against straw buying is not possible.

"Possible" and "Practical" hold very different meanings as it pertains to finite enforcement budgets. Ms. Ngyuen will be prosecuted, and maybe found guilty by her peers. But as it pertains to the spirit of a law as a deterent against such criminal violence, 2 firefighters are dead, and 4 other innocent persons shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why an example of the enforcement of laws against straw buying is proof that enforcement of the laws against straw buying is not possible.

"Possible" and "Practical" hold very different meanings as it pertains to finite enforcement budgets. Ms. Ngyuen will be prosecuted, and maybe found guilty by her peers. But as it pertains to the spirit of a law as a deterent against such criminal violence, 2 firefighters are dead, and 4 other innocent persons shot.

 

Straw buying is one crime, murder and attempted murder are different crimes and not ones committed by Ms. Ngyuen, who did not commit a violent crime.

 

Lying to Congress is yet another crime. Encouraging gun dealers to make straw sales is another crime. Hundreds of Mexicans and at least one federal agent are dead. But then, that stuff is the topic of this thread...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on topic, the lawsuit over Obama's assertion of executive privilege to keep Fast and Furious documents from Congress is undergoing court-ordered mediation to try to reach a settlement.

 

The representatives from Congress believe it is likely to be fruitless since there is no indication that the stonewallers in the administration have changed their minds about the legitimacy of Congressional oversight.

 

The Oversight panel, led by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), argued that mediation with a separate federal judge would be futile because of the distance between the two sides.

 

“He is not motivated to compromise in a manner that will result in the delivery of useful documents to the committee in the foreseeable future [and] ... settlement simply is not possible — at least not at this time,” the committee wrote about Holder in the latest joint status report. “Further efforts along these lines would be a waste of everyone’s time.”

 

 

Assuming mediation fails, there will be a trial starting April 24th.

 

Congress and the White House have both won previous court battles in the past over the assertion of executive privilege. But according to legal scholars and former DOJ attorneys, the current case is unlike any other, leaving many with a theory on how it will play out but few with any firm conviction. Few, except for Issa himself.

 

“The committee is confident about the legal merit of its efforts to obtain documents President Obama and the Justice Department have wrongly withheld,” said Frederick Hill, a spokesman for Issa and the panel’s Republicans, in a statement. “The committee intends to fully pursue its legal options.”

 

Scott Coffina, a former associate counsel to Bush and current partner with D.C. firm Drinker, Biddle & Reath, said the case is extremely important because it could set a new precedent for what information Congress has a right to access.

 

“There’s a very important prerogative from both branches at stake in a decision like this: the assertion of executive privilege in future cases and Congress’s right to insist on getting full, complete, and accurate information when they’re conducting investigations,” said Coffina.

 

...

 

Further muddying the waters are comments Holder made in a recent interview with ABC News, which the committee refers to in its joint status report. Holder said he didn’t have respect for the lawmakers who voted to place him in contempt of Congress last year.

Issa has called the comments “arrogantly dismissive,” and Grassley, who did not vote on the House contempt measure, has called for an apology.

 

Holder and DOJ say they are optimistic that a deal can be reached through mediation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Department of Fatherland Security IG report on ICE involvement in Fast and Furious came out.

 

...According to the report, on numerous occasions ICE and Border Patrol agents stopped vehicles smuggling guns to Mexico, but were instructed by the ATF and U.S. attorney's office to back off. Even after "suspects admitted to having transported weapons across the border five or six times," they were not arrested, and ATF did not "try to flip the suspects to get them to cooperate, which was a mistake," the report said.

 

...

 

Early in the case -- after learning the ATF let more than 200 guns get smuggled to Mexico despite a warning the buyers were dirty from Lone Wolf gun store owner Andre Howard -- a senior ICE agent said in an email, "I'm speechless. Even the owner knows this ain't right, and ATF apparently doesn't get it."

 

Following the death of Agent Brian Terry, another supervisor wrote, "and this is exactly what I said would happen when you let that many guns walk."

 

Yet the debate apparently stayed within Arizona.

 

"Senior DHS officials in Washington DC had no awareness of the methodology used by the task force to investigate Operation Fast and Furious until media reports were published in March 2011," the report said.

 

The report also claimed that days after the death of Terry, former U.S. Attorney for Arizona Dennis Burke, who oversaw Fast and Furious and later resigned because of his role in it, declined to tell Napolitano about the case, even as she called for an investigation into it.

 

Robert Heyer, a spokesman for the Terry family, said no one from the OIG ever contacted the family and criticized the report for failing to hold anyone accountable.

 

"We are very disappointed with the quality and depth of the investigation," Heyer told Fox News. "The report says that Homeland Security personnel in Arizona all knew on December 15th that the weapons found at the murder scene were from (Fast and Furious). That information was passed to (headquarters), yet was never passed on to Secretary Napolitano," he said. "(Allen) had the opportunity to shut down the operation because of public safety concerns but he chose not to. How about holding DHS executives accountable for that decision."

 

The OIG has not responded to a question from Fox News on why the report did not include names.

 

Naming names would seem to be a first step in holding those responsible accountable. I guess that's not the goal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who forced a contempt vote through Congress just a short time before the IG report came out? Who allowed no debate and only 7 days notice on a complex case before that vote? Who threatened to change the NRA ratings of members of Congress unless they voted to find Holder in contempt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who finally went for a contempt vote after months of stonewalling and threatening a contempt vote in response? The Reform and Oversight committee. We know the names.

 

Only seven days? There were months of negotiations and threats of contempt if the stonewalling did not stop. It got to the point where I was comparing Issa to the boy who cried wolf in this thread. It's not like there was no warning. There were too many warnings for too long. By named people.

 

Only the NRA can say what they will do, and they did. They are free to issue ratings and members of Congress are free to react. I support their action because I was tired of the stonewalling and thought the administration should come clean. Again, names were attached.

 

So getting back to my question, why would the DHS IG not name names in his report?

 

Another article on the subject

 

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul (R-Texas) and Ranking Democrat Bennie Thompson (Miss.) said the report was “troubling.”

 

"This report once again demonstrates the obvious flaws in the Fast and Furious Operation,” said McCaul. “While it makes clear that the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement leadership were initially unaware of the operation, it is troubling that those ICE and DHS personnel in Arizona who knew of the problems did not take immediate action.”

 

Thompson said, “The OIG’s conclusions about the lack of support or oversight by ICE leadership in Arizona of the ICE special agent involved in the operation are very troubling, as is the failure of ICE leadership in Arizona to report serious problems with the operation to ICE headquarters.”

 

I agree with Bennie Thompson and would like to know who these "ICE leadership" people are and see them held accountable. But first, we need to know who they are. Why would that be a secret?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If there is a case being built against Voth, which I believe is very likely and you believe will never happen, then the complete lack of his being mentioned in Issa's political hearings is very much to be expected and understandable....

 

Well, it has been a bit over a year. I wonder how that case against Voth is coming?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a case being built against Voth, which I believe is very likely and you believe will never happen, then the complete lack of his being mentioned in Issa's political hearings is very much to be expected and understandable....

 

Well, it has been a bit over a year. I wonder how that case against Voth is coming?

 

Looking more and more like it died. Not every case results in charges being filed. Your mom was a prosecutor, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, who could have possibly guessed that gunwalkers and the stonewallers who protected them would not be punished?

 

Besides me, I mean. ;)

 

Some people thought very little would happen because it was just a bad sting op.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it be very likely we would see an ATF supervisor prosecuted over a bad sting op?

 

Seems to me that's a point you agree with. What are your reasons?

 

I suspect the main thing that's saving Voth's dumb ass is that the department had run similar ops before, specifically to Mexico.

Link to post
Share on other sites