Obama's Mexican Gunrunning Operation

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
The Kenyan’s EP was been overruled and the subpoena was granted. So we can also judge the both Kenyan’s exercise of EP and the relevance of the subpoena by looking at the documents.

You opened this door by comparing the Kenyan’s exercise of EP with that of Shitstain’s. In the case we know the documents. In the second we have a redacted version of Mueller’s report and we’d like to question Mueller. So I think we can judge the similarity here on the content rather than the exercise.

Did Issa (who is now unemployed) find anything germane in the Kenyan’s documents?
IIRC - Issa DID find pertinent content in the requested documents.  I still don't understand what point you're trying to make w/r/t judging this administration's claim of EP. Are you saying that because Issa did find something, that the judicial review of this admin's EP claims should be decided by making them comply w/the subpoena and then deciding based upon a review of the redacted content whether this admin's claim of EP is valid?    

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
28,716
3,809
New Oak City
Start here.

After a while you'll get to the time when the IG's report came out. Most posts after that are mine because your elk didn't want to talk about it.

Maybe tomorrow morning I'll bump a bunch of them for you to ignore once again.
Thank you for your fool’s errand. Now do you have a cite? Remember, you’ve read the documents. This should be easy.

You can even ring up Issa (who’s unemployed) for a lifeline.

(They’re playing fucking Queen at the sushi bar. Fuck if they get a tip.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,548
1,715
Punta Gorda FL
Holder received frequent memos on gunwalking, but none contained details, or at least not details that he understood. Or something.

Quote
WASHINGTON - New documents obtained by CBS News show Attorney General Eric Holder was sent briefings on the controversial Fast and Furious operation as far back as July 2010. That directly contradicts his statement to Congress.


On May 3, 2011, Holder told a Judiciary Committee hearing, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."

Yet internal Justice Department documents show that at least ten months before that hearing, Holder began receiving frequent memos discussing Fast and Furious.

Read the new documents

Read the July 5, 2010 memo

Read the "It's a tricky case" email

Read the memo to AG Holder from Asst. AG Lanny A. Breuer

The documents came from the head of the National Drug Intelligence Center and Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer.

In Fast and Furious, ATF agents allegedly allowed thousands of weapons to cross the border and fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

Gunwalking scandal uncovered at ATF

It's called letting guns "walk," and it remained secret to the public until Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered last December. Two guns from Fast and Furious were found at the scene, and ATF agent John Dodson blew the whistle on the operation.

Agent: I was ordered to let guns "walk" into Mexico

Ever since, the Justice Department has publicly tried to distance itself. But the new documents leave no doubt that high level Justice officials knew guns were being "walked."

Two Justice Department officials mulled it over in an email exchange Oct. 18, 2010. "It's a tricky case given the number of guns that have walked but is a significant set of prosecutions," says Jason Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division. Deputy Chief of the National Gang Unit James Trusty replies "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."

The Justice Department told CBS News that the officials in those emails were talking about a different case started before Eric Holder became Attorney General. And tonight they tell CBS News, Holder misunderstood that question from the committee - he did know about Fast and Furious - just not the details.


We've gone from "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks" to "well I knew about it but not the details." (The details in the memos sent to me.)
Holder understandably didn't want to walk into Congress and admit he had been briefed on the stupidity ATF was engaged in, so he lied.

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
28,716
3,809
New Oak City
Tom, can you remind me how the Sharyl Atkinson 2011 article which you just quoted from has any bearing on Judge Jackson's ruling from 2016? I'm willing to stipulate that F+F which was started by W + Tony G was stupid and that Issa (who is now unemployed and was kicked off Oversight) thoroughly investigated its stupidity anyways, well, its 2009+ stupidity. Its 2006-8 stupidity, not so much.

But Guy brought up Judge Jackson's ruling on EP in his water carrying. So let's stick to that case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,548
1,715
Punta Gorda FL
Can you summarize these documents? Did they establish whether Holder, Obama or Reverend Wright knew about this program the W + Tony G started?
I didn't know "these documents" meant only Judge Berman's decision. I thought I was talking about the IG report and Congressional investigation.

You toss in Rev Wright and then complain about relevance because you lost track of what you asked?

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
Tom, can you remind me how the Sharyl Atkinson 2011 article which you just quoted from has any bearing on Judge Jackson's ruling from 2016? I'm willing to stipulate that F+F which was started by W + Tony G was stupid and that Issa (who is now unemployed and was kicked off Oversight) thoroughly investigated its stupidity anyways, well, its 2009+ stupidity. Its 2006-8 stupidity, not so much.

But Guy brought up Judge Jackson's ruling on EP in his water carrying. So let's stick to that case.
Water carrying?   You're deluding yourself O - pushing back at the idgits for being hypocrites isn't carrying someone else's water.  

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
28,716
3,809
New Oak City
I didn't know "these documents" meant only Judge Berman's decision. I thought I was talking about the IG report and Congressional investigation.

You toss in Rev Wright and then complain about relevance because you lost track of what you asked?
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 overruled and the subpoena was granted. So we can now judge both the Kenyan’s exercise of EP and the relevance of the subpoena by looking at the documents WHICH WERE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE SUBPOENA. I'll even grant that Judge Jackson was correct; he would know. Y'all can now determine for yourselves whether the Kenyan's EP was in good faith, again, by looking at those documents just as I can determine whether your boy Shitstain is acting in good faith by looking at the Mueller report. Guy kinda thinks these are the same and I kinda think they're different.

As for Rev Wright, I'm guessing that y'all think the Kenyan hatched this scheme while doing lines of coke in the Oval Office brainstorming with Rev Wright on ways to get CBP agents killed. Myself, I think this program got started in the W administration by the Phoenix office (Wide Receiver), and shutdown, and then the Phoenix office restarted it as F+F. In any case, I'm a little surprised that your boy Shitstain hasn't awarded Agent Newell the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Newell seems like a real winner and apparently still works at the ATF.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
O - wasn't the claim of EP overruled primarily because the majority of the content had already been publicly disclosed?   I'm perfectly OK w/a Judicial Review of the redacted content and then abiding by that decision.  Prior to that review?  Nobody has grounds to claim much of anything. 

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
28,716
3,809
New Oak City
O - wasn't the claim of EP overruled primarily because the majority of the content had already been publicly disclosed?   I'm perfectly OK w/a Judicial Review of the redacted content and then abiding by that decision.  Prior to that review?  Nobody has grounds to claim much of anything. 
If you wish to take that tack, I'll point out that the majority of the content of Mueller's report has already been publicly disclosed. The difference is then that F+F was started in the W administration by the Phoenix ATF office whereas Mueller is a Special Counsel investigating the current President. Do you see the difference?

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
If you wish to take that tack, I'll point out that the majority of the content of Mueller's report has already been publicly disclosed. The difference is then that F+F was started in the W administration by the Phoenix ATF office whereas Mueller is a Special Counsel investigating the current President. Do you see the difference?
As it pertains to the claim of EP - then I have to admit that no, I don't think that there is a difference.   If there's some legal distinction that I'm unaware of, I'm happy to be squared away.   

Just to make sure you remember where I am on this topic, ( we wouldn't want ya to get discombobulated) I think that redactions for the purposes stated are appropriate, and shouldn't be disclosed to the general public, or full congress in open session until the reasons for those redactions have been OBE.  Redactions for personal privacy for individual testimony provided by people not the object of this investigation?  That should remain private.  If there's a question about the validity of those redactions?  then that should be addressed in closed session by the Judiciary Oversight Committee.  

As it pertains to Pres Trump's claims of EP?  Let those play out just like they did w/Pres Obama and AG Holder in F&F - until the courts decide, nobody gets nothin'.  

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
28,716
3,809
New Oak City
In the first case, it was an operation started by an underling in a previous administration and then restarted by same underling during the Kenyan's illegal usurpation. In the second case, it's an investigation of the President and his aides about Russian election meddling. The mechanics of EP are the same but the underlying facts are ... different. You said:

So - the Obama administration's "compliance" with Issa's investigation proceeded much like this administration's "compliance", with the same claims of privilege, and the same outrage about the lack of willing compliance.

And I'm saying that we can compare these cases by their facts rather than by the mechanics of EP.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
In the first case, it was an operation started by an underling in a previous administration and then restarted by same underling during the Kenyan's illegal usurpation. In the second case, it's an investigation of the President and his aides about Russian election meddling. The mechanics of EP are the same but the underlying facts are ... different. You said:

So - the Obama administration's "compliance" with Issa's investigation proceeded much like this administration's "compliance", with the same claims of privilege, and the same outrage about the lack of willing compliance.

And I'm saying that we can compare these cases by their facts rather than by the mechanics of EP.
I understand your point - and do appreciate you taking the time to help me get to that understanding.  I disagree, though, in that I think adherence to the process IS important.   

Why do you think that the actions that prompted the subpoena matter more than the process of adjudicating the EP claim? 

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
28,716
3,809
New Oak City
I understand your point - and do appreciate you taking the time to help me get to that understanding.  I disagree, though, in that I think adherence to the process IS important.   

Why do you think that the actions that prompted the subpoena matter more than the process of adjudicating the EP claim? 
His case is over but are you saying that the Kenyan did not adhere to process? No one is claiming that your boy Shitstain doesn't enjoy a limited right of executive privilege, checked of course by the judiciary. I'm glad to see that Judge Mehta has fast tracked his privilege claims over his tax records from before he was 'elected'.  Process.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
His case is over but are you saying that the Kenyan did not adhere to process? No one is claiming that your boy Shitstain doesn't enjoy a limited right of executive privilege, checked of course by the judiciary. I'm glad to see that Judge Mehta has fast tracked his privilege claims over his tax records from before he was 'elected'.  Process.
Not at all - I'm saying that Pres Obama and AG Holder did indeed adhere to process.  The adjudication wasn't decided in their favor, and they complied with the direction of the court.    I'm saying that until that process is completed in this case?  That it's not beyond precedent to not be willingly cooperative with the Congressional subpoenas.   That's all - I'm not slamming Pres Obama and AG Holder for their attempts to exercise EP, I'm not slamming Trump/Barr for it either.  If it's found that Barr improperly redacted content from Mueller's report - that will warrant holding him accountable.  Going against the law and established precedent to mollify an adversarial Congress?  Nope - can't support that either. 

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
28,716
3,809
New Oak City
Good. Then we can agree that the Kenyan adhered to process.

Before you can say that Barr improperly redacted content from the Mueller report--Mueller himself said Barr improperly summarized the report--Congress would need to read the full report which is currently subject to ... wait for it ... executive privilege.

These two cases are not remotely the same.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,548
1,715
Punta Gorda FL
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 overruled and the subpoena was granted. So we can now judge both the Kenyan’s exercise of EP and the relevance of the subpoena by looking at the documents WHICH WERE MADE AVAILABLE BY THE SUBPOENA. I'll even grant that Judge Jackson was correct; he would know.
Can we just agree to call him Amy?

Weird name for a guy, but OK.

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia
Good. Then we can agree that the Kenyan adhered to process.

Before you can say that Barr improperly redacted content from the Mueller report--Mueller himself said Barr improperly summarized the report--Congress would need to read the full report which is currently subject to ... wait for it ... executive privilege.

These two cases are not remotely the same.
In F&F - WHO got to see the content subject to subpoena to determine whether or not the claim of EP was appropriate?  When did that happen?   CONGRESS doesn't need to read the full report to make that determination - the Judicial Oversight Committee, in closed session does.  

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
28,716
3,809
New Oak City
In F&F - WHO got to see the content subject to subpoena to determine whether or not the claim of EP was appropriate?  When did that happen?   CONGRESS doesn't need to read the full report to make that determination - the Judicial Oversight Committee, in closed session does.
But they can't even in closed session because of EP. Pelosi has said we are in a Constitutional crisis and she's right.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top