Fast & Furious

[SnowCal]

Perhaps the dirt he walks on is better than the mud Pelosi wallowed in?

Fast and Furious was simply a continuation of Bush era LE programs by different names.

 

[RETS]

Fast and Furious was simply a continuation of Bush era LE programs by different names.

And Clinton era programs before that.

If you'd really like to look for originating programs, you'll need to look back prior to Reagan. However, once more, the F&F program was actually doing GOOD, prior to the order to cease using tracking devices.

You know, that's something I'm still trying to figure out. The whistle blowers talk about the order to cease tracking coming from pretty high up the food chain, but the program itself was not ordered abandoned in the same memo. Why?

 

[SnowCal]

And Clinton era programs before that.

If you'd really like to look for originating programs, you'll need to look back prior to Reagan. However, once more, the F&F program was actually doing GOOD, prior to the order to cease using tracking devices.

You know, that's something I'm still trying to figure out. The whistle blowers talk about the order to cease tracking coming from pretty high up the food chain, but the program itself was not ordered abandoned in the same memo. Why?

I'm trying to figure out why Obama is getting this much flack over it, if his only action was to continue a LE program that predates Reagan. I sometimes feel that there is a little too much armchair generalling about this sort of thing. I felt the same way about complaints regarding Bush,

 

[RETS]

I'm trying to figure out why Obama is getting this much flack over it, if his only action was to continue a LE program that predates Reagan. I sometimes feel that there is a little too much armchair generalling about this sort of thing. I felt the same way about complaints regarding Bush,

Well, Obama really shouldn't be getting much flack, (imho), regarding this in the first place- Except for perhaps putting Holder in charge of the very organization he (Holder) wanted to enforce his (Holder's) anti-gun laws.

With that said, very few of these programs remain the same program as way back when. Nearly every one is new, but simply based on the one that came prior. So, with that in mind, perhaps it's understandable why some might see a connection. The problem is that the President is only given reports on what each answerable agency is up to once a year, and very often when he's likely too busy to read it right away. With Obama's reputation for slacking off, (take a look at his vacation expenditures for last year!), HE has the most likely excuse for not knowing about F&F.

That said, Holder does not have the luxury. Every major program changing order has to be cleared at the top, meaning that Holder was briefed on the program when he took office; potentially issued the order to cease tracking; definitely did not end the program right away; and knew exactly what was going on with it from then to the present.

All one has to do to determine Holder's culpability in this is to understand how the chain of command works within that specific office and its answerable agencies.

Here's another question for you: If you had an employee in a company you owned getting people hurt on the job; and his plant manager is kept informed of all plant operations; would you allow that manager to "investigate?!"

 

[Abatis]

Fast and Furious was simply a continuation of Bush era LE programs by different names.

Fast and Furious is an individual operation begun in September of 2009 under the umbrella program of "Gunrunner" which predates the Obama administration. Previous (i.e., before Fast and Furious / Obama DoJ) straw-buy operations intended interdiction of the guns before they were taken to Mexico.

Operation "Wide Receiver" was the first where "controlled delivery" to cartel operatives was attempted and the guns were implanted with RFID chips and tracked constantly on the ground and by aircraft until surveillance and responsibility for interdiction was passed off the Mexican authorities. When it became apparent the Mexican authorities (due to ineptitude or corruption) were not capable of interdiction of the guns and capture of the smugglers, the operation, "Wide Receiver", was immediately shut down.

Fast and Furious diverged from all prior practice in that the government of Mexico was not involved or even informed of the operation nor were BATF's own US agents in Mexico informed of the operation.

No tracking or interdiction of the weapons was ever intended or initiated, in fact, field agents begged for permission to interdict but were told to stand down and let the guns go to Mexico and off the grid. So, the guns simply walked out of the gun shops and right into Mexico and into the hands of the Sinaloa cartel narco-terrorists . . .

And this situation and these conditions were precisely what Holder was briefed in July of 2010:

" . . . the National Drug Intelligence Center Document and Media Exploitation Team at the Phoenix Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCTDETF) Strike Force will support the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ Phoenix Field Division with its investigation of Manuel Celis-Acosta as part of OCDETF Operation Fast and Furious. This investigation, initiated in September 2009 in conjunction with the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Phoenix Police Department, involves a Phoenix-based firearms trafficking ring headed by Manual Celis-Acosta. Celis-Acosta and [redacted] straw purchasers are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican drug trafficking cartels. They also have direct ties to the Sinaloa Cartel which is suspected of providing $1 million for the purchase of firearms in the greater Phoenix area. "

​

Reading that July of 2010 brief to Holder, and knowing that Holder testified before Congress in May of 2011 that he was not "sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks." makes you say, hmmmmm . . .

Putting nearly 2000 guns (mostly AK-47 variants, 50 cal sniper rifles and FN-57 pistols) into the hands of the Sinaloa cartel and having them be used in crime and found at crime scenes AND THEN BE TRACED, was the single tactical objective of Fast and Furious.

These traces would of course point back to US retail gun store sales and could be used to demonstrate how "US gun dealers are arming the cartels" and could then be used to argue for more regulations on legal gun sales in the US. Some say it was the singular, primary goal as there were absolutely no attempts made to impede criminal activity or even to fake any aspect of "law enforcement" in any of the operation's tactics. It was, in execution, nothing but criminal facilitation.

The statement that Fast and Furious, "was simply a continuation of Bush era LE programs", isn't just wrong, it is disingenuous and reprehensible. It can only be forgiven if one hasn't really been following the scandal and just hears the DailyKos, HuffPo, ThinkProgress and CNN narrative.

It is interesting and worthy of noting that Holder refuses to make any such comparison or draw any type of equality between the two operations.

(Look for video # s1G5x0XmNiA on Youtube)

In that video, if you would like to miss Holder dancing and hemming and hawing about the misleading, deceptive Feb 4 2011 letter from DoJ to Congress, that lied to Congress and that DoJ had to take the unheard of action of "taking back" the letter in November . . . you can advance to 2:30 to just hear Holder say that no similarities can be made between operations "Wide Receiver" and "Fast and Furious". . . . That he's "not trying to equate the two" . . .

 

[Assuredcw]

I watched Sean Hannity yesterday, and even his in-house Federal government guru said that she thought Holder has a strong case for keeping his documents confidential. He is the Attorney General, and there is an open investigation on Fast & Furious, as well there should be. He has a right to say that his information is proprietary - at least he is willing to debrief them. I would think the debriefing would be easier for Issa to follow, since he is not an attorney.

This bears repeating, and goes to the heart of this issue. The DOJ documents being requested might not be, strictly speaking, subpoena-able (is that a word?). So Issa needs to demonstrate some flexibility in order to get at the truth. Holder has already shown his good faith in offering the debriefing. This public posturing of Issa's, accusing Holder of being uncooperative, is dishonest at best, because Issa has never responded to Holder's offer to meet with committee members in private. Because the documents represent open cases and are therefore proprietary, Issa's the one being intransigent here, not Holder.

The Houston Chronicle definitely noticed the "partisan grandstanding":

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/06/fast-and-furious-sparks-partisan-grandstanding/

And lest we forget, Congressman McCaul, on Issa's same side of the aisle I might add, requested a 2nd Inspector General investigation from the Homeland Security Dept. There is already an investigation pending from the Justice Dept's Inspector General. So Issa is going to be getting additional eyes looking at this - that really should be enough for him.

 

[Assuredcw]

Perhaps the dirt he walks on is better than the mud Pelosi wallowed in?

I like Nancy Pelosi very much. I have to give her a lot of credit - she got a lot done.

(Maybe that's the trouble with Nancy - for people who don't agree with her views, she gets entirely too much done.)

Oops - I'm off-topic on my own thread....

 

[Abatis]

This bears repeating, and goes to the heart of this issue. The DOJ documents being requested might not be, strictly speaking, subpoena-able (is that a word?).

Your positions on this rely on conjecture and facts not in evidence. Issa could care less about the status of the criminal investigation of the straw buying done by FBI informants. Issa wants documents pertaining to the composition and chain of approvals for the false and deceptive Feb 4th letter to congress and emails that have anything to do with specific whistleblower's allegations and the retaliation threatened and commenced against the whistleblowers when their identities became public knowledge (late Feb, 2011).

See, there's the thing that keeps coming up, February of 2011. Issa wants everything pertaining to the letter of lies from Feb 4 and the threats against the whisleblowers starting in February but Holder refuses to supply anything dated in or after Feb 2011 . . . That's also when he called his Inspector General and asked his buddy to look into this thing called "Fast and Furious" . . . you know that thing that Holder won't hear about for the first time for a few more weeks (according to his testimony in May of 2011 . . . that he "wasn't sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.").

So Issa needs to demonstrate some flexibility in order to get at the truth. Holder has already shown his good faith in offering the debriefing.

It was Issa setting a hard and fast date for the committee contempt hearing that forced Holder's epiphany of cooperation.

This public posturing of Issa's, accusing Holder of being uncooperative, is dishonest at best, because Issa has never responded to Holder's offer to meet with committee members in private.

You are welcome to hold your own opinion on this subject but you will not be permitted to invent your own facts to support your opinion.

Whatever negotiations that were happening were going nowhere. You need to understand that Issa already has what he has asked Holder for and DoJ's "generous" offers to produce incomplete documents was not seen as good faith. DoJ has done nothing but cover up and deflect; issuing a firm date for the committee contempt meeting is what broke the DoJ's wall of BS down.

Issa, on Monday, June 11th scheduled the committee contempt hearing for June 20th. At the same time he issued a letter to Holder saying that the June 20th contempt meeting could be postponed:

" through the delivery of the post February 4, 2011, documents related to Operation Fast and Furious and whistleblower accusations subpoenaed by the Committee. If the Attorney General decides to produce these subpoenaed documents, I am confident we can reach agreement on other materials and render the process of contempt unnecessary.”
​

On Tuesday, Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said he was, "prepared to make compromises with respect to the documents that have been requested".

On Wednesday Issa again wrote Holder telling him he was narrowing the categories of documents he was demanding to one, : "documents from after February 4, 2011, related to the department's response to Congress and whistleblower allegations."

He also wrote: "if the Department of Justice submits a serious proposal for how it intends to alter its refusal to produce critical documents subpoenaed by the Committee, I am willing to meet to discuss your proposal."

So that means your entire timeline and presenting of Issa's intransigence is an invention or a parroting of ThinkProgress propaganda.

Because the documents represent open cases and are therefore proprietary, Issa's the one being intransigent here, not Holder.

I can see why you have such affinity for Holder; both of you have very strange ideas about honesty and integrity. You both seem eager to fabricate all manner of non-existent circumstances to support your positions.

And lest we forget, Congressman McCaul, on Issa's same side of the aisle I might add, requested a 2nd Inspector General investigation from the Homeland Security Dept.

Case in point . . . Why do you think that he did that?

He is Chairman of House Oversight of DHS and because it appears to him that DHS is involved in "the" coverup and/or its own coverup.

It is already known ICE agents were called off of investigating anything to do with any crimes where Fast and Furious guns were found and worst of all, murdered ICE agent Jaime Zapata's name and signature appears on ROI's (Report of Investigation) pertaining to Fast and Furious guns and suspects.

What did Zapata know and was that why he was ambushed and murdered with guns from another ATF gunwalking operation in Texas two weeks after DoJ gave the letter full of misrepresentations and lies to Congress?

Did Secretary Napolitano perjure herself when she testified that there was nothing connecting Zapata's murder and Fast and Furious?

There is already an investigation pending from the Justice Dept's Inspector General. So Issa is going to be getting additional eyes looking at this - that really should be enough for him.

There are multiple federal investigations in progress right now. McCaul requested DHS-OIG at the end of February; the request was granted on May 22nd so here are the current federal investigations into Fast and Furious:

1. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Committee
2. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee
3. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
4. Department of Homeland Security Inspector General (again, announced May 22, 2012)

At this point the best that be hoped for is that whistleblowers continue exposing what is being covered-up. For me, even without more whistleblower action I do agree with you on something, I feel the chance that the truth will be discovered grows with the number of investigations.

They should endeavor to be thorough and serve with integrity because odds are good that a whistleblower has already given or will give documents that would impugn a whitewash or less than sincere investigation.You would do well to keep your positions and entusiasm for Holder grounded in such realities. He does deserve everything he's getting right now and your blind support will become more and more untenable.

Much to our delight!

 

[Assuredcw]

I'll have to find out who that Federal government expert was, who told Sean Hannity the same thing. He didn't give her an opportunity to discuss this any further, by asking follow-up questions. He just wanted her to stop saying this! (That Holder has a well-established right to keep those documents classified, and that she expects him to prevail on this point.)

Maybe I can Google that up this evening.

 

[Abatis]

I'll have to find out who that Federal government expert was, who told Sean Hannity the same thing. He didn't give her an opportunity to discuss this any further, by asking follow-up questions. He just wanted her to stop saying this! (That Holder has a well-established right to keep those documents classified, and that she expects him to prevail on this point.)

Maybe I can Google that up this evening.

Yeah, goodluckwitdat . . .

It's always the same thing with you, I saw it on TV but I don't remember who it was or read it in a paper that I threw away . . . And what the heck is a "federal government expert"???

This just in:

Border Patrol union calls on Holder to resign

"The union that represents Border Patrol agents in Southern Arizona and around the country called today for U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to resign.

The National Border Patrol Council cited Holder’s alleged dishonesty about Operation Fast and Furious in making the call. That ATF-led operation put guns from Arizona in the hands of Mexican organized-crime groups, and two of those guns were found at the scene west of Rio Rico where Agent Brian Terry was shot to death in December 2010.

The decision to ask for Holder to step down came after more than a year of frustration about the Justice Department’s handling of the controversial operation, said Shawn Moran, a vice president of the union who is based in the San Diego area.

“This is something that all of our guys are concerned about, because they know it could be any one of them,” Moran said.

“We take the risks that are out there naturally just being in law enforcement working across from Mexico in the condition it’s in right now,” he said. “But what you can’t accept is when your own government is allowing weapons into the hands of the people you’re confronting.” "


Continued at Arizona Daily Star
azstarnet(dot)com/news/state-and-regional/border-patrol-union-calls-on-holder-to-resign/article_77337770-b97b-11e1-b735-001a4bcf887a.html
​

Well, there's some union law enforcement officers that won't be pulling the Obama lever in November . . . Meanwhile, Obama is shoring up his Hispanic base by creating an extra-legal circumstance for some of the people that these officers are duty bound to arrest.

Just wonderful . . .

 

[Assuredcw]

What?!

Do you mean to tell me, that you didn't even see Hannity on Friday the 15th? Because if you had, you would've seen it, too.

 

[MachZer0]

What?!

Do you mean to tell me, that you didn't even see Hannity on Friday the 15th? Because if you had, you would've seen it, too.

Does that mean you aren't going to link it or even tell us who this alleged federal government expert is

 

[Assuredcw]

I'm still looking for it. I may or may not be able to find it, because the transcript of Friday's show skips over the panel discussion. I'm looking for video now.

 

[Assuredcw]

No video, no transcript. But everyone who saw Hannity, heard her say that. I am satisfied with that.

 

[Abatis]

What?!

Do you mean to tell me, that you didn't even see Hannity on Friday the 15th? Because if you had, you would've seen it, too.

I don't watch or listen to Hannity or any political talking heads.

Closest I come is watching Cavuto on Fox Business.

 

[Abatis]

No video, no transcript. But everyone who saw Hannity, heard her say that. I am satisfied with that.

Yeah well, big surprise there . . .

Well, here's what I found.

According to Hannity's website, on June 15th there was a discussion on Holder and Fast and Furious. The synopsis for the June 15th show does say that a female was involved in the discussion along with Jay Sekulow.

The female panelist was Liz Cheney . . . yes, that Liz Cheney, spawn of Evil Lord Darth Vader himself.

I still can't post links so add in the usual stuff that's needed to load the June 15th page on Hannity's site:

/show/2012/06/15

While the synopsis on that page ends with, "Sean was joined by Fox News contributor Liz Cheney and Jay Sekulow from the American Center for Law and Justice to discuss the case against Eric Holder. To watch the debate, please click here" the player at that link only plays the 2:59 intro.

There is a video posted on Youtube, by Sekulow's organization on June 15th, of Hannity's show with Liz Cheney and Jay Sekulow that begins with the same 3 minute intro explaining what a scumbag Holder is, followed by a 7 minute discussion. I listened twice and did not hear the female federal government expert say anything like you purport.

You can watch it and please, feel free to tell me what minute mark the statement you assign to her is spoken or you can just admit that once again you have just invented support for your untenable position supporting Holder.

Again, I can't post links so add in what you need to load on Youtube:

/watch?v=NJyX1DW5m6E

Or search on Youtube for:

"Jay Sekulow on Fox News with Hannity: AG Holder has Lost Public Trust "

 

[RETS]

I'll have to find out who that Federal government expert was, who told Sean Hannity the same thing. He didn't give her an opportunity to discuss this any further, by asking follow-up questions. He just wanted her to stop saying this! (That Holder has a well-established right to keep those documents classified, and that she expects him to prevail on this point.)

Maybe I can Google that up this evening.

You can watch it and please, feel free to tell me what minute mark the statement you assign to her is spoken or you can just admit that once again you have just invented support for your untenable position supporting Holder.

Just so it's easier for everyone involved, here we are...

Jay Sekulow on Fox News with Hannity: AG Holder has Lost Public Trust - YouTube


I too would be very interested to hear just WHERE she said that "Holder has a well-established right to keep those documents classified," and that he is expected to "prevail on this point."

In fact, she says the exact opposite. When asked "Does Eric Holder survive?" she answers with:

"I don't see how he does... I... I think at this point, he's lost confidence- You know, Senator Cornyn is somebody who, himself served on the Texas Supreme Court, somebody who is a tremendously well respected, senior, experienced senator... For him to get to the point where he's calling for resignation, the situation's pretty grave."

So, yeah- Please, Assured... Show us this phantom statement, cuz maybe we're just missing it.

 

[RETS]

PS: 21 to 6 in favor of Contempt.

 

[Rion]

NAACP claims that Republican "extremists" are targetting Holder to stop him from enforcing civil rights laws...

MOST RECENT MOVE TO ISSUE A CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS CITATION IS CLEARLY A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED ATTEMPT TO PREVENT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FROM PROTECTING AND ENFORCING U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS

NAACP Opposes Extremist Attempts To Further Limit, Debase Or Distract From The Vital Mission | NAACP

Awww, playing the race card, how novel.

 

[MachZer0]

NAACP claims that Republican "extremists" are targetting Holder to stop him from enforcing civil rights laws...



NAACP Opposes Extremist Attempts To Further Limit, Debase Or Distract From The Vital Mission | NAACP

Awww, playing the race card, how novel.

The NAACP doesn't seem to have any concern for Brian Terry's civil rights