Fast & Furious

citizenthom · May 4, 2012

Do you not understand what a subpoena is? Please Google it. I'm sure plenty of lawyers would love it if courts took your view that we don't have to respond to them if we don't want to, but that's not the case.

SharonL · May 4, 2012

Don't kid yourself - this administration does nothing that they don't control. The plan from the offset was to show that the US was responsible for guns going into Mexico so they can use it against the gun laws they have coming up - it is another attempt to drive a nail into the laws that they are sending down the line to control guns. Holder is lying and behind many shady deals coming from this administration. They are working to remove as many of our freedoms as they possibly can - they believe big government is the answer to ALL.

Once the people that support this administration sees all they are planning and what is in the works - it will be too late, they will have control.

RETS · May 4, 2012

Assuredcw said:
So Holder shouldn't have to tell Congress anything he doesn't want to tell them. And he hasn't. Good for him!

HOLDER LIED UNDER OATH. Period. There is no way around that fact, and by that fact alone, HE IS IN CONTEMPT.

Moreover, Holder is a member of our government. He is ABSOLUTELY, 100% accountable for every action and word he does or does not do; meaning that yes, as a matter of fact, he SHOULD tell everything.

Do I agree that in some cases there requires a closed door session, so that critical information does not leak? Absolutely. However, he IS answerable; he DID lie; so he IS in contempt.

Assuredcw said:
None of this was his idea, and if someone is trying to say Holder authorized something, let them prove that before we literally make a Federal case out of it.

Holder did authorize something- And you stated so yourself. He "cleaned up spilled milk." There's a legal term for that, Assured. It's called "cover-up." Did you see the links I provided? Among them is something else known by another legal term- It's called "Conspiracy."

And just so you are aware: It's already a Federal case.

citizenthom said:
Do you not understand what a subpoena is? Please Google it. I'm sure plenty of lawyers would love it if courts took your view that we don't have to respond to them if we don't want to, but that's not the case.

Thank you.

Assuredcw · May 4, 2012

Issa is wrong to focus on Eric Holder.

I think the American public wants accountability, which is exactly what they won't get if they get rid of the boss.

The ATF did Fast and Furious behind Holder's back, and he is the last person who should be called on the carpet. It keeps him from doing his job, and that will endanger all of us.

If there is PROOF that he authorized something he shouldn't, then please just get rid of him and get another AG. But don't waste the AG's time so that the criminals get to have a field day. He has important work to do, and someone needs to be doing it.

RETS · May 4, 2012

Assuredcw said:
The ATF did Fast and Furious behind Holder's back, and he is the last person who should be called on the carpet. It keeps him from doing his job, and that will endanger all of us.

Wrong. He heads up the department, and as department head, whether he knew or not, (and it's been proven that he did), he is still accountable for his actions in regards to what was going on.

Assured, you seem to be incapable of seeing where the weight of responsibility falls. It does not fall on Holder alone- I am not saying it does, and no intelligent person would claim so, either. However, he does bear a portion of it, and for that, he must be answerable.

Assuredcw · May 4, 2012

I just don't want him to release files willy nilly on stuff he's working on. That makes me...nervous. It should make us all nervous.

I want him to go get those convictions, and get those criminals into Federal prison. I don't much care about anything else, as long as I know he didn't authorize this, and that he is cleaning house.

citizenthom · May 4, 2012

Assuredcw said:
I just don't want him to release files willy nilly on stuff he's working on. That makes me...nervous. It should make us all nervous.

Open government should scare no one. Government that purposefully tries to hide things from its citizens--even from its own legislative branch--should make people nervous.

I want him to go get those convictions, and get those criminals into Federal prison. I don't much care about anything else, as long as I know he didn't authorize this, and that he is cleaning house.

You do realize that in order to get those convictions he's going to have to make the exact same information part of the public record at trial, and even before that will have to disclose it to the defendants during discovery, right? No, you probably didn't.

Assuredcw · May 4, 2012

CitizenThom:

Open government should scare no one. Government that purposefully tries to hide things from its citizens--even from its own legislative branch--should make people nervous.

Oh, and the local police department will let us see what they are working on, and who they are investigating, in the interest of "open government."

I don't want to know. Please don't tell us! Just get the criminals - because if they hear what you're working on, you'll never catch them.

Attorney General Holder isn't just "government." He is Law Enforcement and we need him to do his job.

RETS · May 4, 2012

Assuredcw said:
I just don't want him to release files willy nilly on stuff he's working on. That makes me...nervous. It should make us all nervous.

And as I said- That could have been worked out, if only he had decided to do something different. Instead, he lied openly. Ergo, contempt.

Assuredcw · May 4, 2012

So, does the House do this single-handedly, or does the Senate have to go along?

I just want it over with - that man is busy.

citizenthom · May 4, 2012

Assuredcw said:
Oh, and the local police department will let us see what they are working on, and who they are investigating, in the interest of "open government."

If they are under subpoena they absolutely will and must, or else the sheriff/chief of police can personally be held in contempt of court--just like Eric Holder. Failing to do so may nullify any conviction they manage to obtain.

Look, it's clear here that you are simply unaware of how our government and especially our justice system work when it comes to disclosing information. You appear to be willing to accept a secretive dictatorship if it makes you feel "safer," which is fine since most of humanity accepts such dictatorships. But that's not the system we have in America, nor is it the system the educated among us want.

Assuredcw · May 4, 2012

BTW, the investigation by the Democrats in Congress cleared AG Holder of involvement in the operation. He authorized nothing, and he probably didn't ignore whistle-blowers either.

Here's the link from this past Christmas:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/24/nation/la-na-fast-furious-20111225

Edited: The original link appears to have been changed, but a link to this same story from Fox News appears on page 15 of this thread.

RETS · May 4, 2012

Assuredcw said:
So, does the House do this single-handedly, or does the Senate have to go along?

I just want it over with - that man is busy.

"That man" would be cruising along just fine had he not lied to Congress and failed to obey a subpoena. This is what it boils down to, Assured: Personal responsibility. When that order came across his desk, he had two options and a potential third.

1) Comply completely. He was informed of this program back in 2010, and I believe earlier- Giving all of the information he was legally ordered to would have placed him in a position to continue doing his job without the current scandal placed on him. For the record: The AG is not above the lawful order of a court, or of Congress.

2) Lie and give only a portion of what he had. This is what he did, and we can see how well that worked out for him.

3) He could have also turned over what he could without compromising ongoing investigations, and explained why time would be needed to hand over the other material. An arrangement could have been reached; everything from willingness to go along with Holder and allow him the time he needed, to him having to hand over the information, but heavily redacted so as not to threaten the investigations.

Regardless, he took option number two, and that is why he is personally responsible for his own actions. For the actions of his underlings, he is also responsible, though in that regard, only partially.

citizenthom said:
If they are under subpoena they absolutely will and must, or else the sheriff/chief of police can personally be held in contempt of court--just like Eric Holder. Failing to do so may nullify any conviction they manage to obtain.

Look, it's clear here that you are simply unaware of how our government and especially our justice system work when it comes to disclosing information. You appear to be willing to accept a secretive dictatorship if it makes you feel "safer," which is fine since most of humanity accepts such dictatorships. But that's not the system we have in America, nor is it the system the educated among us want.

Indeed. I find it somewhat odd that this case reminds me of Watergate. lol

Assuredcw · May 4, 2012

CitizenThom:

Look, it's clear here that you are simply unaware of how our government and especially our justice system work when it comes to disclosing information. You appear to be willing to accept a secretive dictatorship if it makes you feel "safer," which is fine since most of humanity accepts such dictatorships. But that's not the system we have in America, nor is it the system the educated among us want.

I am not willing to accept a "secretive" government, but I think the original Congressional investigation was premature. The whistleblowers should have been asked, "Did you speak with AG Holder?" and if they didn't, they needed to be directed right back to him. You need to give the Attorney General an opportunity to deal with the situation, rather than pulling the rug out from under him in your attempts to do it for him.

If AG Holder ignored the whistle-blowers, then that might be another matter. But give me something Holder either did or failed to do, rather than this litany of whistle-blowers going directly to Congress and never mentioning when, specifically, they discussed this with the Attorney General. That means that first the Fast and Furious operation, and now the investigation, are being done behind the AG's back and without him. That isn't right. He shouldn't be held in contempt in a kangaroo court situation, and that's what this smells like to me.

citizenthom · May 4, 2012

Assuredcw said:
I am not willing to accept a "secretive" government, but I think the original Congressional investigation was premature. The whistleblowers should have been asked, "Did you speak with AG Holder?" and if they didn't, they needed to be directed right back to him.

And then no one will ever blow the whistle, because 1.) they are no longer shielded by following the chain of command (most members of the DOJ report to someone below Holder), and 2.) they know their whistle-blowing will fall on deaf ears.

He shouldn't be held in contempt in a kangaroo court situation, and that's what this smells like to me.

Have you Googled "subpoena" yet?

Assuredcw · May 4, 2012

CitizenThom:

And then no one will ever blow the whistle, because 1.) they are no longer shielded by following the chain of command (most members of the DOJ report to someone below Holder), and 2.) they know their whistle-blowing will fall on deaf ears.

Did you see my last post (I think it's two posts back)? I said that the Democratic Congressional investigation cleared AG Holder of even being involved in this in the first place! As soon as that was announced, Congressman Issa should have told the whistle-blowers to work with AG Holder on this. There was no reason at that point to second-guess the AG, and thus no need for ridiculous subpoenas and 7 hearings (so far!), and all of this other nonsense. It's a mess and I don't think Holder needs Congress' "help."

Assuredcw · May 4, 2012

This is just an example of what AG Holder has been working on:

Medicare Fraud Strike Force Charges 107 Individuals for Approximately $452 Million in False Billing

I want criminals like these stopped and in prison. That's his job. He isn't going to let people who work for him get away with insubordination, either.

HerbieHeadley · May 5, 2012

Assuredcw said:
OK, Fast & Furious is back in the news:

Fast And Furious: Issa Makes The Case For Holder Contempt Resolution | TPMMuckraker

OK - everybody who wants to discuss Fast & Furious, here's (finally) a thread for that. Don't forget to take the poll!

Fast & Furious never left and as stated in the OP:

The Justice Department “has issued false denials, given answers intended to misdirect investigators, sought to intimidate witnesses, unlawfully withheld subpoenaed documents, and waited to be confronted with indisputable evidence before acknowledging uncomfortable facts.”

Not only did the ATF knowingly allow 2500 AK-47 style and .50 caliber rifles to walk into the hands of dangerous Mexican drug cartels, ATF whistleblowers were mandated to do so, and then were retaliated against for speaking out against the program.

Articles: The Ethics of Eric Holder

Lying and deception...

Holder spent nearly a year lying to Congressional committees and making clear he had no intention of honoring legal subpoenas. His Assistant Attorney General Ron Weich had written a February 4th, 2011 letter to congress claiming the criminal walking of more than 2000 firearms across the Mexican border had never happened. It was that letter which would have the distinction of being the first ever Department of Justice communication to congress which had to be withdrawn by its sender, due to certain “inaccuracies.” “Lying to Congress is a federal felony,”

Contempt of Congress or Impeachment, Mr. Holder, Take Your Pick-

holder-take-your-pick/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmbqeTUbueM

Lying is a “state of mind,” Holder told Sensenbrenner when asked how written “misstatements” made to congress in February by Assistant Attorney General Jim Weich concerning the deliberate walking of thousands of weapons across the Mexican border could possibly be construed as anything but outright lies. Speaking on behalf of the DOJ in response to inquiries made by Senator Charles Grassley, Weich had denied the ATF had allowed weapons to fall into the hands of drug cartel members.

Yet it was a lie. It was a deliberate, outright lie as mounds of testimony
and released documents make clear. But according to the hyper-arrogant, criminal head of the Department of Justice, lying is, after all, just a state of mind.

Eric Holder caught lying to Darrell Issa , commits Perjury - Operation Gun Runner Fast and Furious - YouTube

HerbieHeadley · May 5, 2012

Tales from Fast and Furious Conclusion: Narcissists, Socialists, and Psychopaths - YouTube

HerbieHeadley · May 5, 2012

Tales From Fast and Furious Part 6: Obama Administration Cover-up-
administration-cover-up/

Gunrunning scandal uncovered at the ATF - CBS News?
tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.1

Tales from Fast and Furious Part 6: Obama Administration Cover-up - YouTube

Tales from Fast and Furious Part 1: Murder of an American Citizen - YouTube
Tales from Fast and Furious Part 2: Victims of a Rogue Government - YouTube
Tales from Fast and Furious Part 3: See No Evil-Feigned Ignorance of Operation Fast and Furious - YouTube
Tales from Fast and Furious Part 4: If Only America Had Opened Her Eyes - YouTube
Tales from Fast and Furious Part 5: Obama Reveals His Contempt for U.S. Gun Dealers - YouTube

Obama Files Home

Fast & Furious

Should Attorney General Holder be held in contempt?

Yes, he should be held in contempt (explain)

No, he should not be held in contempt (explain)

I am not sure.

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Senior Veteran

Telling it like it is

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Telling it like it is

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Telling it like it is

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Telling it like it is

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

North American Energy Independence Now!

North American Energy Independence Now!

North American Energy Independence Now!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency