Fast & Furious

SolomonVII · Jul 1, 2012

MachZer0 said:
Recalling that according to Obama, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide."

It this not the first time that Executive Privilege has been used by him?

It is a cover-up.

Assuredcw · Jul 1, 2012

NightHawkeye said:
Nope, no communication at all ... zip, zero, nada, nothing ...

LOL ... reminds me of Evita. Can't say why.

Madonna - Evita - 02. Oh What a Circus (1996) - YouTube

If he gave direct orders, then those orders were either given or confirmed in writing. His subordinates are all attorneys, and attorneys document everything. No written proof means Holder had nothing to do with it. It's even more likely when you see that his subordinates were at a high level, and would need to be given clear instructions, either conveyed or followed up in writing.

Rion · Jul 1, 2012

TerranceL said:
Classy, mr. holder.

Of course he's classy. Just look at the picture I used for his card and tell me that man doesn't reek of class.

Seriously though, whatd you expect of such a thug?

NightHawkeye · Jul 1, 2012

Assuredcw said:
If he gave direct orders, then those orders were either given or confirmed in writing. His subordinates are all attorneys, and attorneys document everything. No written proof means Holder had nothing to do with it. It's even more likely when you see that his subordinates were at a high level, and would need to be given clear instructions, either conveyed or followed up in writing.

Absolutely, attorneys document everything.

Because they always want to leave a trail behind that anyone can follow.

Absolutely no plausible deniability.

Assuredcw · Jul 1, 2012

NightHawkeye said:
Absolutely, attorneys document everything.

Because they always want to leave a trail behind that anyone can follow.

Absolutely no plausible deniability.

It's hard to be a whistleblower if you have no documentation, especially if you can't cover yourself if you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

You have to be sure your boss isn't asking you to do something that could backfire, before you'd ever agree to limiting your communications to only verbal ones. Attorneys cover themselves at all times.

But just to be clear - no excuse for purported whistleblowers who want to be believed about Holder's involvement, if they cannot produce a single email or memo from him to them, giving specific instructions regarding gun running operations, or an email from them to him, following up or confirming an assignment. Attorneys, all!

Assuredcw · Jul 2, 2012

Looks like finally the Justice Dept has some evidence they were able to use, to get some more convictions. The link doesn't tell us what agency did the original investigation:

Sentencing Set For Man In Fast And Furious Case « CBS Las Vegas

Jose Angel Polanco is scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 24.

Maybe I can do some digging to find out...

None of the links I have reviewed confirm it, but I believe it to be the ATF that did the original investigation producing the evidence that led to (Holder and his Justice Dept employees getting) the guilty plea.

At least Holder is now free to pursue his continued investigation. He has to look at the other border states - so far it's been Nevada and New Mexico, but there's still California, Texas and maybe Arizona.

So he's stopping gun smuggling. Does that prove or disprove that he's against the 2nd Amendment again?

NightHawkeye · Jul 2, 2012

Assuredcw said:
It's hard to be a whistleblower if you have no documentation, especially if you can't cover yourself if you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

You have to be sure your boss isn't asking you to do something that could backfire, before you'd ever agree to limiting your communications to only verbal ones. Attorneys cover themselves at all times.

But just to be clear - no excuse for purported whistleblowers who want to be believed about Holder's involvement, if they cannot produce a single email or memo from him to them, giving specific instructions regarding gun running operations, or an email from them to him, following up or confirming an assignment. Attorneys, all!

Not so fast and furious, Assuredcw. Let's do a reset on some things.

First, Fast and Furious already happened. That's documented.

Second, Eric Holder has lied. That's documented, too.

Third, people died in Fast and Furious. Those deaths are a matter of record.

Fourth, Eric Holder's already held in contempt of Congress for repeated and persistent refusals to cooperate.

Fifth, the White House has already claimed Executive Privilege on the matter. Hence, the White House is involved.

There is no need to prove any of the above. These are matters of record. The whistleblowers were correct in their assertions well over a year ago about Fast and Furious. Here's an old article recapping the whistleblowers early struggles: 'Fast and Furious' Whistleblowers Struggle Six Months After Testifying Against ATF Program | Fox News

At this point, Charles Grassley and Darrell Issa already have evidence that the supervisor of the whistleblowers has claimed he would "take them down". Apparently, that's a matter of record, too.

About the only thing which isn't yet a matter of record is: "What did the White House know, and when did Obama know it"?

Hope that helps clarify a few things.

Assuredcw · Jul 2, 2012

You can't change Holder's job description, just because you don't like him.

United States Attorney General - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's why the Justice Dept declined to pursue criminal charges - he DOESN'T run the ATF. He is the one who investigates the ATF if something goes awry. You can't go after him every time the ATF, FBI, DEA etc has something "irregular" occur, just because you don't like him.

Do you have any sort of link that would show me that I'm mistaken? So far it is simply an opinion you all share, but there's no objective support for it. That sounds bad, even to me, but I am really trying to be tactful, here...

NightHawkeye · Jul 2, 2012

Assuredcw said:
You can't change Holder's job description, just because you don't like him.

United States Attorney General - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's why the Justice Dept declined to pursue criminal charges - he DOESN'T run the ATF. He is the one who investigates the ATF if something goes awry. You can't go after him every time the ATF, FBI, DEA etc has something "irregular" occur, just because you don't like him.

Do you have any sort of link that would show me that I'm mistaken? So far it is simply an opinion you all share, but there's no objective support for it. That sounds bad, even to me, but I am really trying to be tactful, here...

So ... something's not his job.

But, it is his job to frustrate and obstruct a congressional investigation?

Assuredcw · Jul 2, 2012

Oops - duplicate post.

Assuredcw · Jul 2, 2012

Oops - duplicate post.

Assuredcw · Jul 2, 2012

NightHawkeye said:
So ... something's not his job.

But, it is his job to frustrate and obstruct a congressional investigation?

He offered what he could, while his investigation on it is still open. He offered a private debriefing, which I would have gratefully accepted if I had been ensnared into a potentially difficult situation by "whistleblowers" who couldn't prove their allegations. The only thing I would have said to Holder was, "Thank you."

I am sure Congress would be allowed to see documentation of closed investigations, and they can and should ask to see it when he is done.

SharonL · Jul 2, 2012

They tried that route - Holder showed up with nothing - that's when the president forced Presidential porotection.

He has given blacked out pages and not one single thing to help the investigation. They know what they are looking for from the whistleblowers - so they know what is being hidden. It's a matter of getting the proof.

NightHawkeye · Jul 2, 2012

Assuredcw said:
He offered what he could, while his investigation on it is still open. He offered a private debriefing, which I would have gratefully accepted if I had been ensnared into a potentially difficult situation by "whistleblowers" who couldn't prove their allegations. The only thing I would have said to Holder was, "Thank you."

You keep saying that "whistleblowers" can't prove allegations. What allegations are you referring to?

The whistleblowers simply exposed the ugly mess initially. They've already been vindicated.

Assuredcw said:
I am sure Congress would be allowed to see documentation of closed investigations, and they can and should ask to see it when he is done.

Eric Holder has said a lot of things which turned out later not to be so. If I were Issa, I'd want all the witnesses possible present for anything Eric Holder might say.

But, maybe that just me ...

Assuredcw · Jul 2, 2012

SharonL said:
They tried that route - Holder showed up with nothing - that's when the president forced Presidential porotection.

He has given blacked out pages and not one single thing to help the investigation. They know what they are looking for from the whistleblowers - so they know what is being hidden. It's a matter of getting the proof.

No SharonL, I don't think you see this. Issa controlled the timing, and he did NOT choose to do what you are suggesting (wait until he had evidence). They submitted whatever they submitted to the US Attorney (that they admitted contained no EVIDENCE that Holder was involved with Fast and Furious). When you say it is a matter of GETTING the proof, that would have involved refraining from accusing Holder of anything until they had evidence ready, to vote to submit it (to the US Attorney). Issa controlled the timing. That means he's got nothing, and isn't likely to be able to get any more. If it turns out he does get more, then he should've waited for that same evidence before he took a vote to submit the criminal charges to the US Attorney (so the evidence can be submitted with the referral).

I had an open mind, but I am not impressed with how this is being handled. You can suspect, but you do NOT accuse if you don't have evidence. It isn't just fairness - you find out MORE if you don't tip someone off that you suspect them.

But yeah - Issa needs to stop talking about this now. And he needs to think about dropping the civil suit, announcing that the Committee and Holder have come to a mutually acceptable agreement to resolve this (which will be to get a debriefing now, and to let the Committee review the documents they have requested, when they are no longer in use = at the conclusion of Holder's active investigation).

SharonL · Jul 2, 2012

It can't be stopped in mid stream - with no conclusion on either side. It will go as far as they can - but Reid will not let it get to a point that they can get what they want. Reid blocks it in the Senate and Holder and the President blocks it on the other fronts. This is dangerous - our government can do anything to us they want and hide the evidence with no one able to force it to come forth.

Assuredcw · Jul 2, 2012

No SharonL, no - everyone wants to know what is going on. No one is such good buddies of Holder's (least of all Harry Reid) that they will obstruct and cover up for him. They want to know what the HECK is going on, because somebody died already, and guns are being smuggled, and it's a NIGHTMARE. I really do want to stress that there is bipartisan "stress" being experienced in Congress, and all of their constituents, me included, want to know what the HECK is going on. Republicans aren't the only ones who care about this.

Whew! OK, what I wanted to say is that the Freedom of Information Act doesn't allow you to look at files of open investigations, because they are considered classified. There is a big difference between open and closed investigations, and Holder is probably asking that they wait until he gets a little closer to being able to declassify the information, because the investigation is still open. That's not a coverup - he's the Attorney General, and all of his files are classified by definition when he is still working on them. He isn't being secretive - he has a secretive job.

SolomonVII · Jul 2, 2012

SharonL said:
It can't be stopped in mid stream - with no conclusion on either side. It will go as far as they can - but Reid will not let it get to a point that they can get what they want. Reid blocks it in the Senate and Holder and the President blocks it on the other fronts. This is dangerous - our government can do anything to us they want and hide the evidence with no one able to force it to come forth.

That is what elections are for.

Consequences are possible.

Assuredcw · Jul 9, 2012

Now we appear to be getting somewhere -- the Feds have identified the people who killed Agent Terry:

Fast and Furious: FBI Unseals Brian Terry Indictments | TPMMuckraker

The FBI is looking for them - they are considered to be fugitives at this point. The indictment was recently unsealed.

RETS · Jul 9, 2012

Good news at last.

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.

Well-Known Member

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Annuit Cœptis

Work-in-progress

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Work-in-progress

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Work-in-progress

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Senior Veteran

Work-in-progress

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Senior Veteran

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Well-Known Member

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Telling it like it is

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency