Fast & Furious

[Assuredcw]

Well, the death of several undercover agents would pretty bad. Holder should do full disclosure to the house committee. They will assume any responiblity for leaks, and should be tried for treason if anything he reveals leaves their confidence.

Now you're talking, and he DID in FACT offer a private debriefing. Issa never responded, and keeps insisting Holder won't cooperate, but offering to provide an oral disclosure of exactly what is going on, is actually cooperation. What in the world is Issa going to do with documents? He's not an attorney - people would have to explain the documents, anyway? Why not just get the whole thing explained to him? I don't get it - he's nuts!

 

[Blackguard_]

What in the world is Issa going to do with documents? He's not an attorney - people would have to explain the documents, anyway? Why not just get the whole thing explained to him? I don't get it - he's nuts!

Hearsay vs. hard evidence?

Isn't the issue about who knew how much when and who ordered what?

Also, is Holder even getting to the bottom of Fast and Furious? A problem is that this isn't about agent misconduct within an operation, but the whole idea behind the operation is suspect and misconduct, so far from just not micro-managing operations, Holder would have to pretty much not know it even existed for those bureacratic layers to provide protection from involement.

 

[Assuredcw]

It's set up to NOT involve him, because he is the Prosecutor.

If Issa finds something out, it isn't going to get anyone prosecuted, because only the Prosecutor can do that. It's better for Issa to - wait for it - talk to the Prosecutor. Oh, right, the Prosecutor has already offered to do that...

Trying to circumvent the Prosecutor in supposed efforts to get to the bottom of something, appears to be obstruction at best.

 

[RETS]

This is Eric Holder's baby.

Gun control is Holder's baby. Anyone who says differently has never done their homework.

Hearsay vs. hard evidence?

Exactly. To be more precise, it is "Holder-say versus Hard Evidence."

It's set up to NOT involve him, because he is the Prosecutor.

If Issa finds something out, it isn't going to get anyone prosecuted, because only the Prosecutor can do that. It's better for Issa to - wait for it - talk to the Prosecutor. Oh, right, the Prosecutor has already offered to do that...

Trying to circumvent the Prosecutor in supposed efforts to get to the bottom of something, appears to be obstruction at best.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is our "denial" exhibit, right next to our "willful ignorance" exhibit. When paired in the face of reality, these two items create a strong covering to shield the user's mind from anything that may invalidate their opinion. One example of this is someone who asserts that THE HEAD OF AN ORGANIZATION NEVER KNEW ABOUT AN OPERATION HE WOULD HAVE HAD TO GREEN LIGHT, and denies that the OPRSO WOULD HAVE DONE THEIR JOB IF THAT WERE THE CASE, thus apparently assuming that THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT WAS BRIBED, and all because THE FIELD GUYS ARE RACIST.


__

__

__

 

[freezerman2000]

No, I don't remember Watergate. But commentators have all referenced it, so my knowledge boils down to the following: "Just because Nixon used Executive Privilege, doesn't mean President Obama isn't allowed to."

He certainly waited long enough. But the Attorney General must have finally come to the same conclusion that I came to awhile ago - Darrell Issa is crazy. So he asked (he did ASK) the President to invoke Executive Privilege. Someone had to do something. But there is sufficient precedent from the Reagan Administration (read the OP), which is probably why President Obama took so long. He should NOT have had to do that.

Did I say anything about Nixon using Executive Privilege?

If Holder doesn't have anything to hide, why doesn't he go ahead and turn over everything the Committee is asking for...He is covering for someone, and the public needs to know who is being protected and why.

 

[Abatis]

he is separated from the "suspect operations" of the ATF by several bureaucratic layers that were designed to do just that. He doesn't get involved in day-to-day operations, SO THAT his ability to investigate and prosecute criminal misconduct in those operations is not compromised.

But he wasn't separated and he is compromised.

The hidden parts are huge and Holder is using the biggest shovel possible to keep the details buried; that's why Executive Privilege had to be attempted . . . Because this goes right into the NSC Operations Room. Did you see the photo of them all the night Osama was taken out? Well, that's the exact crew that thought up and implemented Fast and Furious.

If you are at all interested in that eventuality you could inform yourself on the interplay between the OCDETF, the Undercover Operational Committee, the Export Control Act especially the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) which is the domain of the State Department, the Brownsville Agreement and how many of the crimes cited in the wiretap apps were the jurisdiction of the State Department/DHS/ICE or the FBI or the IRS and then tell me again that ATF was the disconnected operational "head" of Fast and Furious . . .

Pretty soon, everyone is going to see that.

Pretty soon you will be seeing the White House, the State Department and NSC and DHS implicated as the architects of Fast and Furious and DoJ, especially Eric Holder being the "day to day" managers from the beginning.

 

[MachZer0]

...
Pretty soon you will be seeing the White House, the State Department and NSC and DHS implicated as the architects of Fast and Furious and DoJ, especially Eric Holder being the "day to day" managers from the beginning.

And it's going to be ugly. My guess is that they're in a panic right no trying to find a way to blame it all on Bush since they had to retract their first attempt to do so.

 

[SharonL]

Wonder why they are not showing all those blacked out pages that they say they have submitted for evidence. Some of them are totally blacked out and some have just one line showing - the rest blacked out. Just because they submitted a page, does not mean anything if you can't read it.

 

[SharonL]

Talk about stress - there is a lot going on today that will determine future operations. Will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Obamacare - our whole economy depends on this. One thing I wonder about - if it is voted down - what happens to all the back room bribes they they used to get this passed - do they still have to pay them off.

Fast and Furious - can't even imagine the results of this. Such a shame that you cannot have any faith in your government at all to do the right thing. It's like a dog chasing it's own tail and finally has to bite it.

Egypt - what happens there now that it is an Islamic state - enemy of Israel - we give billions and billions to Egypt - we will be assisting the enemy of Israel who is our friend.

Unions sueing to reclaim what was voted down which will push the states into bankruptcy if they win.

Thats a big chunk of history all in one week.

 

[MachZer0]

Talk about stress - there is a lot going on today that will determine future operations. Will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Obamacare - our whole economy depends on this. One thing I wonder about - if it is voted down - what happens to all the back room bribes they they used to get this passed - do they still have to pay them off.

Fast and Furious - can't even imagine the results of this. Such a shame that you cannot have any faith in your government at all to do the right thing. It's like a dog chasing it's own tail and finally has to bite it.

Egypt - what happens there now that it is an Islamic state - enemy of Israel - we give billions and billions to Egypt - we will be assisting the enemy of Israel who is our friend.

Unions sueing to reclaim what was voted down which will push the states into bankruptcy if they win.

Thats a big chunk of history all in one week.

Some are calling this the "Smackdown" year for the administration

 

[Touma]

How do you all feel about this???

Darrell Issa: No evidence White House involved in ‘Fast and Furious’ - 2chambers - The Washington Post

There is no evidence that White House officials were involved in withholding information related to a congressional inquiry into the botched gun-trafficking operation known as Operation “Fast and Furious,” the Republican lawmaker leading the investigation said Sunday.

Several Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), charged last week that President Obama’s decision to invoke executive privilege over documents related to the probe suggested that top administration officials were involved in withholding information.

“The decision to invoke executive privilege is an admission that White House officials were involved in decision that misled the Congress and have covered up the truth,” Boehner told reporters last week.

But asked Sunday whether he had any evidence to back up those claims, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said “No we don’t.”

They were trying to Crusade against Obama with no reason to believe that he was with holding information. Too bad, game over. looks like this was just another political ploy by the GOP leadership to make Obama look terrible.

 

[Rion]

No, it means that they weren't even looking at the White House until Obama stepped in.

 

[SharonL]

It also means you don't declare Presidential Executive Privilege unless you have something to hide.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Exactly SharonL and Rion. If they had that evidence we would be talking impeachment. They also don't have evidence that the whitehouse was not involved.

Rep. Issa was responding to a question regarding House Speaker Boener's statement on Obama invoking executive priviledge being an admission that the white house was involved in decisions that misled the congress and the covered up of the truth.

Chris Wallace: "Do you have any evidence that white house officials were involved in these decisions that they knowingly misled congress and are involved in a coverup.?"

Rep Issa: "No we don't" and what we are seeking are the documents we know to exist...about Brian Terry's murder...who knew and why they lied about it...that's what we are looking for to find the truth.

​

... 'and I hope that they don't get involved'

...Justice lied to the American People.

...

We were told a lie and this contempt is about the cover-up.

'I'm going to continue my investigation...regardless of what the vote for contempt is in the house'...

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705075985001/rep-issa-im-going-to-continue-my-investigation/?playlist_id=87485

Don't miss the lies, misdirection and excusses from the congressman for life from Baltimore, Maryland, Elijah Cummings. Bald headed clown.

And Pelosi and other Democrats on the Hill, are absolutely delusional or just bold faced liars.
http://goldwatergal.com/2012/06/22/fast-and-furious-and-further-proof-that-the-obama-administration-is-delusional/

Statement from Terry’s parents Josephine Terry and Kent Terry Sr.:

"Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to fully disclose the documents associated with Operation Fast and Furious and President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege serves to compound this tragedy. It denies the Terry family and the American people the truth."

The Terrys said that their son "was killed by members of a Mexican drug cartel armed with weapons from this failed Justice Department gun trafficking investigation. For more than 18 months we have been asking our federal government for justice and accountability. The documents sought by the House Oversight Committee and associated with Operation Fast and Furious should be produced and turned over to the committee. Our son lost his life protecting this nation, and it is very disappointing that we are now faced with an administration that seems more concerned with protecting themselves rather than revealing the truth behind Operation Fast and Furious."
​

Meanwhile, Zapata’s family filed a wrongful death claim against the Department of Justice and other agencies.　
　
　
　

 

[Assuredcw]

...They also don't have evidence that the whitehouse was not involved.

Ah, but even Darrell Issa isn't willing to go that far:

Issa: no evidence of White House cover-up of 'Fast and Furious' | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

Oh, make no mistake - he thinks Eric Holder is DEFINITELY covering something up, but he isn't going to accuse the White House.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Ah, but even Darrell Issa isn't willing to go that far:

Issa: no evidence of White House cover-up of 'Fast and Furious' | Nation & World | The Seattle Times

Oh, make no mistake - he thinks Eric Holder is DEFINITELY covering something up, but he isn't going to accuse the White House.

Not yet.

 

[Rion]

Wouldn't that support his claim that Holder was involved then? If he refuses to accuse people without evidence?

 

[Assuredcw]

It also means you don't declare Presidential Executive Privilege unless you have something to hide.

Not true. Just because Nixon used Executive Privilege, doesn't mean its use is never legitimate. It was created for a reason, and I suspect crazy Congressmen like Issa to be a fairly good reason.

Holder is the Prosecutor. You have to work with him or get another Prosecutor, but seriously, Attorneys General don't run the law enforcement that reports to them. They use the evidence these people present to them to prosecute. What does Issa propose doing with this information once he yanks it away from the Prosecutor? This makes no sense and can only mess up a chance to get a guilty verdict in Federal court, which should be the ultimate goal when evidence is uncovered. Issa can't do that - it isn't his job. (He isn't even an attorney and wouldn't be able to recognize it even if he saw it.)

 

[Abatis]

How do you all feel about this???

The Washington Post

They were trying to Crusade against Obama with no reason to believe that he was with holding information. Too bad, game over. looks like this was just another political ploy by the GOP leadership to make Obama look terrible.

Huh?

Well, if "they" are the Congressional Oversight Committee "they" were not asking for anything that pertained to the White House . . . "They" were not looking there.

With the claiming of Executive Privilege, Obama went from being not on the radar to essentially being at the table deciding to allow the lies of the Feb 4th letter to stand as the official position of the DoJ for 10 months until it was 'ooops' retracted in December.

The documents demanded that were at issue in the threat of a Contempt of Congress citiation were those a), generated between Feb 4th 2011 and Dec 8th 2011 to discover who ordered and sustained the cover-up and b), any documents pertaining to the retribution and threats of retribution against registered federal whistleblowers (a federal crime).

With the document demand narrowed to just those two circumstances, the claim of Executive Privilege is curious and peculiar knowing the standard established by the Supreme Court in Nixon; that no Executive Privilege can exist for the purpose or continuance of a cover-up or the cover-up or continuation of a criminal act.

Issa is still saying that there is no evidence that the White House is directly implicated; how is that translated into trying to make "Obama look terrible"?

Obama is on the record March 22nd 2011 in two interviews he gave in El Salvador on Spanish language television. The first was on CNN Espanol where Obama said:

“There have been problems, you know. I heard on the news about this story that fast and furious, where allegedly guns were being run into Mexico and ATF knew about it but didn't apprehend those who had sent it. Eric Holder has -- the attorney general has been very clear that he knew nothing about this. We had assigned an IG, inspector general, to investigate it.”
​

The second interview was on Univision:

Obama: “Well, first of all, I did not authorize it, Eric Holder, the attorney general, did not authorize it. He’s been very clear that our policy is to catch gun-runners and put them in jail. So, what he’s done is, he’s assigned an IG, an inspector general to investigate what exactly happened here.


Reporter: “So who authorized it?”


Obama: “Well, we don’t have all the facts. That’s why the IG is in business.”


Reporter: “And you were not even informed about it?”


Obama: “Absolutely not. This is a pretty big government, the United States government. I’ve got a lot of moving parts. There may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made, if that’s the case, then we’ll find -- find out and we’ll hold somebody accountable.”
​

That of course is a bit problematic for Holder; Obama saying that Holder has actively denied knowledge of things he later testified he won't know about for weeks if not months.

On May 3rd 2011 Chairman Issa asked Holder:

"When did you first know about the program, officially I believe, called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?”
​

Holder answered:

"Well, I'm not sure of the exact date, but i probably learned about Fast and Furious for the first time in the last few weeks."

​

 

[Rion]

Hill Poll: Voters: Obama over-reached blocking Fast and Furious docs - TheHill.com