Fast & Furious

[MachZer0]

Wait... So the AG of Arizona is reproachable, but not AG Holder?

I guess the buck stops in Arizona

 

[GarfieldJL]

Not true. If you are insubordinate at your job, your boss can fire you. Your boss isn't supposed to get blamed for what you've done. Your boss is supposed to fire you and be given an opportunity to clean it up.

The US Attorney of Arizona has some explaining to do, by all accounts.

Fast And Furious: Michael Horowitz, Justice Dept. Inspector General, Testifying Before House Committee

Quoting from the link:

"There needs to be supervision; there needs to be oversight," and law enforcement operations like Operation Fast and Furious need to be referred from the start to "the highest levels" of the department, [Justice Dept Inspector General] Horowitz testified. His report faulted midlevel and senior officials for not briefing Attorney General Eric Holder much earlier.

Chief among those levels of supervision was US Attorney of Arizona Dennis Burke. When you do what you want to do without telling your boss, that is insubordination.

If you believe that report then I have a bridge to sell you on Saturn...

Seriously, Bush's program was entirely different from Fast & Furious, it had safeguards that Fast & Furious did not, to claim that they were similar is totally disingenious on the part of the Inspector General...

Furthermore, while Mr. Burke may bear some responsibility, the fact of the matter is that according to the whistleblowers, the orders to not track the guns originated from Washington DC, not Obama's appointee in Arizona...

Dennis K. Burke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was never the Attorney General of Arizona.

 

[TerranceL]

Wait... So the AG of Arizona is reproachable, but not AG Holder?

Apparently.

We can't question Holder because WE ONLY HAVE ONE AG! But it's totally ok to go after everyone else.

 

[RETS]

Furthermore, while Mr. Burke may bear some responsibility, the fact of the matter is that according to the whistleblowers, the orders to not track the guns originated from Washington DC, not Obama's appointee in Arizona...

Dennis K. Burke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was never the Attorney General of Arizona.

Good luck with that logic, Garfield. I tried to bring that up... Oh, thirty pages ago. And before that, even.

Still, it is important to point out that the AG of the DISTRICT of Arizona is not the same position as the Arizona AG.

I guess the buck stops in Arizona

How convenient. Perhaps we should apply that reasoning to criminal investigation? Think of how many cases could be wrapped up quickly!!

 

[RETS]

Apparently.

We can't question Holder because WE ONLY HAVE ONE AG! But it's totally ok to go after everyone else.

Yeah, and you can't replace those!!

 

[Rion]

Apparently.

We can't question Holder because WE ONLY HAVE ONE AG! But it's totally ok to go after everyone else.

I have a theory why it's okay to replace one but not the other.

 

[Assuredcw]

If you believe that report then I have a bridge to sell you on Saturn...

Seriously, Bush's program was entirely different from Fast & Furious, it had safeguards that Fast & Furious did not, to claim that they were similar is totally disingenious on the part of the Inspector General...

Furthermore, while Mr. Burke may bear some responsibility, the fact of the matter is that according to the whistleblowers, the orders to not track the guns originated from Washington DC, not Obama's appointee in Arizona...

Dennis K. Burke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was never the Attorney General of Arizona.

He was the US Attorney of Arizona. You appear to have been tired last night.

Read the article - it talked about the fact that the Inspector General found no evidence that Holder was even debriefed. That has implications.

When you have no other argument, change the subject...

Edited: I can explain this a little better. Perhaps I am not making this clear. If Burke wants to claim that he DEBRIEFED AG Holder on what he was doing (Burke was RUNNING the Fast and Furious ATF program from Arizona!!!), he needs to produce that evidence. If I was running a gun-walking program, against my better judgement, at the orders of Attorney General Holder, I would cover myself, and I am not even an attorney. Therefore he is without excuse, and his inability to demonstrate that, does NOT have an innocent explanation IMO. I hope there is a prison term waiting for that man.

 

[Assuredcw]

Yeah, and you can't replace those!!

Well apparently we are going to, because Holder is sick of ALL of us!

Welcome - GovExec.com

Apparently the link shows that perhaps Holder will stay indefinitely, but I heard that he has by no means promised to finish Obama's second term. You will note that the link doesn't nail that down, either. I am sure he is sick of it. Those GOP House members might finish him off, yet.

 

[RETS]

Well apparently we are going to, because Holder is sick of ALL of us! <snip> Those GOP House members might finish him off, yet.

Best news all day!

 

[GarfieldJL]

He was the US Attorney of Arizona. You appear to have been tired last night.

Read the article - it talked about the fact that the Inspector General found no evidence that Holder was even debriefed. That has implications.

When you have no other argument, change the subject...

Edited: I can explain this a little better. Perhaps I am not making this clear. If Burke wants to claim that he DEBRIEFED AG Holder on what he was doing (Burke was RUNNING the Fast and Furious ATF program from Arizona!!!), he needs to produce that evidence. If I was running a gun-walking program, against my better judgement, at the orders of Attorney General Holder, I would cover myself, and I am not even an attorney. Therefore he is without excuse, and his inability to demonstrate that, does NOT have an innocent explanation IMO. I hope there is a prison term waiting for that man.

I really could care less what the Inspector General claimed, considering that less than 10% of the relevant documents were turned over to congress, there is reason to believe that there is a seriously lack of credibility in the entire DoJ.

 

[Billnew]

With Fast and Furious, makes me wonder how they think they can track millions of weapons across America (Assault weapons registration or confiscation), when they couldn't keep track of hundreds of weapons in Arizona.

Of course, when they confiscate them all, they will turn around and sell them illegally and forget who they sold them too.

The congress has no back bone in not seeking charges against Holder.

Just like every other Obama scandal

 

[Assuredcw]

With Fast and Furious, makes me wonder how they think they can track millions of weapons across America (Assault weapons registration or confiscation), when they couldn't keep track of hundreds of weapons in Arizona.

Of course, when they confiscate them all, they will turn around and sell them illegally and forget who they sold them too.

The congress has no back bone in not seeking charges against Holder.

Just like every other Obama scandal

I agree with everything you said up until those last two sentences.

Seriously, this is a big problem. It also happened on President Obama's and AG Holder's watch, which makes me VERY angry, because I am convinced that they were intended to be the scapegoats. But the people who did this, should not be allowed to hide behind the people at the very top. Not when they can't prove that what they did was under Holder's orders, and when Holder is on record as being against gun-walking. If my boss was "known" to be against gun-walking and then privately ordered me to run a gun-walking program, I would blow the whistle on him before I did another thing. Think about it!

 

[RETS]

Seriously, this is a big problem.

You've (obviously) no idea.

It also happened on President Obama's and AG Holder's watch, which makes me VERY angry, because I am convinced that they were intended to be the scapegoats.

Yes, crocodile tears for the poor, downtrodden corrupt politicians...

But the people who did this, should not be allowed to hide behind the people at the very top.

Then there's a good chance the people who did this are hiding behind their own reflections.

Not when they can't prove that what they did was under Holder's orders, and when Holder is on record as being against gun-walking.

He can claim to be against anything he wants, but the truth is that he's against weapons ownership completely. His own record states that, AND it also shows that he has in the past gone to some pretty insane lengths to make his point. Why would this be such a change? Answer: It wouldn't, just a larger scale.

If my boss was "known" to be against gun-walking and then privately ordered me to run a gun-walking program, I would blow the whistle on him before I did another thing. Think about it!

Thought about it. That means you've got more scruples than the majority of the government... In some ways.

 

[Assuredcw]

.

 

[MachZer0]

I just got this as an email alert from Google. He's dealing with this whole gun-walking mess in addition to the gun control issue:

Welcome to the United States Department of Justice

I don't imagine that anyone would wish this predicament on their worst enemy, and certainly not on the US Attorney General. And I wouldn't imagine that any Attorney General would allow this to happen on THEIR watch. Maybe it would be alright for their successor to have to deal with it, but not THEM. That's because people don't shoot THEMSELVES in the foot if they can help it. Just saying.

I'm sure Holder is tickled to see Hillary on the hot seat. It takes the heat off of him for a while, gives him a chance to take a breather

 

[Assuredcw]

I just got this as an email alert. Holder's dealing with this whole gun-walking mess in addition to the gun control issue:

Welcome to the United States Department of Justice

I don't imagine that anyone would wish this predicament on their worst enemy, and certainly not on the US Attorney General. And I wouldn't imagine that any Attorney General would allow this to happen on THEIR watch. Maybe it would be alright for their successor to have to deal with it, but not THEM. That's because people don't shoot THEMSELVES in the foot if they can help it. Just saying.

 

[SolomonVII]

People with a proclivity to shooting themselves in the foot really ought not be given the keys to the gun cabinet.
It is a question of competence.

 

[RETS]

Bull cop out excuse, Assured. Am I really to believe that he's spent YEARS dodging the issue only to start "attempting" to deal with it now WHILE figuring out which categories we all fit into?

Utter bullpockey, and a complete and total misdirection tactic.

 

[Assuredcw]

Bull cop out excuse, Assured. Am I really to believe that he's spent YEARS dodging the issue only to start "attempting" to deal with it now WHILE figuring out which categories we all fit into?

Utter bullpockey, and a complete and total misdirection tactic.

It doesn't make any sense, that the man who would have to clean this up, would do this. It was either his predecessor or his subordinates, and the Inspector General's report confirms subordinates at the very least. The only thing we do not know about is if it was incompetence or criminal intent. That's what the Attorney General is going to have to decide, in filing charges or not.

But the AG's competence is not at issue -- he knew enough to NOT approve the gunwalking. Why it happened anyway is no reflection on him, because they didn't debrief him prior to continuing the program (from the previous AG).

 

[TerranceL]

But the AG's competence is not at issue -- he knew enough to NOT approve the gunwalking. Why it happened anyway is no reflection on him, because they didn't debrief him prior to continuing the program (from the previous AG).

So he didn't approve it, it happened anyway and it's somehow no reflection on him that he didn't stop it despite the fact that he's the head of the department?

So basically he has zero responsibility for anything his subordinates do that's what you are telling us, right?