Obama administration restricts investigative powers of inspectors general

a reply to: marg6043

Did you notice this decision was a legal interpretation from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel?

Not a mandate from President Obama?

Does that matter at all in your calculations?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Lets put it this way...consider all the news that leaks out about the Obama administration. IRS targeting, emails disappearing, Behghazi, and on and on and on and on. Now consider that these are the most powerful people in the world with access to the largest amount of money in the world. Finally...consider this...with all that support from the democrats, media and all the assets this administration has to hide all the criminal acts they are perpetrating....how much have they successfully hidden??? My guess...1% has come to light, 99% is still under wraps.

I believe you mistake the propaganda generated by the right-wing mainstream media as truth.

What has been the result of all the investigations (and how many have there been, 14 on Benghazi alone)?

Nothing.

Not one finding of wrongdoing, not one referral to prosecution ... nothing.

NOW you want to discuss the article. Funny. You didnt bring it up earlier when you felt like discussing who I like/dislike.

But NOW you want to remain on topic.

Secondly, youre much too involved to see the forest through the trees. Most of what youre reading hour after hour, on a daily basis, is likely originating from leftwing media. No surprise there either. Im sure youre getting the full story this day and age...from your one angle/side.

Im sure youre fully informed...not misinformed at all, ever, by liberal media.

Two thumbs up for you!

Are my assumptions about you as accurate as yours about me? (Rhetorical...so we can, ya know, get back on topic.

a reply to: six67seven

You post off-topic material that totally ignores anything about the article, or the point of the article, and want to know why someone is correcting you and bringing you back on topic?

You seem to want to talk more about your mistaken ideas about ME than about any issues before us.

The fact that you believe that any media is better than any other is quite telling.

If you have actual facts rather than a sermon about what you think my political beliefs are, I'll be glad to address them.

If not ...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: marg6043

Did you notice this decision was a legal interpretation from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel?

Not a mandate from President Obama?

Does that matter at all in your calculations?

LOL

The D.O.J. *IS* the Obama Administration.

They are the ones that defend him and the Administration in all the court cases.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: marg6043

Did you notice this decision was a legal interpretation from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel?

Not a mandate from President Obama?

Does that matter at all in your calculations?

LOL

The D.O.J. *IS* the Obama Administration.

They are the ones that defend him and the Administration in all the court cases.

Really, can you provide us with the directive from President Obama to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel that commands them to issue this interpretation?

That's probably the most ignorant description of the Department of Justice I've ever heard. I would expect better from you.

Here, you can Wiki and do better than that:

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ), also known as the Justice Department, is a federal executive department of the U.S. government, responsible for the enforcement of the law and administration of justice in the United States, equivalent to the justice or interior ministries of other countries.

Also, when called upon, Justice litigates on behalf of the United States of America, not Barack Obama.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Really, can you provide us with the directive from President Obama to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel that commands them to issue this interpretation?

That's probably the most ignorant description of the Department of Justice I've ever heard. I would expect better from you.

Of course not.

The email directives are being suppressed !!!!

Why do you think all the controversy is festering.



And actually, one of the most ignorant descriptions of the Department of Justice is Eric Holder and the Fast & Furious debacle.

a reply to: xuenchen

SO ... (and I hesitate to say "as usual") you have no proof of your claims or insinuations, no evidence that Mr. Obama was involved in any way in this directive, no reasonable explanation as to why this is anything other than Justice insuring that all IGs (who are still Administration employees) stay compliant with the laws of the United States.

"Fast and Furious" like most right-wing propaganda is not germane to this discussion ... unless you have proof of some connection.

Do you? And by proof I don't mean more of Alinsky's Rule 3.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And guess WHO wrote the Inspector General report....


Inspector general critical of Justice Dept., ATF in ‘Fast and Furious’ operation


The Hole Thang

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

And guess WHO wrote the Inspector General report....


Inspector general critical of Justice Dept., ATF in ‘Fast and Furious’ operation


The Hole Thang

Hmmm ...

While the report criticized officials in Washington, it said Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. had no advance knowledge of the tactics and risks involved in the operation until after it was stopped.

Perhaps read more than the titles?

a reply to: xuenchen

Also ... from the official report:

III. Conclusion
Our review of Operation Fast and Furious and related matters revealed a series of misguided strategies, tactics, errors in judgment, and management failures that permeated ATF Headquarters and the Phoenix Field Division, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona. In this report, we described deficiencies in two operations conducted in ATF’s Phoenix Field Division between 2006 and 2010 – Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious. In the course of our review we identified individuals ranging from line agents and prosecutors in Phoenix and Tucson to senior ATF officials in Washington, D.C., who bore a share of responsibility for ATF’s knowing failure
in both these operations to interdict firearms illegally destined for Mexico, and for doing so without adequately taking into account the danger to public safety that flowed from this risky strategy. We also found failures by Department officials related to these matters, including failing to respond accurately to a Congressional inquiry about them.

Based on our findings, we made six recommendations designed to increase the Department’s involvement in and oversight of ATF operations,
improve coordination among the Department’s law enforcement components, and enhance the Department’s wiretap application review and authorization process. The OIG intends to closely monitor the Department’s progress in implementing these recommendations.

Finally, we recommend that the Department review the conduct and performance of the Department personnel as described in this report and
determine whether discipline or other administrative action with regard to each of them is appropriate.

Nope, still don't see anything about President Obama or AG Holder.