Obama asserts executive privilege on Fast and Furious documents

reply to post by frazzle


Yep, should have said those directing the hedge funds. Either way you catch my meaning.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Yeah, I knew what you meant and I knew you knew it ,too, just mouthing off again.

And I agree, it does boil down to treason, although they'll probably get away with it. Too many honcho butts are hanging out in the breeze on this one. They'll do a false flag and kill thousands more Americans to take our minds off this mess if that's what it takes to distract us.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Indigo5
I have done that and you don't seem to be understanding.

A premise I reject because its based on speculation. Which is the exact same argument on the other side.

Sorry for the delayed response busy weekend.

Yes. I am speculating that the Communications after Feb. 2011 focused on Whitehouse + AG response tot he scandal will show nothing more than scenical political strategy on behalf of the Whitehouse and AG, but not any revelations as to hidden knowledge or oversight that has not thus far been revealed in the 7k+ docs, interviews, testimony, emails and transcripts covering the years F&F was actually in operation.

Speculation equals fishing. Should Issa be entitled to that evidence without clear probable cause that something is there?

We can always say...if you have nothing to hide then just give it up...or we can say we will never know if the Docs are turned over.

Does this thinking run counter to American Principles? Are police allowed to search your home or vehicle? Demand private documents? Without demonstrating that there is a high probability something relevant to the investigation is there? Limits for what the Police can do with regards to privacey are essential to maintain our privacy rights. Any Officer can simply say...if you have nothing to hide you would surrender your privacy.

In this instance it speaks not just to privacey...but to seperation of powers. How much authority does one branch have over the other? It seems the line is still being defined, but a demonstration that those materials would be both relevant and not political fodder as well as a demonstration that there is a high probability that there is evidence there would be neccessary.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Again completely within the perview of congressional oversight. As has been pointed out the agent was killed in 2010 and to date nothing has come from that. There has been nothing done to resolve the issue of criminal actions by those supervisors on up. We have either resignations and invocation of the 5th amendment or people are reassigned to washington dc.

Wholeheartedly agree that the investigation and prosecution has been remarkably bungled.

You had suggested a "top to bottom" investigation? I would reverse that. ..."bottome to top". ATF Lead agent Newell ran both F&F under the Obama Admin and Wide Receiver under GWB Admin. He even got shut down by a supervisor when he ran Wide Receiver and then started back up (F&F) when the supervisor was gone.

Sidenote: With Wide-Receiver they drilled holes in the stocks of the weapons and crammed an RFID tracker that had a very limited range...which was further limited by the manner they crammed the antennae in the hole.

The RFID tracker had a maximum battery life of 36 hours.

Now...you can say that they at least informed the Mexican authorities in Wide Receiver? Or that the guns were recovered? There is absolutely no hard evidence for either.

To the contrary, with Wide-Receiver the evidence thus far shows that "most if not all" of the guns were never recovered. See Wikipedia and associated sources.

As far as Wide-Receiver having notified Mexican Authorities? So says Lead Agent Newell...who also led F&F...and also claimed that they notified the Mexican gov with F&F. The Mexican Gov says no.

My guess on what happened? Wide-Receiver didn't work out because the RFID technology sucked and was installed badly. They were not able to track or recover the guns. If ATF notified Mexico is was through back channels between contacts at ATF and the Federales.

When F&F started up Newell opted to skip the failed RFID strategy and understanding Mexican Federales are largely corrupted by cartels...skipped that too.

The RFID didn't work and why give the cartels a heads up by telling the Federales? Same outcome as Wide-Receiver and F&F..e.xcept more guns lost and 1, potentially 2 dead ATF agents.

To my original pint...WTF are we focused on Holder and Obama for? Why not start with Agent Newell and the ground level ATF until we have complete clarity...and then if it leads to the Whitehouse so be it. This investigation is being run backwards and very poorly IMO...and that is what leads me to beleive we are watching political theater rather than a search for justice and accountability.

reply to post by Indigo5

To my original pint...WTF are we focused on Holder and Obama for?

Holder is the Chief Liar in charge at the DOJ. He should supply all the info requested, so that the committee can do a full investigation, including Newell in that.

Do you think they should just have some of the info, let's say the info that would incriminate a scapegoat, who very well might be Newell in the end?

Other than to protect himself and his bosses, why did Holder lie to the committee?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Holder can easily provide Congress with a privilege log, which shows what documents are being withheld and why. It does not detail any content, just the topic and yet for some reason the AG is refusing to do that as well.

Agree with you here. It still involves a whole lot of work, but should be done. I suspect a Privledge log will be turned over in the comming weeks.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Why, after 2 years, uis there no resolution in the border agents death?
Why, after a couple of years of investigation by the oversight committee, are the Democrats raising the political issue?

You should ask Issa about the first question. As to the second, because it was not until this latest request for docs and communications long after the operation ceased and focused on White House/AG/Advisor communications of media response etc. that all doubt was removed that this was a political witch-hunt rather than an earnest investigation.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
They can either deal with Congress or they can deal with the judge who can issue a subpoena for the files.

I am all for the courts, even the SCOTUS weighing in. I do not think that will happen. It would embarrass Issa as the courts would simply ask...what do you beleive is in these communications that would not be in any of the several thousand pages of communications and testimony provided contemporary to the operation?

Courts don't believe in fishing expeditions.

Issa's only response would be...A conspiracy to hide White House involvement or knowledge of the operation.

And the judge would ask ..."would that not have been evident in the exhaustive amount of evidence thus far requested and provided to the committee?...if you think some of that evidence has been withheld then shouldn't you be pursuing that evidence of communication for the time period F&F was in operation? Rather than specific media response communications AFTER the operation ceased. Again...what would these documents show that could not be found through the already exhaustive documents provided or through further request relevant to when F&F was in operation and the suspected communications would have been taking place?"

A judge would eat Issa alive. Issa knows it. Thus he will use this for political purposes, but not seek a judicial opinion and enforcement.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
As for Holder and Obama and "nothing before 2009" comment I am still confused as to what it is you are trying to argue. If its why didnt an oversight committee go after Bush and his AG, that would be a question for Democrats since they controlled the House during that operations timeframe.

If the committe's true intention is to assign accountability and ensure that the tactic is never repeated, then they should be looking into how "Gun Walking" began, how it was first authorized etc. Seeing as the same Lead ATF agent ran both F&F and Wide-Receiver under GWB, why should they not look into the origins of the program.

When ivestigating a serial killer or serial burgler or serial embezzler...is not the whole history of crimes examined? Pretending that "Gun Walking" did not occur before F&F or that the same Lead ATF agent that ran F&F was never involved in Wide-Receiver...largely pretending Wide-Receiver never happened...seems a pointed negligence of the Commitee in favor of politics.

Originally posted by butcherguy
Sorry, but I apparently can't find a way of wording this question intelligently enough for someone to answer it.

Why did Holder (the Attorney General of the US- top law enforcement official in the country) lie when he testified before the Senate committee regarding Operation Fast and Furious?

I'll tell you what....Provide me with specific qoutes by Holder, not left or right opinion pieces.

Let me know if he has retracted or corrected those remarks and provide those qoutes.

And I will get specific with you.

I think Holder was ill informed and gave testimony to the best of his knowledge at the time.

F&F was low on the radar of the AG and most of the Justice department until it hit the fan.

Lie is a powerful word...prove he willfully lied. Let's start with precise qoutes and retractions and I can research from there.

Otherwise it seems a lazy shot to take and aping right wing media. Let's examine the facts.

BTW - If it could be proven he willfully lied to congress, Holder would have been impeached and removed from office by now. This is spin and politics IMO.

reply to post by Indigo5

In a letter Monday, the department stated that Holder “inadvertently” said during a Senate committee hearing last week that his predecessor, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, had been briefed about a tactic known as gun-walking in a federal program known as Operation Wide Receiver -- which bared similarities to Fast and Furious.

FoxNews

In a second major retraction over its version of the the gun-walking scandal, the Justice Department has retracted Attorney General Eric Holder's charge in a hearing last week that his Bush administration predecessor
had been briefed on the affair. In a memo just released by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa senator reveals that Holder also didn't apologize to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey for dragging him into the Fast & Furious scandal that is headed for a major legal clash and likely contempt of Congress charge against Holder.

Washington Examiner
That was the second retraction, you'll take note... The first one was when he retracted his statement that HE didn't know about Fast and Furious.

reply to post by Indigo5


WOW...OK...Here we see ISSA withholding evidence to further the Holder/Obama theme!

Issa acknowledges Fast and Furious whistleblower once proposed 'gunwalking'

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in bringing up the case by name unprompted, was effectively pre-empting what could come to light in a possible document dump: that the operation was planned and carried out at the field level without the knowledge of DOJ higher-ups.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Indigo5

 

WOW...OK...Here we see ISSA withholding evidence to further the Holder/Obama theme!

Issa acknowledges Fast and Furious whistleblower once proposed 'gunwalking'

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., in bringing up the case by name unprompted, was effectively pre-empting whatcould come to light in a possible document dump: that the operation was planned and carried out at the field level without the knowledge of DOJ higher-ups.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Who subpoenaed Issa?

reply to post by butcherguy


You did not provide the qoute...but I found it eearlier and can find it again...

Here is what Holder said...

If you want to talk about Fast and Furious, I’m the Attorney General that put an end to the misguided tactics that were used in Fast and Furious. An Attorney General who I suppose you would hold in higher regard was
briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them – nothing. Three hundred guns, at least, walked in that instance.

Grassley's letter to Holder demanding retraction...

This is a serious charge. However, as far as I’m aware, the Justice Department has produced nothing to date that indicates any former Attorney General was briefed on Operation Wide Receiver.

I am aware that the Justice Department produced a memorandum to Attorney General Mukasey in preparation for a November 16, 2007, meeting with Mexican Attorney General Medina Mora.1

At no point does this memo mention Operation Wide Receiver, in which over 300 guns were allowed to walk to Mexico. Instead, the memo appears to refer to a case called Hernandez, which involved a planned controlled delivery – not intentional gunwalking.

www.grassley.senate.gov...

NOW BUCKLE YOUR SEAT BELT FOR SOME SERIOUS REVELATION....hmmm SO..Grassley said that Mukasey the Bush AG was NOT BRIEFED ON GUNWALKING...ONLY....the "Hernandez Case"???

From Fox News Today

Issa acknowledges Fast and Furious whistleblower once proposed 'gunwalking'

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

For the first time since Congress began investigating Operation Fast and Furious more than a year ago, a top lawmaker on Sunday publicly acknowledged another botched "gunwalking" investigation that was proposed and conducted by the Fast and Furious scandal's chief whistleblower.

Again from Fox News...Published June 25, 2012...Fast and Furious Doc timeline

July 2007: ATF initiated an investigation into a suspected gun smuggler named Fidel Hernandez. The ATF case agent was named Hope MacAllister (the same case agent assigned more than two years later to Fast and Furious).

October 2, 2007: Days earlier ATF agents watched as Hernandez bought weapons from a Phoenix-area gun dealer and contacted Mexican authorities as he drove them toward Mexico, but Mexican law enforcement was too slow to stop him. Still, the Special Agent in Charge of ATF's Phoenix office, Bill Newell, said he supported "doing this again 100% and so do the agents." "(If) this goes we'll be able to cement our role as the lead firearms trafficking agency on this side of the border and score some major points with the Mexicans," Newell wrote in an email. But, he said, "We need to ensure we've got this deal covered."

Oct. 4, 2007: Newell told a colleague at ATF headquarters in Washington, Field Operations Assistant Director Billy Hoover, that, "I know you have reservations but please rest assured that this will go down as planned." The next day, an ATF lawyer said all of them could discuss if "this investigation is operating within the law and (Justice Department) guidelines."

Oct. 5, 2007: Hoover, concerned the U.S. attorney's office may not have "full and complete buy in," wrote an email to ATF officials in Phoenix saying, "I do not want any firearms to go South until further notice."

Oct. 6, 2007: Newell wrote in an email, "I'm so frustrated with this whole mess I'm shutting the case down and any further attempts to do something similar. We're done trying to pursue new and innovative initiatives -- it's not worth the hassle." Nevertheless, three weeks later, an ATF official in Phoenix distributed a surveillance plan, saying in an email, "Keep your fingers crossed maybe we'll be successful this time."

Nov. 15, 2007: While working to draft a memo for Attorney General Michael Mukasey's upcoming meeting with his Mexican counterpart, an ATF official noted there "have (been) cases in the past where we have walked guns."

SO Murkasey WAS aware of gunwalking...both according to the recent docs released and Grassley who stated..."the memo appears to refer to a case called Hernandez, which involved a planned controlled delivery – not intentional gunwalking"

AND IT APPEARS GRASSLEY LIED WHEN HE SAID IT DID NOT INVOLVE GUNWALKING...

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

The docs have now come out showing Murkasey DID know...and Grassley lied when he said "Hernandez" was not gunwalking.



At this point I should point out...Not only was Lead ATF Agent Newell running both Wide-Receiver and F&F but also...

Dec. 14, 2009: Case agent Hope MacAllister (same one assigned to Hernandez case in 2007) and ATF Group Supervisor David Voth noted in emails that at least 13 "suspect" guns sold in Arizona were recovered in Mexico.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

AGAIN...I ask do you think pretending Wide Receiver never happened is the right way to get to the bottom of this?


ALSO ...Holder's Retraction...

Attorney General Holder’s testimony referred to briefing paper prepared for Attorney General Mukasey in advance of a November 16, 2007 meeting with the Mexican attorney general … As we explained in a letter to Chairman Issa on March 16, 2012, and as you note, this briefing paper concerned the case of Fidel Hernandez, not Wide Receiver as the Attorney General inadvertently stated at the hearing.”

So Holder said "Wide Receiver"...when he should have stated "Wide Receiver...before it was called Wide Receiver" since it was Gun Walking by the same team of agents that ran Wide Receiver before they gave it an operational name...and Bush AG Mukasey was made aware of it in a memo...AND Grassley lied when he said it was not gunwalking.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder said for the first time that not only he but also other higher-ups at the Justice Department were not aware of the operation as it was being carried out. Holder also suggested politics could be a driving force behind Republican lawmakers' forceful inquiries into the matter.

Fox news

This is from September of last year. He denied knowledge of Fast and Furious while it was going on.

reply to post by butcherguy


No offense...but seeing as I just crucified your last claim AND had to do the work for you.......i.e. finding actual qoutes, retractions etc.and instead of acknowledging or responding to that debunking ... you just moved on to the next claim... I am not eager to run around the net for you.

Support your claim...as I originally asked...not with Fox opinion pieces, but with actual qoutes.

Let's start with facts, not biased opinion.

What exactly did holder say........

reply to post by Indigo5

This is support.
If you don't accept CBSnews as a source, oh well.

WASHINGTON - New documents obtained by CBS News show Attorney General Eric Holder was sent briefings on the controversial Fast and Furious operation as far back as July 2010. That directly contradicts his statement to Congress.

I don't mind you doing you own legwork. You can read it yourself, we don't have to someone do that for you, do we?
I know I didn't quote Holder in this post. If you need to hear it for yourself go to cspan's website, the videos of his testimony there.

reply to post by butcherguy


Still not getting it...What precisely was his testimony to congress?

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Still not getting it...What precisely was his testimony to congress?

Don't believe CBS News, huh?

I think you get it just fine, just don't want to admit it.

Like I said, his testimony is there on video at CSPAN.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Still not getting it...What precisely was his testimony to congress?

Don't believe CBS News, huh?

I think you get it just fine, just don't want to admit it.

Like I said, his testimony is there on video at CSPAN.

And I think you confuse News...often Fox News...with facts. I don't care what Fox, CBS, Or the Huffpost or MSNBC TELLS me to believe...show me the effen facts and let me form my own opinion.

HERE...AGAIN...ME DOING WORK YOU SHOULD DO FOR YOURSELF...

TranscriptOfHouseJudiciaryCommitteeHearingOnJusticeDepartmentOversight

ISSA:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, I'd like to thank you for the work that the U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy is doing in San Diego,
going after coyotes, going after gun traffickers at the border.
The work in my border district area of making our city safer because the crime in Mexico often stops at the border
because of her work and willingness to prosecute human traffickers and gun traffickers is very much appreciated.
So just so you hear two sides of the California story for a moment.
Mr. Attorney General, we have two Border Patrol agents who are dead, who were killed by guns that were allowed,
as far as we can tell, to deliberately walk out of gun shops under the program often called Fast and Furious.
34
This program, as you know -- and the president's been asked about it; you've been asked about it -- allowed for
weapons to be sold to straw purchasers. And ultimately, many of those weapons are today in the hands of drug
cartels and other criminals.
When did you first know about the program officially, I believe, called Fast and Furious? To the best of your
knowledge, what date?
HOLDER:
I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.
ISSA:
Now that you've been briefed on it, the president has said on March 22nd that you didn't authorize it. Did your
deputy attorney general, James Cole, authorize it?
HOLDER:
I'm sorry. That would be...
ISSA:
The deputy attorney general, James Cole.
HOLDER:
Did he -- I didn't hear. Did he...
ISSA:
Did the deputy -- did the deputy attorney general authorize it?
HOLDER:
My guess would be no. Mr. Cole, I don't think, was in the -- I -- I think -- I don't think he was in the department at
the time that operation started.
ISSA:
But he's been aware of it much longer.
HOLDER:
Been aware of it much longer?
ISSA:
Than you have, since you've only been aware of it a few weeks.
How about the head of the Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer?
35
HOLDER:
I'm not sure...
ISSA:
Did he authorize it?
HOLDER:
I'm not sure whether Mr. Breuer authorized it. I mean, you have to understand the way in which the department
operates. Although there are -- there are operations, this one has become -- has gotten a great deal of publicity.

So on May 3rd Holder says:
HOLDER:
I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks

While in March of that year President Obama was already discussing it on CNN.

Do you think Holder was "lieing" and hoping the world didn't notice the President had already brought up the issue on CNN a month and a half before that???? Geez...doesn't that seem to be a pretty stupid lie as it was already all over the news over a month prior??

Or perhaps....from your CBS source....

Holder misunderstood that question from the committee - he did know about Fast and Furious - just not the details.

If Holder intended to lie...it would have been one of the worst thought out lies in history since Fast and Furious was already talked about by the President a couple months prior.

As for emails showing mention of Fast and Furious...they went to the AGs office and at the time it was simply one of hundreds, if not thousands of operations going on across the country.

It is plausable, if not likely, that the AG of the US was not briefed on the specifics of F&F until crap hit the fan.

reply to post by Indigo5

if not likely,

Ya think?

As far as trusting sources, you do seem to put a lot of faith in what you drag off the net. Did you hear any of his testimony personally?

You trust that Issa knew certain things and sat on them. How can you be so sure?

Originally posted by butcherguy


You trust that Issa knew certain things and sat on them. How can you be so sure?

Well until now it was just my suspicion...but as of today Issa is admitting the same...

Issa acknowledges Fast and Furious whistleblower once proposed 'gunwalking'

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by Indigo5


You tell me not to believe fox news and cite them as your source?

Please, crucify me some more.