Doc Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Not so sure, Doc. They continue to come up with stuff like The War on Women and Amnesty to change the subject. I don't think this was planned but they are taking dubious advantage of it. Anything to avoid talking about the economy. It's news...until the next jobs report, or consumer confidence poll, or housing market report comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) The "real" reason those racists are going after Holder: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303672/pelosi-its-no-coincidence-republicans-are-going-after-eric-holder-noah-glyn http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/06/26/predictable_civil_rights_leaders_pull_race_card_to_defend_eric_holder That old race card is getting a little overused. Edited June 26, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal. There is a subtle difference between supporting an individual's rights to bear arms and the government running guns to Mexican drug lords for political reasons. Not that this is even what the real controversy is about, but hey, they went after Clinton for adultery, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Nobody died when Nixon lied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) There is a subtle difference between supporting an individual's rights to bear arms and the government running guns to Mexican drug lords for political reasons. Not that this is even what the real controversy is about, but hey, they went after Clinton for adultery, right? It's a huge article but you should just read it. I shouldn't even paste anything the entire thing is complicated...it's too long and involved for any pasting to be anything but selective. It's worth noting in there you clearly see that the guns that killed Terry were not sold by the government. Meh I just was trying to delete the post below and the whole thing is gone now...anyway here's the link: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/ Edited June 28, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It's worth noting in there you clearly see that the guns that killed Terry were not sold by the government. No ****. I've followed this story about as closely as I do Rizzoli and Isles, and even I knew that. Does anyone who's not a cynical pandering partisan parrot think that's true? (And I'm not even sure the parrots do.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It's a huge article but you should just read it. I shouldn't even paste anything the entire thing is complicated...it's too long and involved for any pasting to be anything but selective. It's worth noting in there you clearly see that the guns that killed Terry were not sold by the government. Meh I just was trying to delete the post below and the whole thing is gone now...anyway here's the link: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/ I'll check it out if I have time. I don't find the gun running aspect of the story terribly interesting, nor am I terribly concerned with the origins of the gun. What I'm curious about is why Obama decided to invoke executive privilege, why Holder got a take-back on his perjured testimony, and what they're trying to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) I'll check it out if I have time. I don't find the gun running aspect of the story terribly interesting, nor am I terribly concerned with the origins of the gun. What I'm curious about is why Obama decided to invoke executive privilege, why Holder got a take-back on his perjured testimony, and what they're trying to hide. It sheds light on why there was so much confusion. Basically seems to be on whole a long drawn out struggle w/ the ATF trying to arrest straw purchasers, the prosecutors said they couldn't over and over b/c their analysis was that under the current law they couldn't...then there was all kinds of internal strife within the ATF and even with one particular prosecutor. Seems like weak laws meets prosecutors who won't pull the trigger b/c they don't want to lose and the ATF is sitting there watching meth-addicts and 18 year old unemployed kids spend $100K on automatic weapons. Edited June 28, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I'll check it out if I have time. I don't find the gun running aspect of the story terribly interesting, nor am I terribly concerned with the origins of the gun. What I'm curious about is why Obama decided to invoke executive privilege, why Holder got a take-back on his perjured testimony, and what they're trying to hide. There never was a gun running operation by the federal government. ATF made it very clear to some or all gunshops that they needed to cooperate with them. Their plan was to follow the weapons to get to the big dealers. It was started in 2009. Some claim this was just a continuation of "Wide Receiver", a Bush era attempt to get to the larger dealers. It was not. "Wide Receiver" at least had a plan for tracking the weapons. They put tracking devices in them. It failed miserably when the bad guys found out about it. The program was stopped (I believe in 2007). "Fast and Furious" was based on just surveillence which was inherently flawed. The agents on the ground were prohibited from making arrests when they observed the weapons being sold. Sooner or later they got across the border and dissappeared. Brian Terry was killed in December of 2010. There was a Congressional hearing on February 4, 2011 and there was a claim by the DOJ that in no way they allowed any weapons to go to Mexico. Supposedly The program was stopped shortly before Brian Terry was killed. In the spring of 2012 Eric Holder testified before Congress that he only learned about "Fast and Furious" a few weeks prior to the date he was testifying. He also at some point in time testified that he was the one to stop "Fast and Furious" when he first heard about it. Anyway, it appears as if our Attorney General lied to Congress, and that there has been a coverup. That's the jist of the situation. I would think also that there may have been some communication after the schit hit the fan between the DOJ and the WH. The executive privilege that was extended was either to hide their attempts at a coverup at the highest levels or extending executive privilege to th DOJ. These guys never learn, the truth doesn't get them in trouble anyways near as much as the lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) There never was a gun running operation by the federal government. ATF made it very clear to some or all gunshops that they needed to cooperate with them. Their plan was to follow the weapons to get to the big dealers. It was started in 2009. Some claim this was just a continuation of "Wide Receiver", a Bush era attempt to get to the larger dealers. It was not. "Wide Receiver" at least had a plan for tracking the weapons. They put tracking devices in them. It failed miserably when the bad guys found out about it. The program was stopped (I believe in 2007). "Fast and Furious" was based on just surveillence which was inherently flawed. The agents on the ground were prohibited from making arrests when they observed the weapons being sold. Sooner or later they got across the border and dissappeared. Brian Terry was killed in December of 2010. There was a Congressional hearing on February 4, 2011 and there was a claim by the DOJ that in no way they allowed any weapons to go to Mexico. Supposedly The program was stopped shortly before Brian Terry was killed. In the spring of 2012 Eric Holder testified before Congress that he only learned about "Fast and Furious" a few weeks prior to the date he was testifying. He also at some point in time testified that he was the one to stop "Fast and Furious" when he first heard about it. Anyway, it appears as if our Attorney General lied to Congress, and that there has been a coverup. That's the jist of the situation. I would think also that there may have been some communication after the schit hit the fan between the DOJ and the WH. The executive privilege that was extended was either to hide their attempts at a coverup at the highest levels or extending executive privilege to th DOJ. These guys never learn, the truth doesn't get them in trouble anyways near as much as the lie. What that operation was and what people were referring to as it are not the same thing. When you read the article there was nothing to cover up, so what was he covering up? Did he personally know of the surveillance operation? Did he know of Dodson's insubordination? Did he know the details that came across Hurley's desk? "Do you know about fast and furious" is a nonsensical question. The entire thing is a cluster !@#$ that honestly stems from weak gun laws in the first place. It's not wonder the extreme right and the gun lobby wanted to get out in front of this and make it a conspiracy that they let this happen to impose more gun restrictions...since it happened against the ATF's wishes as a direct result of weak gun laws. Edited June 28, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Classic Issa http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/fast_and_furious_issa_holder_contempt_gunwalking.php A day ahead of a vote to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) said his committee is no longer even strongly suspicious that highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country knew that guns “walked” during the botched ATF operation known as Fast and Furious. “During the inception and the participation through the death of Brian Terry, we have no evidence nor do we currently have strong suspicion” that Holder knew of the tactics, Issa said during testimony before the House Rules Committee on Wednesday. “We have just the opposite, have a number of people, including Lanny Breuer, who should have known who’s responsibility was to know, that as part of our ongoing responsibility to figure out who was responsible,” Issa continued. Issa also said he had no specific knowledge that the White House knew of the gunwalking tactics and said the committee wasn’t looking to the president. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), ranking member of the Oversight Committee, butted in as Issa was being questioned by Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO). “We are now about to find in contempt the attorney general of the United States of America after you just heard that,” Cummings said. “Sure,” replied Issa. “It’s not for what the attorney general knew about Fast and Furious, it’s about the attorney general’s refusal to provide the documents.” Issa’s position on Holder’s knowledge of the tactics used is a reversal of what he claimed when he began his investigation last year, when he said the tactics went “all the way to the very top.” The California Republican has admitted to exploring “blind alleys” over the course of the investigation. The House is set to vote on a resolution finding Holder in contempt tomorrow. The resolution focuses on DOJ’s opposition to disclosing internal Justice Department communications created after Feb. 4, 2011 unless Issa agrees to let that disclosure settle his subpoena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 1340846063[/url]' post='2494172']No ****. I've followed this story about as closely as I do Rizzoli and Isles, and even I knew that. Does anyone who's not a cynical pandering partisan parrot think that's true? (And I'm not even sure the parrots do.) What? Of course that's true. A weapon allowed to walk was the weapon found at the scene and verified to be the weapon to have used to kill him. Wtf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) What? Of course that's true. A weapon allowed to walk was the weapon found at the scene and verified to be the weapon to have used to kill him. Wtf? It's been proven that F&F guns were found near his body, but I watch this pretty closely and I don't recall any evidence submitted that he was specifically killed with an F&F gun. I could be wrong. Edited June 28, 2012 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It's been proven that F&F guns were found near his body, but I watch this pretty closely and I don't recall any evidence submitted that he was specifically killed with an F&F gun. I could be wrong. The bullet was too damaged to determine what weapon it came from. Regardless, the investigation at this point in time has to do with how high up did the knowledge go and why the coverup? Holder lied to Congress this spring when he said he only found out about it (not tracing the weapons) a few weeks ago. Since he claimed to have stopped the program and it was stopped prior to Brian Terry getting killed there's a credibility problem that needs to be addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 There are several democrats that have already voiced that they will also vote for censure. The only Bipartisan vote will be FOR censure, but it will still be media-spun as extremists-racists. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Contempt vote to happen on CSPAN soon. Issa further spewing garbage as I type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Contempt vote to happen on CSPAN soon. Issa further spewing garbage as I type. I'm confused. When nothing gets done in DC, you guys complain that the GOP are obstructionists. But at last count, as many as 15 Democrats are going to join the GOP in holding Holder in contempt. It's the first thing both sides can agree on in almost three years. You finally have a bi-partisan decision. How can this not be good for everyone? Check that: 17 Democrats. A bunch of other Democrats walk out. Very, very embarrassing. You're hired to do a job. If you don't have the nutsack to do it, then find another job. Edit #2: Now I'm reading that Pelosi botched the name of Brian Terry? Really? It's like a bad sit-com. Edited June 28, 2012 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 And looks like that is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 255-67 with 1 present Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) LOL holy God Issa is in rare form CSPAN has never been so entertaining. What a dick. Epic fake-yield of time there. Edited June 28, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts