• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

That Scum Bag Juan Williams!

. . .Now this whole plan be it from Gun Walker to the current fast and furious broke those laws. Hence my concern that in the name of law enforcement one can break the laws and get away with it with immunity from prosecution period. Both sides of the aisle are guilty of it in the past and I'm sure it will continue in the future.

Under Gun Walker/Wide Receiver, the Bush Administration did not do retail straw sales, further under Gun Walker/Wide Receiver the guns were chipped with GPS chips and were tracked, and people were arrested when they took possession of the guns. Add to that the fact that the Mexican Government worked with the Bush Administration in a joint nation sting that terminated in arrests of traffickers.

Lets be very clear that Gun Walker/Wide Receiver is very different than Fast & Furious. In F&F there was ZERO tracking of the guns after they left the gun dealers. Let's be clear also that gun dealers are on record as objecting to being forced, by the ATF, to make the sales of the weapons. In F&F the guns were not seen again until they showed up at crime scenes and then a weapons trace was placed on the gun to show it coming from gun dealers in the USA. Further, many of the gun dealers who objected to be forced into the F&F scheme were then chastised and slandered by the media and politicians as being part of the problem of providing guns to cartels. Remember the false claims in the media and by the politicians about all the guns being traced to the US, that was the initial fallout of F&F and the pro-gunners in the US went scrambling for facts. It was not until CBS News picked up on the fact that a DEA agent, working in Mexico, and a Border Patrol Agent in Texas were slain with F&F guns that this story blew open as gun dealer then came out, and Border Patrol Agents testified, and the botched program blew up into a real scandal. The fires were further fanned when Obama was quoted by the Brady Campaign as working "under the radar" on gun controls.

We should also be clear that Obama's Attny General Eric Holder has retracted (multiple times) claims that Gun Walker was the same as F&F and that the Bush Admin was culpable in misdeeds. He certainly inferred that, and he implied that Bush had done wrong, but when questioned with the facts in hand by reporters he was forced to redact his statements, the most recent of which occurred only a few days ago!

Just making it clear as to what the differences really are.
 
So it would seem that Holder and Obama are being contemptuous just for the sport. :whistling:

Sure, but many have suggested that the whole and sole purpose was to enact new gun control measures:
. . . the real purpose of the operation was to provide "evidence" that U.S. arms were behind the gang violence in Mexico to provide a basis for further restrictions on U.S. arms sales, pointing to comments by Hillary Clinton and the New York Times editors on the need for further restrictions to limit the weaponry of the Mexican drug cartels. . .

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011...operation_fast_and_furious.html#ixzz1ykE8f3BF

Understand too that F&F was actually designed to KILL MEXICANS so that liberals in the US could justify gun bans.
 
You're in more good company, joec.


Fast And Furious Apologist Maddow Lashes Out At Breitbart

While appearing on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher," NBC News' Rachel Maddow took the opportunity to randomly slam Breitbart in a vain attempt to suggest that the Fast and Furious scandal, which resulted in the death of hundreds including a US Border Patrol agent, was not an important story. (By the way Ms. Maddow, the "guy in a pimp suit" exposed ACORN, not Planned Parenthood.)

And what makes you think I agree with everything Maddow or even Bill mar state much less Brietbart? One officers death in the grand scheme of things really isn't major news today by anyone standards compared to all the other problems facing this nation. However Maddow like most of the media gives it as much time as they do to really trivial matters like who some actor is sleeping with. News today has been lowed to selling commercial time on TV and little else giving what they think the majority are really interested it. In my opinion most Americans can no more give a shit about this case as any other and proof of that is the Sanduskyhearings which seemed to be covered wall to wall by main stream media in a lot of detail while this has been little covered on even CSPAN.

Oh and in closing I don't watch Maddow but do watch Maher as I find his show funny for the most part, the same as I find other shows such as Jon Stewart and many others that did social satire.
 
Sure, but many have suggested that the whole and sole purpose was to enact new gun control measures:
. . . the real purpose of the operation was to provide "evidence" that U.S. arms were behind the gang violence in Mexico to provide a basis for further restrictions on U.S. arms sales, pointing to comments by Hillary Clinton and the New York Times editors on the need for further restrictions to limit the weaponry of the Mexican drug cartels. . .

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011...operation_fast_and_furious.html#ixzz1ykE8f3BF
Understand too that F&F was actually designed to KILL MEXICANS so that liberals in the US could justify gun bans.

For some reason this doesn't ring true to me but again I'm holding judgement until I start seeing moves through congress with enough backing to pass before I get excited over those accusations either.
 
Under Gun Walker/Wide Receiver, the Bush Administration did not do retail straw sales, further under Gun Walker/Wide Receiver the guns were chipped with GPS chips and were tracked, and people were arrested when they took possession of the guns. Add to that the fact that the Mexican Government worked with the Bush Administration in a joint nation sting that terminated in arrests of traffickers.

Lets be very clear that Gun Walker/Wide Receiver is very different than Fast & Furious. In F&F there was ZERO tracking of the guns after they left the gun dealers. Let's be clear also that gun dealers are on record as objecting to being forced, by the ATF, to make the sales of the weapons. In F&F the guns were not seen again until they showed up at crime scenes and then a weapons trace was placed on the gun to show it coming from gun dealers in the USA. Further, many of the gun dealers who objected to be forced into the F&F scheme were then chastised and slandered by the media and politicians as being part of the problem of providing guns to cartels. Remember the false claims in the media and by the politicians about all the guns being traced to the US, that was the initial fallout of F&F and the pro-gunners in the US went scrambling for facts. It was not until CBS News picked up on the fact that a DEA agent, working in Mexico, and a Border Patrol Agent in Texas were slain with F&F guns that this story blew open as gun dealer then came out, and Border Patrol Agents testified, and the botched program blew up into a real scandal. The fires were further fanned when Obama was quoted by the Brady Campaign as working "under the radar" on gun controls.

We should also be clear that Obama's Attny General Eric Holder has retracted (multiple times) claims that Gun Walker was the same as F&F and that the Bush Admin was culpable in misdeeds. He certainly inferred that, and he implied that Bush had done wrong, but when questioned with the facts in hand by reporters he was forced to redact his statements, the most recent of which occurred only a few days ago!

Just making it clear as to what the differences really are.

You know this for fact, I don't since I only know what I've been told by administration officials. None of which have been called before this committee either. The only difference I see is one the Mexican government was aware according to them and the other it wasn't. However where did the guns come from, who purchased them, was their licensed gun dealers involved and the list of questions goes on? So in the current political climate in this country no one will know the facts behind all of these operations and I'm not sure it is important now either.
 
So in the current political climate in this country no one will know the facts behind all of these operations and I'm not sure it is important now either.

I'd be willing to bet that Brian Terry's parents would like to know all the facts. Those facts may be irrelevant to some people but I'll bet you London to a brick it won't be to them. Just sayin'.
 
I'd be willing to bet that Brian Terry's parents would like to know all the facts. Those facts may be irrelevant to some people but I'll bet you London to a brick it won't be to them. Just sayin'.

Of course they would and nothing I said should be construed as unimportant to their getting it either. My comment was as per the medias point of view and my point that thousands have died due to botched operations and judgements by government officials is also true. The press isn't covering the facts they are covering the conjecture thrown out by both sides of the aisle, hardly either of which is proven fact at this point. So far I've mostly read nothing but Machiavellian views of this administration as well as the last but the difference is facts not views.

It kind of brings to mind the death of a US Solider who died due to friendly fire. He just happened to of been a NFL football player so his death was lied about as to cause. How long did it take the Defense Department to make the facts it was even friendly fire related known. With out the facts period all you have is what you are told by "those in the know" which might also have motives for covering up.
 
You know this for fact
yes because it was widely reported and then confirmed by Holder when he redacted his comparison between F&F and the programs under the Bush Admin.


The only difference I see is one the Mexican government was aware according to them and the other it wasn't. However where did the guns come from, who purchased them, was their licensed gun dealers involved and the list of questions goes on?
Joe, you apparently have not been following the story. That is typical because most of America is reasonably uninformed too. So let me repeat to get you up to speed.

Bush didn't use gun dealers. Obama did.
Bush used GPS chips to track guns. Obama did not attempt to track the guns.
Bush cooperated with the Mexican government. Obama's program killed Mexican citizens.
Bush shut down his program when there was a possibility that guns might be lost. Obama intentionally sent guns into Mexico without any way to follow them.

I could go on but it's clear there are DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES between the programs.
 
I could go on but it's clear there are DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES between the programs.
May be a waste of breath, Melensdad. No matter the truth, so many deeply committed folks on the left may never choose to admit that their Chosen Ones ain't so special after all. Sad, really.
 
yes because it was widely reported and then confirmed by Holder when he redacted his comparison between F&F and the programs under the Bush Admin.



Joe, you apparently have not been following the story. That is typical because most of America is reasonably uninformed too. So let me repeat to get you up to speed.

Bush didn't use gun dealers. Obama did.
Bush used GPS chips to track guns. Obama did not attempt to track the guns.
Bush cooperated with the Mexican government. Obama's program killed Mexican citizens.
Bush shut down his program when there was a possibility that guns might be lost. Obama intentionally sent guns into Mexico without any way to follow them.

I could go on but it's clear there are DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES between the programs.

Actually I have been following the story Mel, however I follow stories like this based on those involved and have said in recent history. So with that said I continue. I've followed it right from the horse's mouth as they say and not some network telling me how what I just heard should be taken another way depending on their slant on it. In other words I will believe what those involved said period nothing more.


Mel show me where any president regardless, micro managed his departments ever on the scale of a single operation based on how many agencies come under their administrations. Now please point out that the fact these safe guards where used buy Bush. I also don't mean by some right or left wing media outlet either but government over sight committee. What I basically saying is this group as a whole and others of the right attack the left for the same things they do on at any given moment it is hypocrisy. As I said if proven that Holder had knowledge of this before the fact or for that matter the current administration then all evolved should be out of office period. Now to make that claim it must be backed up by hard irrefutable facts not opinion of the press but facts provable in a court of law. As I've had said since the facts started coming out this was a sub group called the ATF that took it upon themselves to do this with no approval from the current AG or administration. Now I ask if you can prove that I will ask for not only the AG's resignation but Obama's also. Is that clear yet what I've been saying since the start?
 
Joe you will apologize for this administration to it's last day.

I'm not apologizing at all. Prove this administration has done something wrong is all I'm asking. If it can be proven then I will join you. Till then no point in arguing the points you keep making as they have no more validity than any other opinion period. You believe they are wrong on everything and I say not all is bad and but some is questionable, however I want proof before I'm convinced you are correct which so far you and others have failed to do. You seem to always want me to prove my opinions yet don't prove your own. As they have said for decades now opinions are like assholes we all have them. Besides there is two sides to every story and the truth is often in the middle, that is what I'm asking for before I accuse anyone of anything, especially at this level of importance. I'm sure not defending this administration but have problems with Issa for the way he has run these hearings. So far based on previous statement made by him one he became part to the controlling party has not given me confidence in his impartially. To me so far him and his committee doesn't seem to want to get to the truth but to go after the current administration nothing more. Simply have to take people at their word until they show otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Actually I have been following the story Mel, however I follow stories like this based on those involved and have said in recent history. So with that said I continue. I've followed it right from the horse's mouth as they say and not some network telling me how what I just heard should be taken another way depending on their slant on it. In other words I will believe what those involved said period nothing more.
With all due respect i have to call bullshit joe, i can remember a couple of old threads where this was being discussed and you stated you HADN't followed the story and knew very little about it. And no i am not going to go dig the posts up to prove it. You only read what you want and refuse to look at other articles or vids others post no fucking matter where they are from. Not to mention you also posted before you really enjoy arguing with most folks on this forum no matter what the topic is.

Sorry Joe but you have a way of talking down to folks here for some reason, like you have "inside information", and i find a hard time beleiving a lot of it. I know you dont give a damn about what I think, but thats just the way i see it and like you i damn sure have a right to my opinion also without being belittled. :sad:

I am just saddened that a "fellow firearms enthuisist" is so quick to defend anything this administration does that the rest of us are so concerned about. :flowers:

As far as your claim to have followed it from "the horses mouth", your getting it from the other end in my humble fuckin opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A little patience, I suppose. It took eight months for the Watergate story to break. And when it finally did, it toppled a president. Fast & Furious will make Watergate look like a little B&E, which is what it was in comparison ... a little B&E.

When the truth comes to light, Holder will be found to be covering not only for his failed president, but also for the Secretary of State in a sorry scheme to impugn the 2A gone bad. Say goodbye to 2016, Hillary.

Say goodbye to 2012, Hussein.
 
Joe, I believe we ALL have a dog in this fight; we all want to see the truth come out, although that may be a forlorn hope. It
is worth mentioning the Rep. Issa was on "This Week" today, and noted that his committee had tried to reach a compromise
with Holder and DoJ. Here are his remarks about their response:

“They came with nothing. Not even an offer in a form of a piece of paper. What they said orally was ‘we will brief you. We will then give you the
information we believe supports that briefing, but you have to first agree to dismiss your subpoenas and your contempt'. You can’t play liar’s poker
when you’re looking for who killed somebody, when you’re looking into this kind of a crime, and when you’re looking into the cover-up. Remember, it
was deny, delay, and recuse.”


The big problem here is that Sergeant Schulz letter ("I know nothing ... nothing!") that DoJ gave Issa's committee, which
was provably false but not recalled for a full ten months. It does indeed smack of a cover-up and that leads to obvious
questions that deserve answers. That is my dog; thirty-nine years back Watergate sensitized me to this sort of BS.


 
Joe, I believe we ALL have a dog in this fight; we all want to see the truth come out, although that may be a forlorn hope. It
is worth mentioning the Rep. Issa was on "This Week" today, and noted that his committee had tried to reach a compromise
with Holder and DoJ. Here are his remarks about their response:

“They came with nothing. Not even an offer in a form of a piece of paper. What they said orally was ‘we will brief you. We will then give you the
information we believe supports that briefing, but you have to first agree to dismiss your subpoenas and your contempt'. You can’t play liar’s poker
when you’re looking for who killed somebody, when you’re looking into this kind of a crime, and when you’re looking into the cover-up. Remember, it
was deny, delay, and recuse.”


The big problem here is that Sergeant Schulz letter ("I know nothing ... nothing!") that DoJ gave Issa's committee, which
was provably false but not recalled for a full ten months. It does indeed smack of a cover-up and that leads to obvious
questions that deserve answers. That is my dog; thirty-nine years back Watergate sensitized me to this sort of BS.



My problem is DS this group and generally the right put out stories based on conjecture not on fact. I have no problem with Issa getting what he wants however it might not be in the best interest of say on going criminal investigations in this case at this time.

Again please don't quote comments by Issa as fact when the other side and he didn't come to an understanding on a compromise? Is it more of my way or the highway or is it fact really? Perhaps now you will get the point I'm trying to make here. Because Issa and Holder couldn't come to terms where is the facts to those terms being laid out by both sides? What is the information he wants to enter into an open congressional hearing?

The whole point is that Holder offered to show those documents in private to both leaders on this committees ranking members and it was assumed to be accepted until the day Issa called for contempt of congress charges. Now that too is based on statements by both sides just the day before. So who is speaking the truth? I have no idea any more than you or anyone else does in regards to these hearings. So what Issa says really means nothing at this conversation, no more than anyone's statement from the left either.
 
Last edited:
A little patience, I suppose. It took eight months for the Watergate story to break. And when it finally did, it toppled a president. Fast & Furious will make Watergate look like a little B&E, which is what it was in comparison ... a little B&E.

When the truth comes to light, Holder will be found to be covering not only for his failed president, but also for the Secretary of State in a sorry scheme to impugn the 2A gone bad. Say goodbye to 2016, Hillary.

Say goodbye to 2012, Hussein.
:clap:
You're gonna get repped for that..
 
Okay, we've all been griping about the absence of F&F coverage in the MSM. Herewith, the front page of the ABC News
webpage:


 

Attachments

  • abc front.jpg
    abc front.jpg
    41.8 KB · Views: 117
A little patience, I suppose. It took eight months for the Watergate story to break. And when it finally did, it toppled a president. Fast & Furious will make Watergate look like a little B&E, which is what it was in comparison ... a little B&E.

When the truth comes to light, Holder will be found to be covering not only for his failed president, but also for the Secretary of State in a sorry scheme to impugn the 2A gone bad. Say goodbye to 2016, Hillary.

Say goodbye to 2012, Hussein.

I disagree.

By proclaiming executive priveledge the President has stalled this and it will go to court, effectively delaying impact of this until after the election.
 
I disagree.

By proclaiming executive priveledge the President has stalled this and it will go to court, effectively delaying impact of this until after the election.
Every news outlet from AM radio to cable teevee (except MSNBC) is now carrying the story. And now that Obama has interjected the WH into the scandal by claiming privilege (effectively admitting misdeed) the media and the PAC's will be relentless in badgering the administration for the truth. The media is now the court. The court of public opinion.

Hopefully this week Issa and Boehner will stick to their guns (groan), cite Holder for contempt and demand answers. If so ...

Fast & Furious may be the October Surprise.
.
 
Last edited:
For the sake of the families of the slain Border Patrol agent and the slain ICE agent and the hundreds of slain Mexicans, I hope that the whole truth comes out.

As much as I dislike Eric Holder, and as much as I believe he is inept and over his head, this really is about the murdered people in Mexico and our agents, and the intentions of the administrators (at whatever level) who approved this. Those dead people deserve the truth. Those administrators probably deserve the firing squad if the suspicions of this being a political ploy designed to kill people as a justification for more gun control prove to be true.
 
For the sake of the families of the slain Border Patrol agent and the slain ICE agent and the hundreds of slain Mexicans, I hope that the whole truth comes out.

As much as I dislike Eric Holder, and as much as I believe he is inept and over his head, this really is about the murdered people in Mexico and our agents, and the intentions of the administrators (at whatever level) who approved this. Those dead people deserve the truth. Those administrators probably deserve the firing squad if the suspicions of this being a political ploy designed to kill people as a justification for more gun control prove to be true.
With the exception of a handful of stubborn liberals still in denial,
PDHeadInSand.gif



the rest of informed America smells a rat.

s-GIANT-RAT-large.jpg


And they won't let it go.






Personally, I'd like to have some journalist confront Bill Clinton and ask about his wife's involvement in F&F. GULP.
 
Last edited:
I still remember this little speech from Holder in 09, allthough he doesnt mention F&F. :glare:

Attorney General Eric Holder at the Mexico/United States Arms Trafficking Conference
CUERNAVACA, MEXICO ~ Thursday, April 2, 2009

Remarks as prepared for delivery.

First, let me express my thanks to Attorney General Medina Mora and Secretary of Government Gomez Mont for making this conference possible.
This is my first trip to another country as Attorney General. I wanted to come to Mexico to deliver a single message: We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in this fight against the narcotics cartels. The United States shares responsibility for this problem and we will take responsibility by joining our Mexican counterparts in every step of this fight.
And, together, we will win – thanks in large part to the courage of my Mexican colleagues here today, who are on the front lines every day, and with whom I am proud to collaborate.
The topic that has been addressed over the past two days could not be more important – the development of an arms trafficking prosecution and enforcement strategy on both sides of the border.
I would like to thank the Mexican and U.S. experts who have worked so hard on this issue. On our side, Secretary Napolitano and I are committed to putting the resources in place to increase our attack on arms trafficking into Mexico.
Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion. DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail.
But as today’s conference has emphasized, the problem of arms trafficking will not be stopped at the border alone. Rather, as our experts emphasized, this is a problem that must be met as part of a comprehensive attack against the cartels – an attack in depth, on both sides of the border, that focuses on the leadership and assets of the cartel. This is the type of full-bore, prosecution-driven approach that the U.S. Department of Justice took to dismantle La Cosa Nostra – once the most powerful organized crime group operating in the United States.
With partners like those we have here today, I am confident that together, we will defeat these narcotics cartels in exactly the same way. I am proud to stand with you, and to join you in this fight. Thank you again for inviting me here.
http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090402.html
 
This is interesting. I was not aware of the relationship Justice has under Congress.

"There was no Department of Justice for nearly a century after the Constitution was adopted. And while the post of attorney general was established by the first Congress, it was conceived as a part-time position, with no staff, limited to providing legal advice to the president and representing the federal government in civil litigation. There was no thought that there would be a criminal law-enforcement mission for the central government, much less that the feds would regulate firearms (and do so by sending them to murderous foreign drug cartels). The Framers were quite clear that law enforcement would remain the exclusive province of the states. I rehearse all this history because I've always thought it very presumptuous of the Justice Department to claim a power to conceal information from Congress when it is completely dependent on Congress for its existence and its mission. Congress could repeal the Justice Department tomorrow. Congress writes the statutes that the Justice Department enforces, is the master of the Department's jurisdiction, and pays for everything the Department does -- without which budget the Justice Department could do nothing." --columnist Andrew C. McCarthy
Under Holder's inept reign, what purpose does Justice even serve? Seems a royal waste of money.
 
http://noisyroom.net/blog/2012/06/2...ecutive-privilege-over-fast-and-furious-docs/

On the eve of Attorney General Eric Holder being cited for contempt over his refusal to supply documents on Fast and Furious that were subpoenaed by the Congressional Oversight committee, President Obama asserted executive privilege over the documents in question. What will be the end result of this strategy and what does it signify? The Council weighs in:

The Right Planet: Invoking executive privilege in the Fast and Furious gun-walking scheme has, for all intents and purposes, forced the hand of the media to deal with the F&F investigation. To what extent, I cannot predict, but it surely was a shock to the mainstream media to discover the president (ab)used executive authority, on behalf of Attorney General Eric Holder, to block DoJ documents being requested by Rep. Issa and the Oversight Committee relating to the Fast and Furious operation. The problem for the Obama Administration is now twofold: either AG Holder lied to Congress; or Obama was fully aware and involved in Operation Fast and Furious. The documents now in question are allegedly related to communications between the WH and AG Holder during the course of the investigation. Additionally, Holder has made several retractions from his testimony before the Oversight Committee when new facts came to light. Think about it … who gets to retract testimony during an investigation or court trial? Apparently the Obama Administration thinks it can.
I predict the liberal media will blame Bush–claiming that a similar program was implemented during Bush’s term–Operation Wide Receiver–and that Operation Fast and Furious was simply a continuation. Sorry, MSM, Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious are fundamentally different. The Wide Receiver op was conducted in cooperation with the Mexican government, unlike Fast and Furious. Also, Wide Receiver tagged and tracked the guns sold to straw purchasers–once again, unlike the Fast and Furious op. The liberal media claims Fast and Furious was just a “botched” operation. Really? A “botched” operation that lead to the deaths of two Border Patrol agents and nearly 300 Mexicans? No, that’s on par with a war crime. The question now becomes who are the individuals responsible for mass murder. And why. What was the specific purpose of Fast Furious? I will also predict the MSM will try and slough off the use executive privilege by claiming Bush, and other presidents, did it too. Well, to me, that’s not a rebuttal. What national security matter is being threatened by not releasing the documents to Congress as prescribed by the Constitution? The use of executive privilege can only be invoked to protect national security in these matters, not to cover-up wrongdoing (see Nixon). I predict this will not end well for Holder or Obama.

The Razor: I’ve often wondered if Nixon had been a Democrat whether there would have been a Watergate investigation by Washington Post reporters. At the time I don’t think reporters were anywhere near as biased towards the Democrats as they are now due to Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam war, but considering how they’ve lost all pretense to objectivity since I find it worth considering. It’s a shame because Fast and Furious has the potential to be the worst scandal since Watergate.
The administration created procedures to funnel guns to narcoterrorists in Mexico for an unknown reason. There are three possible reasons for the operation: First, that the administration was so incompetent that it failed to create tracking mechanisms for the guns on the Mexican side of the border by working with Mexican authorities. Second that the administration was passing guns to the narcoterrorists as a tool of American foreign policy to help them destabilize the Mexican government for example. Finally, that the administration funneled guns to the narcoterrorists as a tool of domestic policy to justify gun control measures made easier by American made guns turning up at crimes committed by the Mexican gangs. All three options are impeachable offenses by the Attorney General, and the last two are impeachable offenses of the president. I don’t take impeachment lightly. I opposed the Republican effort to impeach Clinton in 1998 and still do, but Fast and Furious has the necessary ingredients to justify it in this case if the facts bear it out.
That said I do not expect the Executive Privilege orders to be challenged by a mainstream press that operates as the propaganda wing of the DNC. The orders are coming over the summer when most people are too busy enjoying themselves to pay much attention to the news, and the orders have enough nuances to them (Bush used them 6 times while this is Obama’s first) for people to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. The administration knows how to play the press better than any I’ve seen in my lifetime thanks to the press’s willingness to be played.
It is a shame because what is known about Fast and Furious is enough to justify full disclosure. I expect that we will someday know the truth, but I don’t expect it before November.

Bookworm Room: If Obama cannot credibly prove that the documents he seeks to protect involve the executive decision-making process, his claim will die and die quickly. He’ll end up looking like a fool, and the documents will be squeezed out of Holder.
If Obama can credibly prove that the documents he seeks to protect involve the executive decision-making process, he’s actually in trouble, because he will have implicated himself in the Fast & Furious cover-up. In this regard, keep in mind that Rep. Issa posed an extremely narrow request that goes to Fast & Furious testimony, rather than Fast & Furious itself. Because Holder has consistently backtracked — i.e., recanted lies — Obama’s claim means that his office was a part of the cover-up. And to the extent that Holder is still refusing to turn over documents, Obama is part of a continuing cover-up. Worse, for Obama, the narrow range of this type of executive privilege claim means that, because wrongdoing is involved, Obama will ultimately still need to let those documents go to the House.
The worst thing for Obama is that, by invoking executive privilege, he leaped over the the Cone of Silence that the media had so thoughtfully built around Fast & Furious. It’s gone from being a scandal in the conservative internet to becoming national news. Those same citizens who were once completely oblivious to this chicanery are now sitting up and taking notice.
There’s debate as to whether the Democrat party has become so ethically corrupt that it will continue to rally around Obama and Holder regardless of subsequent discovery about wrongdoing. If Dems do rally around him, Obama will avoid impeachment or official humiliation from the legislative branch. What’s more important, though, is that this whole debacle won’t end well in the public eye. Obama will look like a fool for wrongly invoking executive privilege or, if he had reason to invoke it, his fingerprints will suddenly be all over a scheme that armed drug runners, killed American law officers, and killed innumerable Hispanics on both sides of the border.

Joshuapundit: President Obama is playing an interesting game here, and one he has a decent chance of winning.
This is by no means the first time the Administration has been fingered in questionable deeds. Most American have forgotten, for instance, that the White House was directly implicated by two senate candidates who both made public statements that the White House offered them jobs not to primary incumbents, a felony offense that somehow just wafted away into the ozone. Congress’s request to the DOJ for a special prosecutor was denied here too.
President Obama believes he has Teflon underwear based on these and other instances I could mention, and and the president knows it primarily comes from his race and the unspoken threat of massive urban civil unrest should he be called to account and secondly from his idolization by the dinosaur media. That’s why Fast and Furious has been allowed to drag on so long.
The House will almost certainly vote on party lines to cite Holder for contempt, but their only possible redress will be through the DC circuit court, which will take months. If President Obama loses, he will likely grant Eric Holder and anyone else concerned a pardon, which is irrevocable. It’s unlikely that a new Republican Administration would pursue this matter, given how the political classes operate. If the president should win and if the Republicans take both houses of Congress this matter might be pursued but if so it’s likely to end up as the Clinton impeachment did because most Democrats in the Senate are unlikely to vote for impeachment of a Democrat no matter what, and the likelihood of getting 60 votes to convict is sketchy. Especially since the president has the power to pardon any awkward witnesses to eliminate any possibility of prosecutors granting immunity in exchange for testimony.
The only positive thing is that by prematurely claiming non-catalogued executive privilege this president has not only linked the White House to Fast and Furious with iron shackles, but forced the dinosaur media to cover the scandal instead of being able to ignore it.

The Noisy Room: I believe that the Executive Privilege that Barack Obama has claimed over Fast and Furious will be challenged by Issa and others and will wind up at the feet of the Supreme Court. If I had to guess on that outcome, I believe Constitutionally they would rule against Obama.
In the end, this scandal will prove more widespread and deeper than Watergate and the media will not be able to contain it. The truth will eventually come out and I have long said that Eric Holder should one day grace the inside of a prison cell. He will be found in contempt and will likely get a Presidential pardon. As for Barack Obama, I predict this whole thing will be stalled until he is out of office, G-d willing, next year. Obama will most likely never have to pay for his hand in this, although if he is involved, in the end he could be prosecuted. Romney will have to clean up the mess left him and try to repair as much of the damage as possible.

The Colossus of Rhodey: The end result will amount to nothing, ultimately, if Obama loses in the fall, because the matter will remain in the courts for months/years. But if Obama wins, the GOP congress will continue to press the matter for all it’s worth well into the second Obama term. If the SCOTUS deems exec privilege unworthy in this case a la with Nixon back during Watergate, then we may see another just such spectacle — and then *that* will drag on for months … all accompanied with the usual vigorous charges of “racism,” of course.
icon_wink.gif


The Independent Sentinel: Nothing will happen before the election – nothing. I don’t believe the House will vote for contempt charges because John Boehner will see it as a potential loser.
Holder might give up a few more redacted documents and say he has released an unprecedented amount of documents. The House will seek to send it to the courts on constitutional grounds.
Some websites have written about the possibility of using “inherent contempt” charges but that will not happen.
This election must be about the economy.

VA Right!: Fast and Furious was a government sponsored operation that was created when the 2nd Amendment Bloggers began examining the misleading statistics the Obama Administration was using to justify a crackdown on legal gun sales in America. The statistics being reported indicated that a high percentage of the guns used by the Drug Cartel in Mexico to kill people actually came from America. But these reports failed to point out that the statistics were only compiled on weapons that could be traced. And most of these were American made. Those made elsewhere are not traceable as other countries do not keep the records Americans are required to have. And actually, the percentage of guns originating in the US used in crimes was actually fairly low when compared to ALL of the guns used by the Cartels.
Many believe Fast and Furious was intended to change that ratio and push more controls on guns in America.
But the plan backfired.

Democrats are complaining that this is a partisan fishing expedition, and were it not for the deaths of a couple of US Border Patrol Agents and the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder delivered a letter to Congress denying the program allowed guns to “walk” across the border (which was later withdrawn) they may have a point. But in light of deaths and lies by the Justice Department, the Congressional Committee is absolutely right in looking into this.

And the argument of “Executive Privilege” is spurious. Congress will eventually be allowed to see the documents, but it will, in all likelihood, be after the election.

If Richard Nixon’s tapes that were recorded in the Oval Office between the President and his Advisers did not qualify for Executive Privilege, then there is no hope for the Obama Administration that this will stand up in court.
It is all about delaying this until after the election.

Since the Justice Department was created by Congress and they control their funding, it is highly unlikely the final outcome would keep the document out of the hands of the Overseers.

There is obviously something in those papers that the White House and Holder cannot let the public see before the election.
 
Bush didn't use gun dealers. Obama did.
Bush used GPS chips to track guns. Obama did not attempt to track the guns.
Bush cooperated with the Mexican government. Obama's program killed Mexican citizens.
Bush shut down his program when there was a possibility that guns might be lost. Obama intentionally sent guns into Mexico without any way to follow them.

I could go on but it's clear there are DRAMATIC DIFFERENCES between the programs.

Agreed. One of the misconceptions out there is that this was a botched operation. Not true. The DOJ did this intentionally with plausible deniability. Knowing fully well no one north of the border would give a damn about any and all Mexican dead. Sad but true. They did not count on two things:
1. Brian Terry's death
2. A whistle blower

This left them with 3 options.

1. Admit everything and come clean. No way
2. Deny everything as a lie. Can't do that.
3. Stonewall any investigation as nothing more than cheap partisan politics. Use the left wing media as a tool to either ignore coverage or to play it down. Discredit any reputable media outlet as biased or liars that attempt to report the story. All the while this is taking the attention off of the economy. The major issue facing most Americans today.

Holder will keep his job as the DOJ will not investigate itself. Obama and his guard dog will be long gone by the time this ever plays out in the courts.
 
I just knew it couldn't be about gun walking, or about so many unnecessary deaths, or about high crimes, cover-up and contempt. I just knew it. And now I'm just glad Chris Matthews and Nancy Pelosi were able to straighten me out and let me know that it's really all about racism and voter suppression. Ah Ha! Of course. Racism! I just knew it!

Matthews: Fast and Furious investigation is racist

June 20, 2012

MSNBC host Chris Matthews, a former Jimmy Carter aide, suggested that the congressional investigation into Attorney General Eric Holder’s handling of Operation Fast and Furious is motivated by racism.

“I don’t want to start too much forest fire here but it is my instinct: is this ethnic?” Matthews asked San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown last night. “It smells like it to me and I think there is a disdain on the part of some Republicans . . . that do talk down to the president and his friends,” Matthews added.

Brown, earlier in the segment, had already accused Issa of “leading a lynch-like mob” against Holder.

Holder made the same accusation in December. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” Holder told the New York Times, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

Matthews also took up Holder’s comment about partisan motivations for the accusation. “If he can humiliate this guy, if he can get to him, he’ll be a big star in the Republican caucus,” Matthews said of Issa, before comparing the House investigator — not the president fighting a congressional investigation — to a disgraced president. “He’ll be [Richard] Nixon,” Matthews said.
Fast and Furious Investigation Rooted in Racism?

Friday, June 22, 2012
By LD Jackson
Just when you thought liberals couldn’t get any stranger in their mindless defense of President Obama and his policies, we learn they have no intention of disappointing us. For about 18 months, Congressional Republicans have tried to find out the details of Fast and Furious. Some of this, we already know, but there is a real need to know more. Details such as who knew about Fast and Furious and who authorized it. Details about the President’s involvement and knowledge of the failed gunrunning operation ran by the ATF. Unbeknownst to the rest of us, the Republicans have had an underlying reason for this investigation. According to Nancy Pelosi, it is racism. From Politico:
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Republicans are investigating Eric Holder because they want to distract him from stopping voter suppression laws.

The argument from the California Democrat is quite unique, as the party’s argument has long been that the attorney general has provided enough documentation in the gun-walking investigation, and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is on a witch hunt.

Pelosi took it in a new direction during a 30-minute press conference, when she also lambasted Republicans as intransigent and unfit to govern.

“Contempt of Congress, contempt of Congress,” Pelosi said. “To frivolously use that really important vehicle to undermine the person who is assigned to stop the voter suppression in our country. I’m telling you, this is connected. It is no accident. It is a decision and it is as clear as can be. It’s not only to monopolize his time, it’s to undermine his name. To undermine his name, undermine his name, as he goes forward to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
You’ll have to excuse me for a moment while I suppress the urge to gag. Not only is this offensive, it’s the most ridiculous charge I have heard come out of Pelosi’s mouth in a very long time. I am convinced the liberals will do anything they can to deflect the investigation into Fast and Furious. The truth is something they have no desire to see come to the surface.

To be fair to Nancy Pelosi, she isn’t the first one to suggest racism is at the root of the Fast and Furious investigation. Eric Holder brought it up last December, during one of his testimonies before Congress. His exact words were as follows.
This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him…both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.
Maybe Pelosi is just following orders by continuing these ridiculous charges, but she isn’t the only one. I refuse to watch anything offered by MSNBC, but Chris Matthews is evidently convinced racism has something to do with why Darrell Issa refuses to back down from Eric Holder and President Obama. He is suggesting it is “ethnically” related, calling it a “stop and frisk” moment. You can read a full transcript at The Daily Caller.


From the moment Barack Obama announced he was running for President, I was opposed to him. I was repeatedly accused of racism, even though I went out of my way to never mention his race. Trust me when I say, it had nothing to do with the color of his skin, and everything to do with his liberal policies. That holds true today. I don’t care if Barack Obama and Eric Holder are Jewish, Black, Native American, or just plain American, their policies are hurting our country. Red, yellow, black, or white, they should be held accountable, and calling them out on Fast and Furious does not constitute racism.
 
Last edited:
Top