Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Dec 2011, 8:56 am

I doubt it. Should he?

It was all a lie. The angry denials, the high dudgeon, the how-dare-you accuse-us bleating emanating from Eric Holder’s Justice Department these last nine months.

Operation Fast and Furious — the “botched” gun-tracking program run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — did, in fact, deliberately allow some 2,000 high-powered weapons to be sold to Mexican drug cartel agents and then waltzed across the border and into the Mexican drug wars — just as Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, who are leading the congressional investigations, have charged all along.

That’s the conclusion we can draw from Friday night’s nearly 1,400-page document dump, which gives us a glimpse into the inner workings of the Justice Department as it struggled earlier this year to come up with an explanation for the deadly mess — and “misled” Congress.

Now the man who supervised it, Attorney General Holder, will appears before Congress again Thursday to testify in the exploding fiasco. But there’s really only one question he needs to answer: Why?

Why did Justice, the ATF and an alphabet soup of federal agencies facilitate the transfer of guns across the border — without the knowledge of Mexican authorities — when they knew they couldn’t trace them properly?

The scandal erupted late last year, after at least two F&F weapons were found at the southern Arizona scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder. Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked Justice for an explanation.

The response was a Feb. 4 letter from assistant AG Ron Weich, who insisted, “The allegation . . . that ATF ‘sanctioned’ or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons . . . is false.” The ATF, Weich went on, “makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.”

That letter has now been formally withdrawn. “Facts have come to light during the course of this investigation that indicate the Feb. 4 letter contains inaccuracies,” wrote deputy attorney general James Cole on Friday.

Nice to finally see the government admitting what we’ve known all along — that according to ATF whistleblowers, Fast and Furious was an ill-advised, poorly supervised mess that was doomed from the start.

Fox News recently unearthed a Feb. 3 memo in which ATF agent Gary Styers recounted to his superiors his conversations with Grassley’s investigators: “It is unheard of to have an active wiretap investigation without full-time, dedicated surveillance units on the ground,” he wrote, adding that objections by agents were “widely disregarded.”


For those who may be tempted to think this is much ado about nothing: an ATF agent and many in Mexico have been murdered with weapons supplied by a US government program. Okay, maybe "supplied" is an overstatement. The government knew about the smuggling of weapons and allowed it because . . . well, because they thought there was a noble purpose.

Then, the Justice Department lied about it to Congress. They have also sought to blame it on Bush, since a similar program ran under his Presidency (note "similar," not "same").

Given all the incompetence from Holder--this, the announced trial for KSM in NYC that never took place, suing State governments for trying to enforce laws on illegal immigration he will not (even offering that he had not read the short AZ law before suing!), going after Gibson guitars, getting but a single guilty verdict against Ghailani, and innumerable other mistakes, how does Holder have a job?
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 05 Dec 2011, 12:49 pm

The other things are serious judgement issues I'd be happy to see him fired over. This however needs a special prosecutor, arrests and jail time.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 05 Dec 2011, 1:54 pm

...or will he be led away in handcuffs?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Dec 2011, 1:40 pm

Unbelievable. Really. No one at DoJ lied because they didn't form the intent to deceive?

Rep. James Sensenbrenner asked Holder: “Tell me what's the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?”

Holder's response is a bit Clintonian. “Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie," Holder said. "


It all depends on your definition of "is."

According to Holder, the buck doesn't stop anywhere. He says it stops with him, but no one knew anything or was informed about anything?

Stop the nightmare!
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 08 Dec 2011, 2:14 pm

Lovely thing about impeachment proceedings: no assertion of privilege is possible. Once the House votes to impeach, the Senate can require the administration to turn over whatever it decides it wants. Lots of stonewalling in the Obama administration. Gotta think they don't want Congress to have a free pass to rummage through their dirty laundry. I think Holder is a dead man walking. They'll try to find some way to let him declare victory before he departs, but depart he must before he's the cause of the airing of all the administration's secrets.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 08 Dec 2011, 2:19 pm

Also, to be fair to Mr. Holder, he is asserting the same defense that the Bush administration did re: WMDs in Iraq. That is, that any inaccurate statements were based on the best information available at the time. Of course, it must be noted that the level of difficulty in obtaining good intelligence about the nuclear capabilities of a hostile foreign power is (or should be) several orders of magnitude greater than that involved in the Attorney General figuring out what's going on in his own Justice Department, but it's still amusing to hear a "Bush lied, people died" guy like Holder use this excuse.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 08 Dec 2011, 2:26 pm

Machiavelli wrote:Also, to be fair to Mr. Holder, he is asserting the same defense that the Bush administration did re: WMDs in Iraq. That is, that any inaccurate statements were based on the best information available at the time. Of course, it must be noted that the level of difficulty in obtaining good intelligence about the nuclear capabilities of a hostile foreign power is (or should be) several orders of magnitude greater than that involved in the Attorney General figuring out what's going on in his own Justice Department, but it's still amusing to hear a "Bush lied, people died" guy like Holder use this excuse.


I saw a blog post elsewhere regarding this point. I found myself bemused. Of course, Code Pink and the OWS crowd won't be chanting "Holder lied and people died," but they should be--if they were consistent.

I can't pretend to know when Holder found out about F & F. However, one need not have attended a prestigious law school to see that the man is not being forthcoming now.

I hope he doesn't resign. I would love to watch those impeachment hearings.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Dec 2011, 7:03 am

Doctor Fate wrote:Unbelievable. Really. No one at DoJ lied because they didn't form the intent to deceive?
Did Holder produce a dictionary definition and then misinterpret it as well? Only I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Dec 2011, 8:42 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Unbelievable. Really. No one at DoJ lied because they didn't form the intent to deceive?
Did Holder produce a dictionary definition and then misinterpret it as well? Only I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu.


If anyone is an expert on lying, it is you. So, I understand you identifying with a fellow traveler in Mr. Holder.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 09 Dec 2011, 8:57 am

Be nice to Danvion, Steve. His continent is about to explode (Mssr. Sarkozy's words, not mine). Who can blame him for being a bit testy.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Dec 2011, 9:08 am

Machiavelli wrote:Be nice to Danvion, Steve. His continent is about to explode (Mssr. Sarkozy's words, not mine). Who can blame him for being a bit testy.


Right. Sorry!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Dec 2011, 12:12 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:If anyone is an expert on lying, it is you.
If I didn't know better, and thought you might be breaking those rules you oh so self-righteously and ostentatiously put in place for yourself , I'd see that as a personal attack. I'll instead treat it as a compliment. It is certainly a positive trait to be able to notice falsehoods when they crop up.

So, I understand you identifying with a fellow traveler in Mr. Holder.
Ahem. I have not defended Holder at all. I don't indentify with him. Rather, I was recalling how similar he is to someone else not a millions miles away from here. Someone who when accused of lying decided to use the 'Clinton' defence of dredging out the dictionary and pretending it meant that lying was not lying if there was no intent.

Like this: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=493&start=150
(I've tidied up the formatting in order to make it clearer what was bing quoted and by whom, as the original is a little confusing:
Doctor Fate wrote:Interesting. I'm sure it will meet the dictionary definition since you are such a "serious" person.

Merriam Webster wrote:]intransitive verb
1
: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2
: to create a false or misleading impression



Danivon wrote:I never asserted that assets were greater than debts and/or liabilities. I didn't even say that if they were there'd be no issue. I was saying that in order to have a full picture, you should consider assets as part of the balance sheet. But you wrote:

Doctor Fate in post 138 wrote:You have no idea if our assets outweigh our debts and obligations, but you assert it as the absolute truth.

I repeat, I did not assert any such thing, and so you did lie.


There was no intent to deceive on my part. So, #1 is out. Did I create a false or misleading impression? That's debatable. Look, if you did not mean to assert that our assets outweigh our debts and/or liabilities, what would be the point of asking the question? Just to "think outside of the box?" Well, it's so far outside of the box that no one in American politics is discussing your idea.

Misinterpreting your intent (allegedly) is not the same as "an intent to deceive." So, #2 is out.

I didn't lie.


Just to make it clear. You did then exactly what you are now criticising Eric Holder and the DoJ for. Claiming that deception is not a lie if there is no intent. When you did it, and I called you on it, you got very very miffed and decided that I'd somehow violated your privacy. I apologise for any violation of your privacy. I am yet to see you apologise for lying, and then for pretending that you weren't.

And I would be perfectly happy to let that old argument lie, were it not for the fact that you have now attacked someone else for the exact same thing.

Now, frankly I don't care how you feel about it, I'm going to quote you some Scripture, something that is wholly appropriate and I hope you'd recognise it:

John 8 [KJV] wrote:1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.


In that spirit, knowing what a true Christian you are, I know that you'd behave more like Jesus than the Pharisees and the scribes and the onlookers queueing up for a good stoning.

Mach - Given that I am blissfully unaware of this upcoming continental apocalypse, despite your best efforts to alert me, you'll be unsurprised to know that I am not at all perturbed by that, or by Steve's hypocrisy.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Dec 2011, 12:22 pm

Do some homework. I think you'll find that passage is not in the best manuscripts. Well, okay, I'll do it for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_ ... n_adultery

Nevertheless, your point is not taken. You do travel with Holder. You are both dishonest and slanderers.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Dec 2011, 1:04 pm

Whatever. You are Mr Pot to Holder's Mr Kettle. Deny it all you want, hide behind your prodigious knowledge of the scriptures, it doesn't alter the point:

You tried to get out of being accused of a lie by claiming that if there's not 'intent to deceive' it is not a lie

You later attacked Eric Holder for doing the same thing.

When pointed out, you think that makes someone else like Holder, not you.

And yet you repeatedly call me a liar.

You sir, are indeed a Pharisee. I don't care if you don't take my point. I don't expect you to, given your track record.

I'm sure this makes me the bad guy again. Go on, flounce off like you did before, promise never to return and then come back in a blaze of self-important pomposity. It was fun back in the Fall.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 09 Dec 2011, 1:36 pm

To every Redscaper with the exception of Doctor Fate:

I am very sorry to have dredged this up again. I wish I were a better person, that I could let it go. I wish that mine and Steve's personal beefs did not spill out and pollute threads. I wish that this lie he told about me could be expunged, and if it can't that he'd have the character and honour to at least accept it rather than to wriggle about on technicalities.

But I am human, and I will err. I will try harder in future.