|
| Posted by: Frick
- [14082314] Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 08:23
Fast & Furious
I hadn't heard about this until a friend mentioned it to me. I'm curious to see what everyone thinks about it, or if they have other articles that they would recommend for more background. |
| | | 1 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 09:03
|
A debacle to be sure. Problem here though with rep Issa vs Holder and the Administration; we have no way of knowing how legit the claim of Exc Priv really is. Neither have we ever had a way of knowing, nor WILL we ever have a way of knowing.
Most indicative to me of the troubles in Washington today, is the fact that Boehner led Republicans off the House floor when Bush was pres and a Dem house wanted to vote holding his Administration in contempt. yet here we are today, in the diametric opposite and yet identical position, and do you think for one second, Boehner is going to lead House Republicans off the floor again?
|
|
| | | 2 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 11:06
|
This is a tough one and huge mess now made even messier by Obama. Yes, he has the right to use executive privilege and certainly has not abused it. So you've got to give the guy some credit for using it with care.
At the same time, this was a huge mess with a lot public information already pretty damning to Mr. Holder. I'm not sure I understand the strategy of using it here.
We don't know what the information being withheld says, but I don't see how this helps anything. From a public opinion standpoint this looks like a cover up and doesn't help. Some may even take a leap that Obama himself was involved but at the very least in the court of public opinion Holder seems to be dead in the water now.
In the legal courts I assume EP is kind of like taking the 5th. You can't hold the silence against him. But it seems like there is already a pretty damning case against Holder.
You would think if any of that information could help, he'd release it. The fact that he isn't releasing just looks really bad for Holder (and in some eyes for obama).
|
|
| | | 3 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 11:59
|
EP is being taken here, under the claim that the docs requested, contain info which would jeopardize people/events which are not related to F&F. Holder claims he offered to meet with Issa, with the docs, and show him why they can not be made public, and that Issa declined such a private meeting. This whole 'contempt' thing, is pure political grandstanding, by the House Republicans.
|
|
| | | 4 | Mith
ID: 18451815 Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 12:35
|
The legitimate issue, which in my opinion deserves to be hammered, is the DOJ's denial that they allowed the straw purchases which wound up going to the cartels, which they later retracted.
But the right's whining over the F&F program itself is just another case of phony or selective outrage. The Bush Administration did exactly the same thing, which none of us have ever heard a peep about from the right.
|
|
| | | 5 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 12:38
|
You are missing a step in there Sarge. Holder and Issa had an agreed upon meeting, but Holder has yet to uphold his end. Holder never showed up. Its been 5 months since that meeting was supposed to take place and that is where the contempt charges are coming from.
Personally, I agree with congress on investigating holder for the F&F. If Issa is doing this for political gains only then he's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I wouldn't tell him to stop. If he were from my district I would remember that come voting time.
|
|
| | | 6 | Great One
ID: 512531316 Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 12:43
|
|
|
| | | 7 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 12:48
|
According to Holder yesterday Khahan, he offered to meet privately with Issa, with the docs, and Issa declined to schedule such a meeting.
|
|
| | | 8 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 15:40
|
Issaa, Boehner decline to meet privately with Eric Holder
Attorney General Eric Holder publicly asked House Speaker John Boehner, House oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley during a Tuesday morning hearing to meet with him privately about Operation Fast and Furious.
But the leading congressional investigators said a House subpoena from October 2011 is still pending and that the ball is in Holder’s court.
“I want to make it very clear that I am offering to sit down, by myself, offering to sit down with the Speaker, with the chairman, with whomever, to try to work our way through this in an attempt to avoid a constitutional crisis and come up with ways — creative ways, perhaps — in which we can make this material available,” Holder told Grassley on Tuesday. “But I’ve got to have a willing partner. I’ve extended my hand and I’m waiting to hear back.”
|
|
| | | 9 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 16:07
|
But the leading congressional investigators said a House subpoena from October 2011 is still pending
a House subpoena from October 2011 is still pending
October 2011 is still pending
Still pending. October.
Offering to sit down now and come up with 'creative ways' seem too little, too late.
Again, maybe (ok probably) Issa is playing politics. But obviously so is Holder. He is grandstanding and roadblocking every step of this investigation. And now that the committee has said,'enough is enough, we're moving forward' Holder suddenly wants to cooperate? But he wants to be creative about it.
But I already know your response, "Well the dems are willing to work it out but the Repubs are blocking anything from happening and refusing to cooperate."
The subpeona has been outstanding for 9 months. Its been 9 months and only after charges of contempt are being leveled is Holder willing to make a public show of cooperation. Too little, too late.
|
|
| | | 10 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 16:44
|
A subpeona for which the Executive Branch is exercising EP, Even so, Holder offered to go over the docs privately.
If Issa was on anything BUT a witch hunt, he'd set the meeting.
|
|
| | | 11 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 16:53
|
And now we're back to the beginning. Again, I'm not judging Obama for using EP. As I noted he's been far from abusive of the power.
But again, it was invoked 9 months later. That's 9 months Holder has spent dodging and ignoring and working against requests for the info.
And now that he doesn't have to turn over everything he's willing to work to show what he can handpick to be examined.
Sorry, Holder has been a disaster from the beginning and wreaks of corruption. This course of action just solidifies in my mind that Holder has no business in the DoJ except as person of interest. He certainly shouldn't be running it.
|
|
| | | 12 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 17:01
|
9 months of trying to work with Issa to find a different way to get him the information he wanted.
This is all self-referential: Holder is acting criminally because he isn't handing over documents Issa is demanding. But is Issa is demanding docs he shouldn't, this doesn't mean Holder is a criminal.
|
|
| | |
| | | 14 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 20:14
|
She may indeed be spot on there PD. I too am not a fan of hers, but that doesnt make her observation/conclusions wrong.
|
|
| | | 15 | Boldwin
ID: 49521221 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 02:48
|
Yes, he has the right to use executive privilege and certainly has not abused it. So you've got to give the guy some credit for using it with care. - Khahan, "board conservative"
Ah, Obama is both claiming he didn't have his hands anywhere near that pie, and that Holder cannot reveal administration interaction without hampering future administration interaction.
And for this non-sequitur you give him praise.
|
|
| | | 16 | Boldwin
ID: 49521221 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 02:54
|
I could almost forgive you that, in view of the outstanding line, 'Holder has no business in the DoJ except as person of interest.' But no, Holder is the one Valerie Jarret is most unwilling to lose, exactly because he is their cover for rampant lawlessness.
|
|
| | | 17 | biliruben
ID: 59551120 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 07:49
|
Personally, I don't see a whole lot of justification for these types of operations, and from what little I know, I think Holder should have shut it down as soon as he inherited it from the Bush years.
Correct me if I'm wrong however, but this wasn't his operation. Holder's mistake was likely simply not getting a handle on an inherited operation and shutting it down quickly. It wasn't like it was his brain-child.
|
|
| | | 18 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 09:30
|
Don't worry Boldwin, nobody is going to confuse me for you. Your title is safe.
|
|
| | | 19 | Boldwin
ID: 1555227 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 11:56
|
The inception of F&F:On October 26, 2009, a teleconference was held at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. to discuss U.S. strategy for combating Mexican drug cartels. Participating in the meeting were Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, ATF Director Kenneth E. Melson, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Michele Leonhart, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Robert Mueller and the top federal prosecutors in the Southwestern border states. They decided on a strategy to identify and eliminate entire arms trafficking networks rather than low-level buyers.[3][28][29] Those at the meeting did not suggest using the "gunwalking" tactic, but ATF supervisors would soon use it in an attempt to achieve the desired goals.[30] The effort, beginning in November, would come to be called Operation Fast and Furious for the successful film franchise, because some of the suspects under investigation operated out of an auto repair store and street raced.[3]
The strategy of targeting high-level individuals, which was already ATF policy, would be implemented by Bill Newell, special agent in charge of ATF's Phoenix field division. In order to accomplish it, the office decided to use "gunwalking" as laid out in a January 2010 briefing paper. This was said to be allowed under ATF regulations and given legal backing by U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona Dennis K. Burke. It was additionally approved and funded by a Justice Department task force.[3] However, long-standing DOJ and ATF policy has required arms shipments to be intercepted.[4][5] - - wiki Operation F&F began eight months after Obama was inaugurated. That there were previous efforts to control the flow...well duh.
2) Holder testified that he hadn't been informed about F&F until a year after he actually had been.
3) Holder is trying to take credit for, and credit the administration for terminating a program he claimed under oath he did not know about until long after the program was terminated.
4) Since every action Holder took in the matter during F&F was by definition something Holder has already perjured himself over, since he claimed under oath before congress not to have been informed...
5) We are asked to believe that executive privilege exists for the benefit of covering over a matter in which 100% of president/DOJ interaction has been perjured before congress.
|
|
| | | 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 12:18
|
Jon Stewart takes Obama to task for claiming Executive Privilege:
|
|
| | | 21 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 12:37
|
What's the difference between operation Wide Receiver that started in 2006 and F and F, other than the name? Sounds like the gun-walking tactics were identical.
|
|
| | | 22 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 13:05
|
Exactly.
|
|
| | | 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 15:45
|
Will the non-rightwing media take the bait again?
About 7 minutes in, Darrell Issa puts forth the idea that the program was intended to promote violence in order for the Administration to push through gun control here in the US.
|
|
| | | 24 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 15:54
|
Yeah, I'm sure THAT was at the top of the Bush Administrations agenda. Gun Control....well, maybe taking Cheney's shotgun away from him SHOULD have been on the agenda, but...
|
|
| | | 25 | Boldwin
ID: 1555227 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 15:56
|
bili
The difference I don't think has been fully explored. The difference is in the quality of the tracking and in when interceptions were made.
It isn't clear to me that anyone in highest eschelons in either administration ever followed thru in the sting at the highest levels of the crime families per the logic of the programs, and thus it looks like the real purpose [at the highest levels] was either to help their friends in the drug cartels or develop the rationale for further gun limitations.
|
|
| | | 26 | Boldwin
ID: 1555227 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 16:01
|
And I finally found the difference I had heard about which I didn't want to mention without attribution....Wide Receiver - When a small number of guns (30-40) were lost due to the malfunctioning GPS tracking devices operation Wide Receiver was immediately aborted and cancelled.
Fast and Furious - Operation continued even after ATF and DOJ lost track of all 2,000 guns sold to Mexican drug cartels. - transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com
|
|
| | | 27 | Boldwin
ID: 1555227 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 16:07
|
I think that link is so important it needs to be used in full.hn Derbyshire Friday, June 22, 2012 Differences between Bush's "Wide Receiver" and Obama's "Fast & Furious" explained for stupid liberals: Wide Receiver - The number of guns used in the operation from the beginning until the end of the operation was 300 Fast & Furious - The number of guns used in the operation from the beginning until the end of the operation was 2,000
Wide Receiver - Guns were traced with miniature GPS devices inserted inside the guns Fast & Furious - No tracking devices were used
Wide Receiver - ATF agents were ordered to follow the gun smugglers from the gun store to the US/Mexico border. Fast & Furious - ATF agents were ordered to stand down and not follow the gun smugglers after they left the gun store
Wide Receiver - Mexican army and police was in the loop about Wide Receiver. They took over the surveillance of the gun smugglers after they crossed with the guns in Mexico. Fast & Furious - Mexican authorities were kept in the dark by the ATF and the US DOJ. They had no idea about Fast & Furious and the fact that guns provided to gun smugglers by the American authorities were "walked" in Mexico into the hands of drug cartel murderers.
Wide Receiver - When a small number of guns (30-40) were lost due to the malfunctioning GPS tracking devices operation Wide Receiver was immediately aborted and cancelled Fast and Furious - Operation continued even after ATF and DOJ lost track of all 2,000 guns sold to Mexican drug cartels
Wide Receiver - The operation was planned in such a way the gun smugglers and their cargo were kept under surveillance step by step, from the gun store to the US/Mexico border, across the border into Mexico and to their final destination: the hands of the drug cartel killers. This could have led to arrests made in joint operations by the Mexican authorities and DEA and ATF agents. Fast & Furious - The operation was planned to let the guns go without any surveillance. Guns were supposed to be recovered at the murder scenes. One of the 150+ murder scenes where Fast & Furious guns were recovered was that of US border patrol agent Brian Terry. So far DOJ and ATF didn't came with any explanation about how they were planning to make arrests of the drug cartel murderers BEFORE THEY KILLED PEOPLE with the Fast & Furious guns, and how they were supposed to do those arrest in Mexico without the Mexican authorities knowing anything about this operation.
|
|
| | | 28 | Tree
ID: 05142215 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 16:18
|
because, of course, the blog called "Transsylvania Phoenix" is a known expert on this matter.
especially when the heading of the entry refers to "stupid liberals".
perhaps for a moron, that site is the infallible truth. for those with common sense, it's just another blog.
|
|
| | | 29 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 16:35
|
You could follow this story on the NBC nightly news where up until this week there has been a total of 8 seconds of coverage. Since the beginning. Total. A year and a half. Or you can learn about it in other ways.
|
|
| | | 30 | Boldwin
ID: 1555227 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 16:39
|
You gotta love the theme of the blog:
"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy." John Derbyshire
There are certainly very specific charges made therein, which no one here besides myself had any idea of. Prove them wrong and while you are at it, explain why you think the administration is willing to risk contempt of congress which carries with it the potential of prison time.
|
|
| | | 31 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 16:45
|
I am not defending either WR or FF. I think both were poor executions of good intentions. That said,
Wide Receiver - ATF agents were ordered to follow the gun smugglers from the gun store to the US/Mexico border. Fast & Furious - ATF agents were ordered to stand down and not follow the gun smugglers after they left the gun store
There is no practical difference between these two directives. The mules being watched, were never suspect of moving these weapons into the US black market.
Wide Receiver - Mexican army and police was in the loop about Wide Receiver. They took over the surveillance of the gun smugglers after they crossed with the guns in Mexico. Fast & Furious - Mexican authorities were kept in the dark by the ATF and the US DOJ. They had no idea about Fast & Furious and the fact that guns provided to gun smugglers by the American authorities were "walked" in Mexico into the hands of drug cartel murderers.
In all honesty, the difference here is not as great as one would like to expect. The extent to which Mexican LE and Military has been infiltrated and compromised BY the cartels, is fairly well known, and widely recognized. *IS* there a difference between the two procedures? Yes. Yes it a SUBSTANTIAL difference? Practicality, makes me think not.
Wide Receiver - The operation was planned in such a way the gun smugglers and their cargo were kept under surveillance step by step, from the gun store to the US/Mexico border, across the border into Mexico and to their final destination: the hands of the drug cartel killers. This could have led to arrests made in joint operations by the Mexican authorities and DEA and ATF agents.
COULD have, but did not. Hence, no practical difference here either.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 34 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 17:34
|
If it doesn't include the phrase "Darrel Issa's overreach" then it isn't truthful.
|
|
| | | 35 | Boldwin
ID: 1555227 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 17:35
|
Now see, I leave you guys alone for a week and you miss all the important details and the phony token conservative starts stroking Obama.
How am I supposed to retire ever?
B7 can't do it alone.
|
|
| | | 36 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 18:33
|
the phony token conservative starts stroking Obama..
Where did you start stroking Obama?
|
|
| | | 37 | Mith
ID: 195122218 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 19:17
|
Rushbo:
Wide Receiver was a small scale law enforcement gun smuggling interdiction effort that involved Phoenix -- I mistakenly said Tucson yesterday -- involved Phoenix-based ATF agents working in conjunction with Mexican law enforcement. ATF supervisors and justice department prosecutors in Arizona were trying to build a case against a violent group of Mexican drug smugglers. Fast and Furious was an effort to build a case against American gun dealers and the Second Amendment. That's the stark difference.
|
|
| | | 38 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 19:34
|
B7 can't do it alone.
I might agree with B7 on many major issues, but he doesn't throw up the FOX meme-of-the-day and defend it to the death despite all evidence.
On this issue, it is clear that the FOXies want the Obama administration to turn over evidence that F&F was simply a smokescreen to take away gun rights. And they won't be satisfied until they get it.
|
|
| | | 39 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 01:19
|
Wide Receiver - When a small number of guns (30-40) were lost due to the malfunctioning GPS tracking devices operation Wide Receiver was immediately aborted and cancelled
This is not true according to the wiki link that B and I both posted. It claims that the overwhelming majority of the 450 guns were lost once they went over the border. And it also says the operation was not aborted until 2009 - by President Obama.
|
|
| | | 41 | Boldwin
ID: 34555233 Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 04:58
|
C'mon, MITH. Obama's plan didn't even try to track them. They even insisted agents refrain from tracking them. Taking a microscope to how well Wide Receiver did at tracking is silly at best, deceptive and misleading at worst.
Wiki states:2 Operations
2.1 2006-2007: Operation Wide Receiver and other probes 2.2 2009-2011: Operation Fast and Furious In one place and:Indictments began in 2010, over three years after Wide Receiver concluded. How do you get "the operation was not aborted until 2009 - by President Obama. out of that? I control-F'ed every instance of the term 2009 in that wiki entry and in not one does it suggest Wide Receiver was still active in 2009 and that Obama terminated the program.
But you keep leaning on that wishful thinking.
|
|
| | | 42 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 09:47
|
wishful thinking
Please. This was the paragraph I misread:At the time, under the Bush administration Department of Justice (DOJ), no arrests or indictments were made. After President Barack Obama took office in 2009, the DOJ reviewed Wide Receiver and found that guns had been allowed into the hands of suspected gun traffickers. Indictments began in 2010, over three years after Wide Receiver concluded. As of October 4, 2011, nine people had been charged with making false statements in acquisition of firearms and illicit transfer, shipment or delivery of firearms.[18] As of November, charges against one defendant had been dropped; five of them had pled guilty, and one had been sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Two of them remained fugitives. You were also way off claiming only a dozen guns were lost - which is what a smaller Bush-era probe found.. Almost all of the 450 guns sold in OWS were lost.
According to Wiki, OFF was a much more ambitious plan, attempting to take down large operations rather than the small fish that it says OWS went after.
Don't think that means I'm excusing it. There's only one person in this thread attempting a case that either of those operations wasn't so bad.
|
|
| | | 43 | Boldwin
ID: 30553239 Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:01
|
There's only one person in this thread attempting a case that either of those operations wasn't so bad.
I spose in your world accusing the Bush family of being in a drug dealing dynasty going back before the Boxer Rebellion, of placing their two sons as governor of two states at the heart of the drug smuggling into this country, and then of their 2nd president setting up DEA agents and sending them to prison as warnings to other DEA agents not to do their job, and then running a leaky program that armed a drug cartel civil war in Mexico...
...constitutes a defense of the Bush family.
I love the way liberals think. I could watch them perform for hours.
|
|
| | | 44 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:13
|
I don't think you care about defending President Bush. I think you are compelled to defend selective outrage charges against the right and that blaming Obama is your instinctive go-to option play.
I'm pretty sure it's mostly instinct as opposed to anything related to tempered reason because the last time F&F came up here you went out of your way to say Obama had no part of it and claimed the masons were responsible. :/
|
|
| | | 45 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:24
|
Holder is a Mason?
|
|
| | | 46 | Boldwin
ID: 30553239 Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:35
|
I don't think you care about defending President Bush.
See how much progress we've made?
|
|
| | | 47 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 11:45
|
re 45 ... shhhhhh
|
|
| | | 48 | Boldwin
ID: 40502313 Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 19:46
|
Did you know Sarge isn't?
Me neither.
|
|
| | | 49 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Sat, Jun 23, 2012, 20:08
|
lol knew that would get ya.
|
|
| | | 50 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 11:41
|
In #29, B7 laments that because NBC news has failed to cover this story, one must learn about it in other ways.
It appears that the main other way turns out to that bastion of the liberal MSM, CBS News.
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
This CBS investigation is the link used by FOX to claim Holder's DOJ Used 'Fast and Furious' to Justify New 2nd Amendment Crackdown.
Except the CBS investigation doesn't mention the 2nd amendment. Fox, and every other outlet(Rush Limbaugh) who are using the CBS investigation as a basis for claims of an attack on the 2nd amendment, are using that emotional headline for effect, rather than in the interest of accuracy.
Now, if the debate centers on what constitutes an assault on the 2nd amndment, so be it. The CBS investigation reveals that the ATF hoped to use the sting to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
Obviously, those who want no gun regulation or control of any kind are going to point to a demand for tracing information as an assault on the 2nd amendment, even though tracing information doesn't restrict a person's right tp bear arms, any more that requiring a person to register their car restricts that person's right to own a car.
As to the wisdom of the "Fast and Furious" operation and the execution, or lack thereof, it appears to have been a very poorly structured operation with lousy oversight and questionable directives and motives. Calls for Holder's resignation seem legitimate. Claims that F&F was an attempt to subvert the 2nd amendment are not legitimate.
|
|
| | | 51 | Boldwin
ID: 37582323 Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 18:02
|
Ah, so we can safely ignore a left-wing agenda item that's been there my entire lifetime. Good to know. I feel much better now. Thank goodness I have you here to reassure me.
|
|
| | | 52 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 21:34
|
Not just us. Reality.
|
|
| | | 53 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Mon, Jun 25, 2012, 01:37
|
Not just us. Reality.
you might need to provide him with the definition of that last word.
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 56 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 01:00
|
Soledad Obrien piece on CNN tonight, re a writer from Fortune I think it was....says 5 BATF Agents say there was NO "gun walking", but rather AZ laws are so soft, they had no authority TO arrest the buyers. That they wanted to, that they asked to, and that prosecutors told them no. But the weapons were not purchased with Govt funds.
|
|
| | |
| | | 58 | Boldwin
ID: 225162520 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 04:23
|
but rather AZ laws are so soft
Just listen to yourselves.
|
|
| | | 59 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 09:10
|
Just listen to yourselves
What does that mean? You think 18 year old kids with no visible means of support walk into a gun store and buy 100 rifles, then go into the parking lot and resell them to Jose and Pablo is tough gun control?
The NRA is an evil organization that cares nothing about the health and safety of American citizens.
|
|
| | | 60 | Frick
ID: 14082314 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 09:30
|
The NRA also looks at smoking bans that took gradual steps until smoking is illegal in almost every location in some states. They aren't willing to concede anything for fear that the first step that it will lead to many more.
I think they are wrong, but I can see their position.
|
|
| | | 61 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 11:46
|
Their position is extreme, and costs the lives of people. There is no doubt that the terror in Mexico is kept up as a direct result of lax American gun laws.
|
|
| | | 62 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 12:56
|
so your position is that our gun laws have to be more restrictive because Mexico can not govern its own country?
|
|
| | | 63 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 12:58
|
Nope. I didn't say anything about that. I believe our own lax gun laws contribute to gang violence in Mexico and I believe that is self-evident. I haven't offered any solution or suggested any change to our own laws.
|
|
| | | 64 | Frick
ID: 14082314 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 13:00
|
I agree that the position is extreme and as I said, I think it is wrong.
But, do you agree that there is some validity to my point that they are afraid that agreeing to the first step of gun control will lead to more and more gun control laws, similar to the banning of smoking?
|
|
| | | 65 | Frick
ID: 14082314 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 13:01
|
Thank you for the link in 54. That's what I was looking for when I originally started the thread.
|
|
| | | 66 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 13:05
|
heh, no wonder that piece seemed familiar. lol PD had already linked it. Thought I'd seen it somewhere. :/
|
|
| | | 67 | Boldwin
ID: 225162520 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 13:12
|
OK, just to sum up...
The CBS investigation reveals that the ATF hoped to use the sting to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". - PV#50
There is no doubt that the terror in Mexico is kept up as a direct result of lax American gun laws. - PD
...
...but only a FOX News viewer would believe liberals who see excuses to gun-grab everywhere, planned F&F for the sole purpose of gun-grabbing and vilifying the state of existing gun laws and gun dealers.
|
|
| | | 68 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 14:38
|
Just to sum up
The state of existing gun laws in Arizona need to be villified because many of the gun dealers in the state are not gun dealers in a legitimate sense.
Of course Boldwin doesn't respond to the fact that a kid can buy 100 rifles then turn around in the parking lot and give them to the cartels. That would take cognizant examination of the reality, which is foreign to the perpetually tunnel-visioned.
|
|
| | | 69 | Boldwin
ID: 225162520 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 18:47
|
Well actually the gun dealers in those F&F straw purchases called the BATF and were told to go ahead with the deals anyway.
|
|
| | | 70 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 20:52
|
Well, actually the BATF couldn't arrest anybody because no law had been broken according to NRA-owned federal prosecutors in Arizona.
By January 2010 the agents had identified 20 suspects who had paid some $350,000 in cash for more than 650 guns. According to Rep. Issa's congressional committee, Group VII had enough evidence to make arrests and close the case then.
In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurley's judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona. "[P]urchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful," Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorney's then–criminal chief in Arizona would later write. "Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful unless the United States can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm is intended to be used to commit a crime."
It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party, sufficient evidence to seize them. A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn't necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn't mean the initial purchase had been illegal. To these prosecutors, the pattern proved little. Instead, agents needed to link specific evidence of intent to commit a crime to each gun they wanted to seize.
Can anyone think of a reason why the ATF hoped to use the sting to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3"?
Well, anyone besides rabid NRA supporters and those who consider the SEIU the "enemy," but want the most brutal criminals in the Western Hemisphere unfettered access to whatever arsenal they can drive away with, paid for by Americans' insatiable appetite for pot, coke, meth and heroin.
|
|
| | | 71 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Jun 28, 2012, 21:04
|
Rep Micah, hammered last night by Soledad and again this afternoon bu John King; is ignoring that the guns were not bought with taxpayer money (as he keeps insisting), that the guns were not "walked" BY the ATF but indeed transferred legally, and continues with his purely partisan and highly transparent effort, to "hold accountable all involved". (IOW, hang some Democrats)
This House, with its Tea Party "waaaah, me first and only" majority, is a national embarrassment.
|
|
|
|