• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Fast & Furious' operation: Justice probe clears Eric Holder

What was that? I couldn't hear you over the gnashing of teeth coming from the conspiracy brigade! :lol:

An internal investigation confirms that Holder doesn't have a clue what's going on right under his nose? There's something to bragg about. :lamo
 
Well if the Fast and Furious outrage was about justice sure...everybody agrees with the outcome and glad the issue was brought up.

This tying it to Obama is the ginned up portion.

Yeah! Obama is just the head honcho. How could he have any responsibility?
 
That video showed that Eric Holder was accused of these things, however, Holder was not given a chance to respond. Now that the independent investigation clears Holder of all wrong doing, it is clear that these aligations are wrong as well. I can see many reasons why the documents do not need to be released to the public.

What independent investigation? There wasn't an independent investigation. There was an internal investigation within the DOJ. This means that Holder's buddies and employees have examined the documents and drew their own conclusions. Ofc they found their boss and friend innocent of any wrongdoing. And also, the video goes far enough to let Holder finish what he had to say which was something like this: senator, you are wrong on most of the things you said and I will not bother to respond any further. That was it. All of it. Some defense. He should have taken the 5th.

Look. It's just disgraceful. Congress asks about details regarding F&F to Holder... Holder says he doesn't know anything about it. 8 months later... due to public pressure because of the border patrol agent was killed... he send another text that says that he does know something about it and that they do have F&F. Then he keeps going over for how long he knew about it when Holder himself is interviewed. He says first that he knew about it a few weeks before the official statement which they acknowledged it... then a few months... then he shifts the blame saying that only his assistant knew about.it... or some other bull****. It's a disgrace. A public disgrace and then... to top it all off, when Holder refused to surrender all documentation requested by the Congress, Obama said: **** you all, I'm keeping this bitch... and the circuss continued for 2 years.
It's a ****fest.

Now, there are many reasons why the government would not release documentation. Mainly... because they would show how incompetent they were in handling the whole thing. Or it would incriminate some people. Bush did the same in 2007. He refused to release a lot of documents with his gun walking program that also failed... but at least that one was done in collaboration with the Mexican government. This one was done behind the Mexican government. Anyway... the democrats gave a festival of incrimination on the bush administration back then and Obama himself was a clear advocate for full transparency because it would imply some shady deals otherwise. I agree, Bush should have released the documents because they aren't his private property. The US taxpayers paid for all of it. The operation, the planning, the people and they have paid the price of its failure... just like in this case. It's the same. The difference is that Obama vowed full transparency when he ran for elections... because the Bush administration was so secretive. This is just another case when he broke his word in this regard.
 
Much as there were those who insisted there was no scandal at all.

There are two differen aspects to Fast and Furious.

The first being a dead border agent and guns being funneled to Mexican drug cartels.

I don't know of many people that believed that wasnt' a scandal.

The other aspect was trying to tie it to the Obama administration via Eric Holder. That's the aspect that people thought was a political witch hunt....and as Conservatives even in this thread are saying..."believe me not your lying eyes". People on the right want a scandal so bad to tie to the administration that facts don't matter.
 
There are two differen aspects to Fast and Furious.

The first being a dead border agent and guns being funneled to Mexican drug cartels.

I don't know of many people that believed that wasnt' a scandal.

There were those who denied it happened.


The other aspect was trying to tie it to the Obama administration via Eric Holder.

It's certainly tied to Holder -- in terms of mismanagement and incompetence -- as even the report says.

If it's in the Justice Department under Obama, it's already tied to Obama. How could it not be? Even if he DIDN'T refer to to departments and cabinet secretaries as "my" all the time, the whole shebang IS under him. Recall that he invoked Executive Privilege to protect Holder. How is this so if what goes on in Justice is not tied to the President?
 
They "walked" them, meaning they allowed illegal sale to dealers they knew would supply the cartels. They may as well have sold the guns themselves.

Actually, those sales were not illegal under Arizona law. The ATF could only watch the purhcases to see where they lead. This is why it only happened in Arizona. They have very laxed gun laws and even if the ATF has arrested someone, the prosicutors would have had a hard time making a charge stick. The ATF simply tried to watch to see if these guns crossed the boarder, which would be illegal. However, once the guns were sold, it was hard to keep track of them.
 
It's certainly tied to Holder -- in terms of mismanagement and incompetence -- as even the report says.

If it's in the Justice Department under Obama, it's already tied to Obama. How could it not be? Even if he DIDN'T refer to to departments and cabinet secretaries as "my" all the time, the whole shebang IS under him. Recall that he invoked Executive Privilege to protect Holder. How is this so if what goes on in Justice is not tied to the President?

There's a drastic difference from something happening in a field office in Arizona and it being managed by Eric Holder. The right was salivating at the idea of Eric Holder managing it. The fact is...it's exactly what most media sources reported in the first place...it's a program that was started before Obama took office and continued after Obama was swore in. End of story and not nearly as sensational as you would think by all the graphics and screaming people on Fox News.

So now invoking Executive Privilage is some sign of guilt? The Department of Justice provided over 7,600 page of documents as well as making numerous officials available for questioning. Eric Holder went to Congress multiple times to testify in front of the committee. It was a committe on the search for a scandal not justice or the truth.
 
Actually, those sales were not illegal under Arizona law. The ATF could only watch the purhcases to see where they lead. This is why it only happened in Arizona. They have very laxed gun laws and even if the ATF has arrested someone, the prosicutors would have had a hard time making a charge stick. The ATF simply tried to watch to see if these guns crossed the boarder, which would be illegal. However, once the guns were sold, it was hard to keep track of them.

They failed to stop the sale of firearms to straw buyers. Straw purchase is illegal in every state, and as a result of the ATF's inaction and stupidity, hundreds of people are dead. That's not the simple little oversight you're trying to brush this off as. It's criminal negligence resulting in a high body count, which is what the ATF is best at.
 
The fact is...it's exactly what most media sources reported in the first place...it's a program that was started before Obama took office and continued after Obama was swore in.

Where do you get that? Operation Fast and Furious, which is what's in question here, was an original operation created by Holder's ATF in 2009.


So now invoking Executive Privilage is some sign of guilt?

No. It's a sign that the Dept of Justice is the President's responsibility. If you're right, you don't have to twist.
 
No. It's a sign that the Dept of Justice is the President's responsibility. If you're right, you don't have to twist.
Or maybe the answer they gave Congress was correct....that the documents requested were currently relevant to ongoing criminal investigations.
Where do you get that? Operation Fast and Furious, which is what's in question here, was an original operation created by Holder's ATF in 2009
The tactics date back to 2006...different name same program same branch running it.
 
Or maybe the answer they gave Congress was correct....that the documents requested were currently relevant to ongoing criminal investigations

from the ig report:

"the records the white house produced did not contain any communications between newell and oreilly that referred to operation fast and furious by name, and the communications that referred to the 'large OCDETF case'--which was operation fast and furious--did not include any information about the case strategy or the tactics agents were using to conduct the investigation"

link above

if there's no coverup, why look so much like you're covering up?
 
Or maybe the answer they gave Congress was correct....that the documents requested were currently relevant to ongoing criminal investigations.

You're attempting to deflect again, even after your error was pointed out.

It's not about what was protected. It's about the Dept of Justice being the responsibility of the President.

The tactics date back to 2006...different name same program same branch running it.

Dude. Nothing under investigation happened under the previous Administration. Bush is gone. Let it go.

Really, you'd think Bush never left office, and there's been no new Administration for the last (nearly) four years. Or that none of them had any choice but to do exactly what Bush was doing, even though they'll tell you they were elected specifically to reverse all of it.
 
You're attempting to deflect again, even after your error was pointed out.

It's not about what was protected. It's about the Dept of Justice being the responsibility of the President
I'm not deflecting...I'm operating under the assumption that we have a large bureacracy that for the most part is autonomous. That President Obama...or President Bush...or President Clinton...going back to all the modern Presidents are unaware of the majority of things that happen under their watch.

When the situation was reported and people became aware of what was taking place was changes made? Yes. Was the operation ended? Yes.

Dude. Nothing under investigation happened under the previous Administration. Bush is gone. Let it go.
As I stated above....no President rolls in and stops government long enough to go through every field office and operation in every sector of government and condones ore repeals policies. It would be chaos. For the most part...government goes on no matter who is the President and does their best to fullfill their mission. This policy origionated under the Bush administration and wasn't ended by the Obama administration until the death of the agent.

Really, you'd think Bush never left office, and there's been no new Administration for the last (nearly) four years. Or that none of them had any choice but to do exactly what Bush was doing, even though they'll tell you they were elected specifically to reverse all of it.

The incident took place his first year in office! The fact he's now been in nearly 4 years is irrelevant. This idea that everything changes under a new President is bunk. They are kind of busy!
 
What documents did Obama hold back from the congressional hearing? Holder handed over everything and then some. Issa wanted something that didn't exist. Now that Holder has been cleared, we know Issa was just playing politics by trying to drum up a scandal where there was none.

He handed over about 7k of over 112k requested. That is a long way from everything.
 
I'm not deflecting...I'm operating under the assumption that we have a large bureacracy that for the most part is autonomous. That President Obama...or President Bush...or President Clinton...going back to all the modern Presidents are unaware of the majority of things that happen under their watch.

When the situation was reported and people became aware of what was taking place was changes made? Yes. Was the operation ended? Yes.

You keep saying all of this stuff as though it has relevance to the point I made. This is answering the point you wish I made, rather than answering the point I actually did.

And it's the third time you've done it.


As I stated above....no President rolls in and stops government long enough to go through every field office and operation in every sector of government and condones ore repeals policies. It would be chaos. For the most part...government goes on no matter who is the President and does their best to fullfill their mission. This policy origionated under the Bush administration and wasn't ended by the Obama administration until the death of the agent.

No, it didn't. Fast and Furious was initiated in 2009. That you're having a problem owning up to that speaks volumes.


The incident took place his first year in office! The fact he's now been in nearly 4 years is irrelevant. This idea that everything changes under a new President is bunk. They are kind of busy!

Thank you for at least sort of acknowledging that it didn't happen under Bush.

The rest of this is laughable, and aimed solely at giving the Obama Administration a pass for those things which you find inconvenient. Under this reasoning, no one's responsible for anything.
 
You keep saying all of this stuff as though it has relevance to the point I made. This is answering the point you wish I made, rather than answering the point I actually did.
So what's your point. All I'm getting is that it was an ATF office that was running the program. The ATF office is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. The head of the Department of Justice is appointed by the President. Therefore everything done in any ATF office is a result of the President. If I'm wrong clarify. If that's the point you were making I don't see how my point was irrelevant.

No, it didn't. Fast and Furious was initiated in 2009. That you're having a problem owning up to that speaks volumes.
Once again...please detail me the differences between Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver. The only difference I can see is one was done under Bush...the other by Obama. Same office, same tactic.

Thank you for at least sort of acknowledging that it didn't happen under Bush.

The rest of this is laughable, and aimed solely at giving the Obama Administration a pass for those things which you find inconvenient. Under this reasoning, no one's responsible for anything.

Conservative reasoning...something that happens in a branch office of the ATF in Arizona...Obama's fault. A major terrorists attack on US soil? Nobody's fault...just systematic problems with the bureacracy. It's a load of horse**** honestly. I'm just glad the elctorate isn't as blind.
 
You keep saying all of this stuff as though it has relevance to the point I made. This is answering the point you wish I made, rather than answering the point I actually did.

And it's the third time you've done it.




No, it didn't. Fast and Furious was initiated in 2009. That you're having a problem owning up to that speaks volumes.




Thank you for at least sort of acknowledging that it didn't happen under Bush.

The rest of this is laughable, and aimed solely at giving the Obama Administration a pass for those things which you find inconvenient. Under this reasoning, no one's responsible for anything.

If the system has become so large that it is autonomous and information really is not getting to those who should know about it it needs to be changed and this program highlights that. It is illegal for a person to use a "spring trap" for home defense, a device or system that can trigger without oversight such as a shotgun pointed at a door that will fire if the door is open. Th reasoning is rather obvious. This program resulted in many deaths. Not fixing a system like this is the same as that shotgun. It is indiscriminate killing and should be dealt with strongly whether it is an individual or a government program.
 
If the system has become so large that it is autonomous and information really is not getting to those who should know about it it needs to be changed and this program highlights that. It is illegal for a person to use a "spring trap" for home defense, a device or system that can trigger without oversight such as a shotgun pointed at a door that will fire if the door is open. Th reasoning is rather obvious. This program resulted in many deaths. Not fixing a system like this is the same as that shotgun. It is indiscriminate killing and should be dealt with strongly whether it is an individual or a government program.

Well it is different than a shotgun leveled at the door. These are human beings that are making these decisions at the ground level.

It will also happen in any large entity. It wasn't but a couple of months ago that a trader at Chase...which is widely believed one of the best ran banks had a trader that lost the company 6 billion dollars.

No entity is infaliable. The difference between government and Wal Mart is that government is in charge of life and death situations and screw ups can cost lives. The stakes are higher but it's still people in charge and it still can only operate with some sort of autonomy granted to the parts of the big machine.
 
So what's your point.

My point was that the Dept of Justice falls under the responsibility of the President, and thus, any scandal which happens in it is a scandal of the Administration, and therefore, yes indeed, it reflects on the President.

No one said Obama was personally involved in it.


Once again...please detail me the differences between Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver. The only difference I can see is one was done under Bush...the other by Obama. Same office, same tactic.

Wide Receiver wasn't under investigation. Fast and Furious did not need to be initiated, yet it was. You cannot blame the Bush administration here.

If you want to make the argument that Wide Receiver should have received the same attention, then that's a different argument, which does not absolve a thing which happened in Fast and Furious. Of course, all it really does is the usual thing -- defending the Obama Administration by saying the Worst Administration Ever (TM) did the same thing, once again making the Obama Administration ALSO the Worst Administration Ever (TM). I really don't know where you think it gets you.


Conservative reasoning...something that happens in a branch office of the ATF in Arizona...Obama's fault. A major terrorists attack on US soil? Nobody's fault...just systematic problems with the bureacracy. It's a load of horse**** honestly. I'm just glad the elctorate isn't as blind.

Now you're seriously deflecting. I didn't say anything about Bush. Bush is gone. Let him go.
 
No entity is infaliable. The difference between government and Wal Mart is that government is in charge of life and death situations and screw ups can cost lives.
The problem is that the ATF has been killing through incompetence, extortion, lies, and coercion for a very long time. Since at least 1990, the ATF has been plagued with fatal scandals.
 
The problem is that the ATF has been killing through incompetence, extortion, lies, and coercion for a very long time. Since at least 1990, the ATF has been plagued with fatal scandals.

That may be the case...maybe the ATF needs to be radically changed or abolished and I don't know.
 
Back
Top Bottom