Operation Fast and Furious about to hit the fan

[Uncle Sherm]

I thought this would hold off until it blew up in Obama's face during his second term, but apparently not.

Transparency!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/20/politics/ ... index.html

[Thinine]

This will have even less impact than Clinton's impeachment. It's just one more hammer with which to get documents.

[Gretyl]

So you believe there's absolutely nothing to Holder's defense that he believes he's not legally permitted to share all of the requested documents, Sherm?

[Uncle Sherm]

This will have even less impact than Clinton's impeachment. It's just one more hammer with which to get documents.

Why should it require a hammer?

So you believe there's absolutely nothing to Holder's defense that he believes he's not legally permitted to share all of the requested documents, Sherm?

Yes. There is absolutely NOTHING to the defense that any member of the executive branch can withhold documents from the congress. Even if this was a matter of national defense, that claim would be questionable at best.

[Uncle Sherm]

On Wednesday morning, Deputy Attorney General James Cole said in a letter to Mr. Issa that the president was claiming privilege over the documents because their disclosure would chill the candor of future internal deliberations.

The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a District Court will be obliged to provide.

Note that Obama didn't even link his claim to a public interest.

[Thinine]

Submission to the subcommittee is not in camera.

[Uncle Sherm]

Submission to the subcommittee is not in camera.

Bullshit. Congressional committees meet in camera all the time, and it is just as easy to arrange meetings between congress and executive branch officials behind closed doors as it is a district court.

Obama's executive priviledge claim here is weaker than Nixon's, especially considering the violent nature of the crimes committed.

[Thinine]

Let me rephrase. Submission of this paperwork to this subcommittee is not in camera. I guarantee that it would leak to Fox News and The Wall Street Journal within the day.

[Uncle Sherm]

Let me rephrase. Submission of this paperwork to this subcommittee is not in camera. I guarantee that it would leak to Fox News and The Wall Street Journal within the day.

I don't think the "Republicans can't be trusted" argument has ever held up in court. A closed meeting of a congressional committee is every bit as in camera as the standard applied by the Supreme Court to the District Court judge when Nixon made this argument.

And again, Nixon's argument at least included some concern for the public's well-being. The Obama Administration hasn't done that. They've already given guns to violent drug cartels, so papers that outline why they told congress it didn't happen aren't going to endanger the public. These are not documents that directly outline the operation itself, these are documents that outline why the Justice Department told Congress the operation didn't take place. Either it was an honest mistake or an attempt at covering someone's ass, and an honest mistake wouldn't warrant this level of secrecy.

[Gretyl]

Hey look, there the story goes, having flashed in the pan.

[Thinine]

There will still be a full vote on the contempt charge, so it isn't quite over yet. I just found this though: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2 ... ous-truth/ It paints a much more reasonable picture of what really happened.

[Gretyl]

more reasonable doesn't have to mean it's more truthful

[MarcusAurelius]

ha, well put.

[Thinine]

more reasonable doesn't have to mean it's more truthful

True. At the least it's much more evidence based than the other stories I've seen. It even includes the full versions of various memos that were cited partially before to reveal just how slanted the previous interpretations had been.

[Uncle Sherm]

more reasonable doesn't have to mean it's more truthful

True. At the least it's much more evidence based than the other stories I've seen. It even includes the full versions of various memos that were cited partially before to reveal just how slanted the previous interpretations had been.

All that does is paint the picture of a botched operation. We already knew that much. The contempt vote is about why the Justice Department said in February that guns were not allowed to walk, then in December changed their mind and said they were. The internal memos during those 10 months are what Issa's committee wants access to.

The executive branch says it is because it would affect "the candor of future internal deliberations."

[Thinine]

Christ Sherm, if you're not even going to try and understand what you read, what's the point? February's memo was the simple truth of the matter: Fast and Furious wasn't a program of letting guns walk and no program with those actual tactics was approved or known to exist. Far be it for the truth to settle the matter, come 10 months later and a different response is required to satisfy the republicans. So rather than continue with the simple truth, it was withdrawn and a more complex picture was painted: guns, in effect, walked across the border, in that various agencies knew they were being purchased for that exact goal. The agencies didn't allow or encourage these actions so much as they were prevented from acting due to the lack of support from the local prosecutors. Prosecutors which have since resigned.

Besides which, executive privilege has always been about shielding the internal functioning of the executive branch from unwarranted investigation. Until there's an overriding interest of justice relevant to the case, the executive can claim privilege over nearly anything. And it's up to the investigating agent to prove that such an interest exists, not the executive to prove that it doesn't. So really Sherm, what do you think is going on here? What interest of justice are you looking to be served by revealing documentation of the internal and largely political deliberations of the DoJ?

[Uncle Sherm]

Christ Sherm, if you're not even going to try and understand what you read, what's the point? February's memo was the simple truth of the matter: Fast and Furious wasn't a program of letting guns walk and no program with those actual tactics was approved or known to exist. Far be it for the truth to settle the matter, come 10 months later and a different response is required to satisfy the republicans. So rather than continue with the simple truth, it was withdrawn and a more complex picture was painted: guns, in effect, walked across the border, in that various agencies knew they were being purchased for that exact goal. The agencies didn't allow or encourage these actions so much as they were prevented from acting due to the lack of support from the local prosecutors. Prosecutors which have since resigned.

Holder himself testified to the senate that the memo sent in February was not accurate. Several agents involved also testified that they were ordered by superiors to allow the guns to walk.

Besides which, executive privilege has always been about shielding the internal functioning of the executive branch from unwarranted investigation. Until there's an overriding interest of justice relevant to the case, the executive can claim privilege over nearly anything. And it's up to the investigating agent to prove that such an interest exists, not the executive to prove that it doesn't. So really Sherm, what do you think is going on here? What interest of justice are you looking to be served by revealing documentation of the internal and largely political deliberations of the DoJ?

The interest of justice is the appointed officials being held accountable for misleading, intentionally or otherwise, the congressional committees in place for this exact purpose. The executive can claim privilege for nearly anything, but it doesn't follow that it must be granted. I already posted the decision on the matter when Nixon tried that argument.

[Thinine]

Christ Sherm, if you're not even going to try and understand what you read, what's the point? February's memo was the simple truth of the matter: Fast and Furious wasn't a program of letting guns walk and no program with those actual tactics was approved or known to exist. Far be it for the truth to settle the matter, come 10 months later and a different response is required to satisfy the republicans. So rather than continue with the simple truth, it was withdrawn and a more complex picture was painted: guns, in effect, walked across the border, in that various agencies knew they were being purchased for that exact goal. The agencies didn't allow or encourage these actions so much as they were prevented from acting due to the lack of support from the local prosecutors. Prosecutors which have since resigned.

Holder himself testified to the senate that the memo sent in February was not accurate. Several agents involved also testified that they were ordered by superiors to allow the guns to walk.

Did you read the article Sherm? Guns walked, and agents were told not to act when they saw it happening. That's because the local prosecutors wouldn't support them if they did and the prosecutors were the ones in charge of the F&F operation. F&F didn't walk guns itself, it didn't pay people to walk guns, and the only instance in which an agent was even semidirectly involved in walking was when one went rogue and did it without orders. Note that that agent is the one who testified and the guns he lost were not the ones used to kill Agent Terry.

Besides which, executive privilege has always been about shielding the internal functioning of the executive branch from unwarranted investigation. Until there's an overriding interest of justice relevant to the case, the executive can claim privilege over nearly anything. And it's up to the investigating agent to prove that such an interest exists, not the executive to prove that it doesn't. So really Sherm, what do you think is going on here? What interest of justice are you looking to be served by revealing documentation of the internal and largely political deliberations of the DoJ?

The interest of justice is the appointed officials being held accountable for misleading, intentionally or otherwise, the congressional committees in place for this exact purpose. The executive can claim privilege for nearly anything, but it doesn't follow that it must be granted. I already posted the decision on the matter when Nixon tried that argument.

No, you cherry picked the part that you thought supported what you wanted, but that wasn't the full meaning of the ruling. In fact the court upheld the use of privilege, except in cases of an "overriding interest of justice." Which is precisely what it was, given the criminal investigation into President Nixon directly.

[Thinine]

Addendum: From what I've been able to gather in reading the statements online, the statement in question from Feb. '11 was from the U.S. Attorney for Arizona. He categorically denied the ATF let guns walk. This language was incorrect and was the source of the later correction by higher ups. Certain buyers were strongly suspected of walking guns but the evidence wasn't considered strong enough by the U.S. Attorney to interdict or arrest said suspects.

[Thinine]

In other news, House held Holder in contempt.

No sex? Worst. Political. Circus. Ever.

[Gretyl]

After examining one suspect's garbage, agents learned he was on food stamps yet had plunked down more than $300,000 for 476 firearms in six months. Voth asked if the ATF could arrest him for fraudulently accepting public assistance when he was spending such huge sums. Prosecutor Hurley said no. In another instance, a young jobless suspect paid more than $10,000 for a 50-caliber tripod-mounted sniper rifle. According to Voth, Hurley told the agents they lacked proof that he hadn't bought the gun for himself.

[Pokaris]

After examining one suspect's garbage, agents learned he was on food stamps yet had plunked down more than $300,000 for 476 firearms in six months. Voth asked if the ATF could arrest him for fraudulently accepting public assistance when he was spending such huge sums. Prosecutor Hurley said no. In another instance, a young jobless suspect paid more than $10,000 for a 50-caliber tripod-mounted sniper rifle. According to Voth, Hurley told the agents they lacked proof that he hadn't bought the gun for himself.

Who the fuck snipes off a tripod?

[Uncle Sherm]

In other news, House held Holder in contempt.

No sex? Worst. Political. Circus. Ever.

Still guns, murder, and a cover up. So it is better than Watergate.

[Thinine]

Except in this case the only American who committed a crime was your whistleblower, when he paid for guns to be walked. Bit different from the president himself ordering a break in.

[Uncle Sherm]

Nixon didn't order the break in, and was much more brutal in his firing of those responsible than Obama has been.

[Thinine]

Consequences for illegal actions are more severe than those for legal ones? YOU DON'T SAY!

[Uncle Sherm]

Even under the best of circumstances, what happened with Fast and Furious was pretty shady in terms of legality. Nixon fired a lot of people, the Justice Department hasn't.

[Thinine]

Please describe which actions were illegal and the laws they fall under. Those directly responsible for not prosecuting the case have resigned. Who, precisely, do you think should be fired and why?

In other news, there will be no criminal charges against Holder related to the contempt finding, rendering it an entirely meaningless bit of republican political theater.

[Uncle Sherm]

Please describe which actions were illegal and the laws they fall under. Those directly responsible for not prosecuting the case have resigned. Who, precisely, do you think should be fired and why?

Actions that prompted a person to tell Grassley thay gun walking was not involved in Fast and Furious could be potentially illegal. Especially in light of evidence that the Justice department knew that it was going on when they said it wasn't. This is not about the prosecution screwing up, this is about lying to congress and taking 10 months to come clean.

In other news, there will be no criminal charges against Holder related to the contempt finding, rendering it an entirely meaningless bit of republican political theater.

There are still civil charges, and the Justice Department doesn't have a say in that decision.

[Thinine]

Please describe which actions were illegal and the laws they fall under. Those directly responsible for not prosecuting the case have resigned. Who, precisely, do you think should be fired and why?

Actions that prompted a person to tell Grassley thay gun walking was not involved in Fast and Furious could be potentially illegal. Especially in light of evidence that the Justice department knew that it was going on when they said it wasn't. This is not about the prosecution screwing up, this is about lying to congress and taking 10 months to come clean.

What evidence? Your "inaccurate" statement was given by said US Attorneys, not someone higher up in the justice department. And it was correct in saying that F&F didn't walk guns. It was, however, inaccurate in categorically denying that the Arizona US Attorney's office had no knowledge of guns possibly making their way to Mexico.

Again, Sherm, what exactly do you think is going on here?

[Uncle Sherm]

What evidence? Your "inaccurate" statement was given by said US Attorneys, not someone higher up in the justice department.

Nobody knows where the inaccurate statement came from. That's what the investigation is trying to find out.

And it was correct in saying that F&F didn't walk guns. It was, however, inaccurate in categorically denying that the Arizona US Attorney's office had no knowledge of guns possibly making their way to Mexico.

According to agents testifying to Congress, they were told by their superiors not to question the buyers of the guns.

What's going on here is that in February, the Justice Department claimed gun walking didn't happen under Fast and Furious. 10 months later, they changed their mind and said it did. Why did the congressional committee investigating the death of a border patrol agent receive false information, and why did it take 10 months to correct?

[Thinine]

What evidence? Your "inaccurate" statement was given by said US Attorneys, not someone higher up in the justice department.

Nobody knows where the inaccurate statement came from. That's what the investigation is trying to find out.

What are you talking about? We know exactly who wrote the "inaccurate" statement and they have since resigned.

And it was correct in saying that F&F didn't walk guns. It was, however, inaccurate in categorically denying that the Arizona US Attorney's office had no knowledge of guns possibly making their way to Mexico.

According to agents testifying to Congress, they were told by their superiors not to question the buyers of the guns.

Which is true. No one is disputing that. But that isn't gun walking on the part of F&F. That they learned of potential walking after the purchases were made, informed their superiors of their suspicions, and were told not to interview the buyers is not in question here.

What's going on here is that in February, the Justice Department claimed gun walking didn't happen under Fast and Furious. 10 months later, they changed their mind and said it did. Why did the congressional committee investigating the death of a border patrol agent receive false information, and why did it take 10 months to correct?

Are you even reading what I'm writing? You're responding by saying the same thing every time, even when I show your responses to be wrong. Let's try this one last time: the US Attorney for Arizona(not the Justice Department) sent a memo to Grassley in February that denied F&F walked guns AND that his office had no knowledge of gun walking by others. The first part was correct, the second was not. It took 10 months for the Justice Department to issue a clarifying statement because that's how long the congressional investigation took to get that far! The investigation didn't start right at the top but with the actual agents assigned to the task force. You have your answer Sherm. That you don't like it is your problem, not reality's.

[Uncle Sherm]

What evidence? Your "inaccurate" statement was given by said US Attorneys, not someone higher up in the justice department.

Nobody knows where the inaccurate statement came from. That's what the investigation is trying to find out.

What are you talking about? We know exactly who wrote the "inaccurate" statement and they have since resigned.

Obviously, you don't know who it was, because you keep saying it was a US attorney. It was not. We know who signed the letter, we don't know why someone with direct knowledge of the operation would have said gun walking doesn't happen when it in fact did.

And it was correct in saying that F&F didn't walk guns. It was, however, inaccurate in categorically denying that the Arizona US Attorney's office had no knowledge of guns possibly making their way to Mexico.

According to agents testifying to Congress, they were told by their superiors not to question the buyers of the guns.

Which is true. No one is disputing that. But that isn't gun walking on the part of F&F. That they learned of potential walking after the purchases were made, informed their superiors of their suspicions, and were told not to interview the buyers is not in question here.

That is exactly what gun-walking is. No attempt was made to interdict the buyers.

Here is Issa's memo to the committee:
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Update-on-Fast-and-Furious-with-attachment-FINAL.pdf

What's going on here is that in February, the Justice Department claimed gun walking didn't happen under Fast and Furious. 10 months later, they changed their mind and said it did. Why did the congressional committee investigating the death of a border patrol agent receive false information, and why did it take 10 months to correct?

Are you even reading what I'm writing? You're responding by saying the same thing every time, even when I show your responses to be wrong. Let's try this one last time: the US Attorney for Arizona(not the Justice Department) sent a memo to Grassley in February that denied F&F walked guns AND that his office had no knowledge of gun walking by others. The first part was correct, the second was not. It took 10 months for the Justice Department to issue a clarifying statement because that's how long the congressional investigation took to get that far! The investigation didn't start right at the top but with the actual agents assigned to the task force. You have your answer Sherm. That you don't like it is your problem, not reality's.

WTF are you talking about?? It was the ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL that sent the memo to Grassley, not some US attorney from Arizona.
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/about/upload/Judiciary-ATF-02-04-11-letter-from-DOJ-deny-allegations.pdf

[Uncle Sherm]

Any other correspondences from Grassley to the Justice Department can be found here:
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/about/Grassley-Correspondence-and-Information-on-Operation-Fast-and-Furious-and-Project-Gunrunner.cfm

[Thinine]

Ah, my mistake. I guess I confused who wrote the memo with who was responsible for much of the information in the memo, as per http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-0 ... -show.html Do you have a link to the later DoJ response memo? I may do some more reading.