Congressional Republicans Take Aim At Attorney General Eric Holder
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-21/congressional-republicans-take-aim-attorney-general-eric-holder
The standoff between Congressional Republicans and Attorney General Eric Holder over Fast and Furious escalated yesterday. President Barack Obama for the first time invoked executive privilege over the botched gun-trafficking operation. A few hours later, a house committee voted to recommend the attorney general be held in contempt for not handing over some documents in the probe. Holder has been under pressure by Congress over alleged security leaks. Some say this is mostly politics at play others say holder must go. Guest Host Susan Page and her panel of experts discuss the Congressional pressure on Attorney General Eric Holder.
Guests
Evan Perez
reporter, Wall Street Journal
Rep. John Mica (R-FL)
Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Major Garrett
congressional correspondent, National Journal.
Philip Heymann
James Barr Ames Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I never said they were above the law, I said by making it this public and politicized they are only preventing further action to stop the flow of guns. I do not trust the government, right or left. But this issue has just become a political stunt for Republicans, they are not interested in any sort of justice, they are interested in getting re-elected. We have examples of similar stunts from the Democrats, and until we are able to get out our political fox holes and actually put the good of our country above political gain we are going to rehash the same argument over and over and over.
jpaul_Nelson wrote: 'I never said they were above the law, I said by making it this public and politicized they are only preventing further action to stop the flow of guns"
Laws were broken by the ATF by deliberately allowing guns to be sold to known gun smuggling straw purchasers and then the same guns were knowingly allowed to cross the boarder with no attempt to trace them which is also illegal. To say this issue is only political is ridiculous and to further contend that finding the perpetrators and discovering their motives is not important is foolish. To boil down your argument to it's essence what you are saying is they all do it so why bother, this sentiment is agreeable to the sheeple no doubt.
Arkus:
Re: "Why don't you investigate anything before spouting off?"
Obviously you failed (again) to actually LISTEN to the broadcast - the guest expert who actually worked with the programs explained that the program WAS a holdover from W's administration but increased in scope (which was surely a mistake but definitely NOT unique to the Obama administration). You constantly (daily) comment before the broadcasts occur and then obviously don't listen. We can only guess your "investigation" is Faux Snooze drivel or mere Limbaugh lip.
Re: "The program was stopped by ATF whistle blowers,"
The head of the ATF was blocked by Rep. Issa from even being interviewed by the committee. That would have made him "whistel blower in charge"; but Issa was not interested in truth - just blame-throwing. And the program did continue. And weapons DID continue (and are continuing) to cross the border. The purpose of the two DOJ programs (under BOTH administrations) was to prove and trace exactly who was doing the transfers and, as the expert stated, "get a bigger bust". Both programs failed to stop even a trickle OR get the culprits. The mere fact that traced weapons appeared at crime scenes is proof positive that weapons DO flow from the US to Mexico........ and not jsut from the traced gun shop smugglers.
--------------------------
There's no question that the concept is/was bogus. But the fact that this is a campaign year smear on the administration is also blatantly obvious.
We all mourn the loss of any person, especially that of a public servant. But honestly, using death as a political tool is downright despicable. Shame on all.
This deservedly embarrassing incident is in my view just the tip of the iceberg of Holder’s, Obama’s and Hillary’s contempt for the American and Mexico people. They have concealed the scope of our military's active involvement in Calderon's disastrous war during which 50,000 people have died, their unholy alliance with the Zetas, pursuing their racist* phony war on drugs.etc. etc. etc.
War brings very good economic times for our constitutionally protected arms merchants who line our border and for our military and prison industrial complexes.
This scandal is also another example of our government's ongoing abuse of our next door neighbors on both sides of the Tortilla curtain and our political leaders' willingness to persecute, punish, and banish American children because their parents did not stand in line in front of a door that never opens to obtain documents that our government has always and is still denying them and the equality and basic human rights that we all cherish.
“We have met the enemy and it is us.”
* Everybody ! Read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. Let's open our eyes and start doing the right things for a change.
dremillard wrote:
The DOJ was trying to stop the drug gangs with a sting operation that went bad. Unfortunately, the weapons ended up being used to kill one of our border agents and others in Mexico. I view this as equivalent to military deaths caused by "friendly fire". A very sad unintended consequence, but not something that warrants this level of political haymaking. The plan was well intended, but went wrong.
======
Possibly the most reasonable and rational comment all morning. If this is in fact accurate, why then the stonewalling at DOJ? It makes no sense that the President and the AG would go to the mat over a well intended plan gone wrong.
Pancake Rankin wrote:
"Can one remain a "conservative" without possessing a a deadly instrument of intimidation? C'mon, just admit it and call yourselves Bullies."
gun owner = bully?
What if I don't own a gun, Pancake. Does that make ME not a bully?! Honey, I don't think that's what you meant to say.
"They're easier to fly than buying a sandwich at WaWa, and you never have to tip, just push the buttons. (Remember when Poppy Bush discovered the checkout scanner?)"
So glad you mentioned this piece of propaganda from Andrea Mitchell - who should be fired, by the way. Anyone interested in the truth of this piece should see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-c1ahIBDcw
It will enlighten you as to what a mouthpiece of the administration NBC is (see Joseph Goebbels).
"There's no question that the concept is/was bogus. But the fact that this is a campaign year smear on the administration is also blatantly obvious."
Not to everyone, LibVet. In your view, do the American people deserve to know the truth or not?
As far as I can see, there are only two reasons for President Obama to exert Executive Privilege.
1) National Security interest. The administration has not even hinted that there is anything related to NS in the documents that they maintain Congress should not see. (The latest is that these were simply internal communications prepatory to a decision. Weak.)
2) They have something to hide. Most likely in the way of purjury with respect to Holder's testimony. He's already fudged once with regard to what he knew and when he knew it which became clear in his second round of testimony. "I said 'a few weeks ago', I probably should have said 'a few months ago' - when it is more likely that it was actually the previous YEAR.
The AG was hip deep in this, and now the President has waded in with him, and to many it is looking more like President Obama himself is somehow complicit, otherwise why would he invoke EP? His MO has always been to introduce his little "problem children" to the wheels of the bus. If the administration has not been less than forthcoming about his involvement, why would this instance be any different?
As always it's never the crime, it's always the coverup. And the irony is that we're just a few days past the anniversary of Watergate.
This is crazy. Does anyone think that a Mexican narcotraficante that wanted a gun would not have gotten one, except for "Fast and Furious"? Instead of 100,000 (or whatever the right number is) guns bought, there were 102,000 guns bought? The real problem is the 100,000 legally sold, not the 2,000.
This is all a big nothing-burger, and a complete waste of time and taxpayer money. The R's are just trying to make the Admin look bad in an election year. The D's did it too, but that doesn't make it right.
I'm a little left of center and think that some gun control is necessary, but quoting the right on the issue: "Guns dion't kill people, people kill people" If the guns wern't sent by us, I'm sure the bad stuff would still have happened.
LibVet wrote: 'Obviously you failed (again) to actually LISTEN to the broadcast - the guest expert who actually worked with the programs explained that the program WAS a holdover from W's administration but increased in scope (which was surely a mistake but definitely NOT unique to the Obama administration). You constantly (daily) comment before the broadcasts occur and then obviously don't listen. We can only guess your "investigation" is Faux Snooze drivel or mere Limbaugh lip."
Sorry but cherry picking information from politically biased information on this show does not count as a definitive explanation of anything as you have just done. The programs were night and day different. I have special interest on certain topics and this is one of them and can safely say I am as least as informed as the most informed panelist on today's show. Apparently your the one with very limited sources of information.
LibVet wrote: "The head of the ATF was blocked by Rep. Issa from even being interviewed by the committee. That would have made him "whistel blower in charge"; but Issa was not interested in truth - just blame-throwing. And the program did continue. And weapons DID continue (and are continuing) to cross the border. The purpose of the two DOJ programs (under BOTH administrations) was to prove and trace exactly who was doing the transfers and, as the expert stated, "get a bigger bust". Both programs failed to stop even a trickle OR get the culprits. The mere fact that traced weapons appeared at crime scenes is proof positive that weapons DO flow from the US to Mexico........ and not jsut from the traced gun shop smugglers."
If it were not for the whistle blowers in the ATF this program could very well be still going on, you miss the point! Everything else you write about the specifics of the programs being the same or how they worked is false and deliberately misleading, you have obviously not even made the slightest effort to discover the known facts about this topic or any other that I have seen that you comment on. The D.R. Show appears to be all you listen too.
LibVet wrote: 'We all mourn the loss of any person, especially that of a public servant. But honestly, using death as a political tool is downright despicable. Shame on all."
The last refuge of a scoundrel. If this agent died because a firearm dealer on his own sold a firearm to a known straw purchaser the democrats would have drenched themselves in his blood and would be wearing his skin as a political statement. Gabrielle Gifford!
"The NRA kills thousands of Americans each year."
The NRA doesn't kill anyone. Criminals do.
I'd be interested in hearing how the anti-gun folks on this thread reconcile the fact that the State of Illinois has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books in the country, yet the Chicagoland area is undergoing a rash of gun violence at the hands of criminal gangs.
Firearms in the hands of trained, sensible citizens reduce crime.
kape wrote:
"This is crazy....The real problem is the 100,000 legally sold, not the 2,000."
No, kape. The real problem is that the U.S. government provided ANY guns. Joe citizen shouldn't sell guns, but the U.S. government SHOULD?!
THAT is crazy!
StLouis, you must be that soft uninformed mushy center that both political parties hope to sway this November.
StLouis said this: "Possibly the most reasonable and rational comment all morning. If this is in fact accurate, why then the stonewalling at DOJ? It makes no sense that the President and the AG would go to the mat over a well intended plan gone wrong."
Quite true. If this was a low-level ATF operation gone bad, then why haven't they thrown the low-level operatives under the bus? Why stonewall and obfuscate for a couple of years and then come up with an 11th hour claim of executive privilege if there is nothing here?
For our mainstream media, it's all "nothing to see here, move along, move along" when it comes to Fast & Furious (and numerous other Obama administration missteps).
The drug cartels have enough money to buy jet cargo planes do an overseas drug smuggling operation and then burn the plane to the ground. We are to believe from our government officials that limiting gun sales in this country would stop the arming of these cartels! They have the money and ability to buy firearms from almost anywhere in the world. Does anyone think Hugo Chavez would not be willing to arm anyone looking to cause problems for the U.S.? We do not sell over the counter machine guns or rocket launchers and the cartels seem to have plenty of them.
Arkus,
Are you really trying to suggest that the Fed somehow FORCED a gun shop owner to sell those firearms to smugglers, or forced the shop owner to do the smuggling himself? You gotta be kidding!!
And that crappy shot about "the last refuge of a scoundrel" proves YOU to be the scoundrel.......you had to stop using logic and principle and resort to ad hominem diatribe. So puerile.
When the ATF "requests" cooperation it's not a request. They have a history of making life miserable for any gun dealer that dares challenge their authority or gets in their way on anything, this is indeed a rouge government agency.
"The plan was simple – and both clearly and blatantly stupid (Pavlich quotes ATF agent Peter Forcelli as saying, “I can’t think of a single, logical strategy as to why [Fast and Furious] would have worked” [p. 47]). ATF agents like Hope MacAllister, the lead case agent for Fast and Furious, approached Phoenix–area gun stores and “requested” their cooperation with a program that would allow for the monitoring, tracking, and (ostensibly) prosecuting of gun buyers for deadly Mexican drug cartels (pp. 46–47; as the ATF has the ability to pull gun shops’ licenses, this was far more of an involuntary deputization than a simple request for assistance). Cameras were installed in the cooperating gun shops, and ATF agents watched as “straw purchasers,” or cartel gun mules, made massive firearms purchases in cash."
http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2012/05/11/fast-and-furious-barack-...
I won't attempt to defend the Fast and Furious fiasco (there's no defending the indefensible). But neither will I endorse what appears to be a political witch-hunt by the Republicans (there are legitimate things to investigate, but it appears they aren't interested in that, only in getting Holder's head on a platter). However, there is one observation I'd like to make.
It is familiar rhetoric from the NRA (and its allies) that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Aside from the fact that reasonable gun regulations (which they oppose with knee-jerk fervor) doesn't require guns be outlawed, the facts of this mess undercut their claim. Apparently, Mexican criminals are coming to the U.S. to acquire guns because Mexican law makes guns difficult to acquire there. (At least, that seems to be what the guests are saying.) If that's true, then it proves that if gun sales and ownership are regulated it will be more difficult for criminals to obtain guns! (Again, this need not prevent legal gun purchase and ownership by responsible citizens.)
Or, we can continue with our own version of "fast and furious", where lax laws allow lunatics and the irresponsible to easily obtain guns.
The circumstantial evidence that points in the direction of evidence planting as the reason for operation "fast and furious" is overwhelming. That being said much of this controversy over "executive privilege" could be the usual republican issue baiting that Obama does with such regularity.
Think people, think, how surreal this is. Republicans who oppose all gun control laws, who are responsible for far more guns being sold into Mexico because of the gun show loophole (as in GIANT HOLE) that allows unregistered gun sales, are trying to assert that the only reason a border patrol agent was killed was because the very few guns walked in Fast and F, were available for Narco trafickers to kill the agent. Think! It does not matter how many guns walked in a stupid operation or none, the man was killed by narco traffickers, not Eric Holder (contrary to what the egregious Mica said). ATF walked the weapons. And if they had not, the the NRA suported gun (non) laws would have served equally well. The hack trolls in this discussion will continue seeking to arouse a discussion over something so obviously political it is laughable. NPR will continue with its "fair and balanced' stuff even though they are supposed to now be fact based. It is all just so sad.
Arkus Duntov on June 21, 2012 @ 7:53 pm wrote: “The circumstantial evidence that points in the direction of evidence planting as the reason for operation "fast and furious" is overwhelming. That being said much of this controversy over "executive privilege" could be the usual republican issue baiting that Obama does with such regularity.”
There is almost no part of that conclusory tirade that has any proof to back it up, much less reason to support it.
How is allowing gun runners to purchase weapons in the U.S., and carry them to Mexico, “evidence planting”? Evidence of what? Gun running? The evidence for that already existed, that’s why Fast and Furious was started: to trace the guns from the “small fry” (the guys doing the purchasing) to the “big guys” running the cartels in Mexico. (It was a bad idea, and a botched operation, but “evidence planting”? Give me a break!)
The only “baiting” I see comes from the Republicans. Don’t forget, Issa made it clear when he first became Chair of his committee that he would never miss an opportunity to launch a “witch-hunt” against Obama (or a proxy, such as Holder). And he sure as hell is doing just that.
So sad that they are playing politics with this. The botched operation is worthy of full investigation, if only to put safeguards in place to lessen the chance of stupidity like this recurring. (I say “lessen” because stupid will always be with us.)
Oh, and please note all the hypocritical protests about “executive privilege”. I’ve lost count of how many times Reagan or Bush the Second invoked it. This is Obama’s first time!
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: "How is allowing gun runners to purchase weapons in the U.S., and carry them to Mexico, “evidence planting”? Evidence of what? Gun running? The evidence for that already existed, that’s why Fast and Furious was started: to trace the guns from the “small fry” (the guys doing the purchasing) to the “big guys” running the cartels in Mexico. (It was a bad idea, and a botched operation, but “evidence planting”? Give me a break!)"
There was no attempt I mean ZERO to find out where the F&F guns were ending up in Mexico. The Obama administration has made it clear they wanted to reinstate the "assault rifle ban" and also large caliber sniper rifles. The fact is U.S. assault rifles were not showing up in the numbers in Mexico to justify a change here in gun laws, the 90% figure being thrown around was bogus and disproved. The "evidence planting" scheme makes a lot of sense when compared to the reason given for F&F. Our government does some really dumb things but this is just too dumb. Over the years watching ATF activities this mentality of evidence planting is not as far fetched as you might think.
As far as the "baiting" I beg to differ.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Oh, and please note all the hypocritical protests about “executive privilege”. I’ve lost count of how many times Reagan or Bush the Second invoked it. "
So what? You can't count to 9 on your fingers! You don't even have to take your shoes off for that, strudel! Reagan:3, Bush II: 6
strudel, I've said it before and I'll say it again. You're a blowhard. You shoot your mouth off about a lot of things of which you know nothing.
Arkus Duntov on June 22, 2012 @ 8:18 am wrote: “There was no attempt I mean ZERO to find out where the F&F guns were ending up in Mexico. The Obama administration has made it clear they wanted to reinstate the "assault rifle ban" and also large caliber sniper rifles.”
You have no evidence to back up the claim that there was “ZERO” attempt to track the guns, much less that the failure to track them was deliberate. So the first premise of your argument is (at best) unproven.
Next, you make the (again) unsupported claim about what the Administration “wanted to do”.
So, in short you pile one uproven assertion on top of another to generate an inference (mere suspicion, really) of a government “conspiracy”, for which you’ve claimed “overwhelming” evidence.
I’d call it underwhelming.
That sounds exactly like what members of “the left” did during Bush the Second’s Administration: go from the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the proven fact that Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the start, to the assertion that “Bush lied, they died”. As I recall, Republicans and conservatives were pretty vehement in their denunciation of such “logic”. Why should I treat yours with any greater respect?
(And just for the record, I never subscribed to that “logic”. When asked my opinion, I replied that (at most) Bush was “guilty” only of gross incompetence and sheer stupidity - which is also a fair assessment of the “Fast and Furious” fiasco.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
But here’s your chance to educate us by providing proof for your assertions. So far as I know, aside from making an idiotic remark about “clinging to guns” the only thing Obama has done on that subject was sign a law allowing them into national parks! If you have proof he’s done more, (for example) that he proposed Congress “reinstate the assault rifle ban" and also ban “large caliber sniper rifles”, by all means provide a link the rest of us can review.
P.S. - As for "the baiting", don't beg. We have a constitutional right to differ. But you might try providing proof (not just an assertion) of who's doing the baiting - as I did.
ecgberht on June 22, 2012 @ 11:17 am wrote: “So what? You can't count to 9 on your fingers! You don't even have to take your shoes off for that, strudel! Reagan:3, Bush II: 6 strudel, I've said it before and I'll say it again. You're a blowhard. You shoot your mouth off about a lot of things of which you know nothing.”
Looking in the mirror again, eggie?
Apparently you can’t detect a rhetorical bit of sarcasm when you read it. Plus (like any ideologue) you inflate any real or imagined slip of the tongue into a “gotcha” moment. Talk about bloviating!
But please note the hypocrisy you just demonstrated. It’s okay for Reagan to assert Executive Privilege 3 times, and Bush the Second 6, but how dare Obama do it even once!
(And, of course, no discussion of the facts underlying any of those examples. That is important, you know: determining whether the assertions were legitimate. But clearly a “blowhard” like you can’t be bothered with facts, you’d rather know nothing.)
Ciao.
Since you know very little about F&F you resort to making things up to fit your partisan view. Got it.