[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Obama started Fast & Furious? Where's your proof that Pres. Obama was involved with the day to day operations of the ATF?

I wonder if THAT is why he cried Executive Privilege? Any proof he wasn't?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm curious, if Obama has (rightfully or wrongfully) invoked Executive Privilege, what exactly does congress expect Holder to do? Isn't the onus off Holder (for the time being) until the legality of the Executive Privilege claim is sorted out?

Anyone?

[subego]

I think the contempt charge is what triggers the legal challenge.

[Cold Warrior]

brighter and very bright? It seems we have found new ways to meld personal insults and comparative gamesmanship. No infractions, let's just stay on target.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think the contempt charge is what triggers the legal challenge.

They can't sue Obama directly?

[subego]

They could have, but that plays as different theatre.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

They could have, but that plays as different theatre.

That kind of negates your answer above, doesn't it?

[subego]

Not necessarily.

Holder refused before EP was invoked. The EP doesn't negate the existence of his refusal.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not necessarily.

Holder refused before EP was invoked. The EP doesn't negate the existence of his refusal.

But as I asked earlier, doesn't it tie his hands?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

You're completely missing my point. Let me try this again.

No one is claiming there would have been a problem prosecuting the straw buyers targeted by F&F.

The problem was prosecuting straw buyers before F&F, i.e. using standard ATF procedures, which involve wasting lots of resources, like hassling your presumably innocent friend, and unlikely convictions even if they catch a live one.

However, as has been noted, the point of the operation wasn't letting straw buyers rack up enough buys to get a conviction, the point was to bust the people the straw buyers were selling to. Busting the straw buyers doesn't help bust the people they're selling to, in fact it actively harms that objective by removing an asset you've compromised.

So how exactly does the ATF bust Mexican criminals in Mexico, where the guns are being sold to? Especially when they don't even notify the Mexican government of what they are doing?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Did I say serial number tracking is the same as GPS tracking? You seem to think the only kind of tracking is location tracking.

The surest way to deal a blow to a semantic argument is to simply change the terms used.

The Bush administration made an attempt to FOLLOW the guns after the sale. They did this via tracking devices, arial surveillance and ground surveillance. The Obama administration made no such attempts, and had no idea where the guns where until after they were used in crimes and sometimes not even then if it was not shared with them by the Mexican government or they weren't being used to kill American citizens.

If Operation Wide Receiver had surveillance on ground, air and via tracking devices, then how did hundreds of guns ended up in Mexico? Then why was it a massive failure and had to be shut down in 2007?

Because it was a massive failure, as I MYSELF STATED. It resulted in "hundreds of guns" ending up in Mexico. The question would be that if Wide Receiver was a failure and they MADE AND ATTEMPT TO interdict and put surveillance on the weapons and still failed, HOW ON EARTH could anyone think that a similar program that MADE NO SUCH ATTEMPT that put THOUSANDS OF WEAPONS in the hands of Mexican criminals be a good plan, unless the plan was to flood Mexican crime organizations with guns, and then increasing gun violence?

Under Operation Wide Receiver, no arrests or indictments were made. Yet you keep preaching about surveillance and how effective it is.

My point is that it didn't work even with the surveillance. Mexican criminals found ways around all that. It was a failure, and shut down. It boggles the mind how anyone could think a plan that simply let the guns walk into Mexico without ANY ATTEMPT at surveillance would be a good plan, unless that was the purpose of the plan in the first place. That is exactly what the Obama administration did, then lied about.

Obama started Fast & Furious? Where's your proof that Pres. Obama was involved with the day to day operations of the ATF?

The Obama administration started the program, even after knowing that previous operations using stricter surveillance was a massive failure. Congress is right now trying to determine who knew what, when, and is facing additional cover-up like they did when the Justice Department lied about the program existing at all.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So how exactly does the ATF bust Mexican criminals in Mexico, where the guns are being sold to? Especially when they don't even notify the Mexican government of what they are doing?

Why does the next person up the chain need to be in Mexico? There's no indication the straw buyers made their sales anywhere but in this country.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

But as I asked earlier, doesn't it tie his hands?

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure EP doesn't stop you from blabbing, it only stops the legislature or the judiciary from forcing you to blab.

As I understand it, EP doesn't exist as anything other than a court decision, so the actual legal ramifications are nebulous.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure EP doesn't stop you from blabbing

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by subego 

it only stops the legislature or the judiciary from forcing you to blab.

That's kind of my point, isn't it?

I'm not entirely clear on the timeline, but my understanding was the extension of Executive Privilege came after Holder's deadline. Yet they waited until after that to hold the vote. Seems, uh, retarded.

[subego]

Try it this way. Holder is lower-hanging fruit.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why does the next person up the chain need to be in Mexico? There's no indication the straw buyers made their sales anywhere but in this country.

Somewhere in the chain, there was someone in Mexico which would show an intention to sell illegally. Otherwise, this would be a non-issue.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Somewhere in the chain, there was someone in Mexico which would show an intention to sell illegally. Otherwise, this would be a non-issue.

Somewhere ≠ next

Seeing as how the operation never really proceded past the straw buyer links in the chain, I don't see how the ATF could have had any possible targets other than those in the next link.

While it is unclear what countries the people in the next link were citizens of, they were operating in the US. All of them.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Somewhere ≠ next

Does not have to equal next and if they aren't going to Mexico, then there's no reason they couldn't have interdicted them after the first sale.

Simply buying guns with the intention of selling to a third party is illegal. Doesn't matter if you sell them to your brother, or Carlos Slim.

If you've bought $300,000 worth of guns with no income, all of which you've sold, then you are acting as a firearms dealer without a license and there's no way that the JD can't prosecute you. If they can't get a conviction in those circumstances then they need to quit. The fact is that the ATF never had any intention of arresting the straw buyers or some of those selling the thousands of guns would have been arrested.

Seeing as how the operation never really proceded past the straw buyer links in the chain, I don't see how the ATF could have had any possible targets other than those in the next link.

Exactly. They had no plans to interdict and no plans to prosecute those selling the guns off. What other reason could they have had to let thousands of guns walk across the border without any action being taken by the ATF until after the guns where used in crimes? THAT is the question.

We do know that Obama went public with his belief that the sudden rash of gun crimes in Mexico (with the guns his administration provided to the Mexican criminals) led him to believe that we were going to need to put the assault weapons ban in place. Of course, he forget to mention why there was a rash of new gun violence, and when asked under oath Eric Holder lied about how they got there and had to "retract" his claims later once whistleblowers came up with evidence that what he said was untrue.

The question is if Operation Fast and Furious, which pretty much seemed at the get go a plan which would ensure that thousands of guns where put into the hands of Mexican criminals without intervention by the US Government, was done purposely given that the Obama administration had a motive, means and opportunity to create a scenario which would give an excuse for him to go forward with a political goal. That is one of the reasons (other than to find out who was involved in the cover-up) Congress wants the information Eric Holder is withholding.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If you've bought $300,000 worth of guns with no income, all of which you've sold, then you are acting as a firearms dealer without a license and there's no way that the JD can't prosecute you. If they can't get a conviction in those circumstances then they need to quit.

I just explained this to you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I thought Conservatives were opposed to ANY means of tracking guns?

Suffice it to say I'm about 99.9% certain if this botched incident had occurred under an (R) Administration, our resident shills for the left would need bibs to collect the slobber. i.e. these little hit & run comments are not only meaningless, but ring pathetic to any normal human being who'd at least want to ensure such a sloppy-assed operation doesn't occur again.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I just explained this to you.

Not really. How exactly would they being going for the "next link" when they never made any attempt to do anything which would allow them to directly follow the weapons after the got to the straw buyers? How exactly do you get that "next link" when the next time the weapon shows up after leaving the straw buyers hands is at a crime scene in Mexico, and that's part of the plan itself?

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not really. How exactly would they being going for the "next link" when they never made any attempt to do anything which would allow them to directly follow the weapons after the got to the straw buyers? How exactly do you get that "next link" when the next time the weapon shows up after leaving the straw buyers hands is at a crime scene in Mexico, and that's part of the plan itself?

I already answered this question.

Once a straw buyer racks up enough buys, you can get court authorization to do things like get a wire.

Which, although it took far, far longer than it should have, is what they did.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Try it this way. Holder is lower-hanging fruit.

...and this accomplishes what exactly?

[subego]

Eating the fruit successfully.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Eating the fruit successfully.

Your speaking in metaphors is really not helping here.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I already answered this question.

Once a straw buyer racks up enough buys, you can get court authorization to do things like get a wire.

Which, although it took far, far longer than it should have, is what they did.

So who got prosecuted?

Why was their plan to essentially let the guns run free in Mexico since they made no effort to actively track or interdict the guns?

[subego]

Ultimately, just the straw buyers. After Terry was killed they closed the operation. The wire took too long for it to provide useful information.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Your speaking in metaphors is really not helping here.

Holder actually did something wrong (withholding information without EP and then trying to negotiate for its release). It's not clear whether Obama has done something wrong because we don't know what's in the information he's hiding, so we don't know if it's an acceptable use of EP.

So, Congress grabbed the fruit they could reach.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Ultimately, just the straw buyers. After Terry was killed they closed the operation.

Wait...I thought that it was way too hard to convict straw buyers and that everyone agreed on this? A few straw buyers made it worthwhile to give 2,000 guns to Mexican criminals?

If it was the straw buyers they want, they had enough to convict without letting the guns go to Mexico.

If it was really the people the buyers where selling to, how could they find them without any attempts to intercept the weapons or track them via surveillance? (rhetorical question, they couldn't)

If the reason for pressuring gun sellers to sell to straw dealers wasn't so that the guns would end up in Mexico for some reason, why did the ATF THEMSELVES buy weapons from dealers and sell them to known criminals, who then took them into Mexico? Again, it's clear from the information given by whistleblowers, that the intent was to allow weapons to go freely to Mexico since they were told specifically not to intercept them after the sale, and the ATF even took action to see to it that the weapons got there. The only way they'd be able to find the weapons later where at the scene of crimes. They had no authority to do any searches or anything of that nature in Mexico.

The excuses don't compute.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wait...I thought that it was way too hard to convict straw buyers and that everyone agreed on this? A few straw buyers made it worthwhile to give 2,000 guns to Mexican criminals?

Jesus. I've explained your misunderstanding on this. Multiple times. As you have shown zero interest in a dialogue I shall stop trying to have one.

Good day, sir.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Jesus. I've explained your misunderstanding on this. Multiple times. As you have shown zero interest in a dialogue I shall stop trying to have one.

Good day, sir.

Keep telling yourself that.

You keep offering irrelevant points that do nothing to explain how all this could have possibly happened, unless they wanted guns in Mexico.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

No one is claiming there would have been a problem prosecuting the straw buyers targeted by F&F.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wait...I thought that it was way too hard to convict straw buyers and that everyone agreed on this?

Whatever.

I say GOOD DAY, sir.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Whatever.

I say GOOD DAY, sir.

So it was an effort to prosecute straw buyers then.

Why did they have to then let the guns walk freely into Mexico without interdiction, and in fact even tell ATF agents to make no attempt to do so when they'd never be able to confiscate them again once they crossed the border. The ATF THEMSELVES acted as Straw buyers to sell guns to people whom they knew would cart them to Mexico.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So it was an effort to prosecute straw buyers then.

This is what I mean by not wanting to have a dialogue. If you had read my posts you wouldn't have to ask me this.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is what I mean by not wanting to have a dialogue. If you had read my posts you wouldn't have to ask me this.

A non-rebuttal, rebuttal.

Thanks for confirming the obvious.

Good day to you too.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A non-rebuttal, rebuttal.

Thanks for confirming the obvious.

Good day to you too.

****in finally. It's like you're paid by the post or something.

[amartel]

you moron do know that it wasn't the Obama administration that let the gun go to Mexico..The killing of the agent and any of the Mexicans killed is clearly the fault of the NRA.. they the one who got the law passed that block the AG In AZ from being able to stop the gun from leaving the country.. Why don't you moron ask yourself why the NRA scored this vote it had nothing to do with Holder are Obama but simply to distract morons like you guys from notice who really responsible for the killing of the agent...One day maybe you will wake up and learn to think for yourself..

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

****in finally. It's like you're paid by the post or something.

I'd be happy if you just posted what you claim instead of just insisting you have.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by amartel 

you moron do know that it wasn't the Obama administration that let the gun go to Mexico..The killing of the agent and any of the Mexicans killed is clearly the fault of the NRA.. they the one who got the law passed that block the AG In AZ from being able to stop the gun from leaving the country..

What law is there in Arizona that stops the United States from allowing guns to be trafficked over the US/Mexican border?

Why don't you moron ask yourself why the NRA scored this vote it had nothing to do with Holder are Obama but simply to distract morons like you guys from notice who really responsible for the killing of the agent...One day maybe you will wake up and learn to think for yourself..

It was Obama's Justice Department that ordered ATF agents not to intercept the weapons, keeping them from going over the border. There was no law (or elements of regular common sense) that could have stopped them.

[Cold Warrior]

@amartel,
You're new, but take a moment to read our pol-war rules sticky. Calling someone a moron doesn't fly here. Thanks.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Anyone?

They expected him to respond to the subpoena. He didn't. Therefore, they found him in contempt. Obama invoking EP after Holder failed to respond does not negate Holder's contempt of Congress. Too little too late.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'd be happy if you just posted what you claim instead of just insisting you have.

I'll do better than that.

subego: no one has claimed it would be difficult to prosecute the straw buyers targeted by F&F. The problem was arresting straw buyers with standard ATF procedures. F&F was not standard ATF procedure. The point of the operation however was not to bust straw buyers, it was to bust the people the straw buyers were selling to. Busting the straw buyers would have harmed the case against the people they were selling to, so while the case was operational they didn't, even though they could have.

stupendousman: if the prosecutors couldn't bust the straw buyers they need a new job.

subego: I just said no one has claimed they couldn't bust the F&F straw buyers. WTF?

stupendousman: who got prosecuted?

subego: once the operation was closed (because of the murder) they prosecuted who they could, which was the straw buyers.

stupendousman: I thought you said it was impossible to prosecute the straw buyers.

subego: How many times are you going to repeat this straw man argument? How many times do I have to repeat no one is claiming that. You're not paying attention. This is bullshit.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

quote-block" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px; border-top-width: 1px; border-right-width: 1px; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-left-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(217, 218, 216); border-right-color: rgb(217, 218, 216); border-bottom-color: rgb(217, 218, 216); border-left-color: rgb(217, 218, 216); background-color: rgb(241, 241, 241); ">Originally Posted by subego
no one has claimed it would be difficult to prosecute the straw buyers targeted by F&F. The problem was arresting straw buyers with standard ATF procedures. F&F was not standard ATF procedure. The point of the operation however was not to bust straw buyers, it was to bust the people the straw buyers were selling to. Busting the straw buyers would have harmed the case against the people they were selling to, so while the case was operational they didn't, even though they could have.

Okay, so it wasn't a plan to bust straw buyers. The question STILL remains how you could bust those they sell to if those in charge tell the agents to make no attempts to closely follow the guns once they are received by the straw buyers (what whistleblowers claim), and have no jurisdiction in Mexico or tell the Mexican government of the plan so that they could assist should the weapons leave the United States?

Their plan from the get go had no chance of working for the claimed purpose unless they had implemented procedures to closely track the guns once they left the gun store, and even then they should have already known it would have likely failed. The Bush administration had tried to do it via RFID tags and ground/arial recon and abandoned the program because they found it impossible to follow the guns once they were let "walk". The program didn't achieve it's goals, was considered a failure, and dismantled - and you're telling me that not long after the ATF decided to put together almost the same program without ANY attempt to closely track the weapons and where shocked when about 2,000 assault rifled ended up in criminal hands in Mexico, increasing gun violence, which Obama then lied and said was the fault of not having an assault weapons ban?

So the Obama administration implemented a plan which past precedence had proven would end up with weapons in Mexico, which would likely only end up allowing them to bust some small-time straw buyers. They pressured dealers to sell to people they knew where straw buyers and in some cases acted as straw buyers themselves, then just let the weapons "walk" with no ability to know where the guns went (or any attempt to do so) unless they were later found at the scene of a crime in the United States.

How exactly does one rationalize that anyone ever thought that they would achieve any kind of reasonable goal, without simply losing the guns? Unless of course the goal was the lose the guns in the first place. That would seem to be the only logical possible ending not only in hindsight, but due to known past precedence.

[subego]

AFICT, the plan was to conduct things through standard police procedures (which aren't standard ATF procedures).

Straw buyers under surveillance rack up enough buys
You use this to get a warrant for a wire
You use the tapes from the wire to get proof of criminal activity on the people the straw buyers are selling to, and perhaps warrants for more wires.

Tracking the guns isn't central to this plan once the straw buyers sell them. They're not trying to convict people by catching them with guns. They're trying to convict people by getting tapes of them discussing criminal activity.

If what the ATF wanted to do was run the operation as I describe above (note, and this is very important, I'm saying "if they wanted" not "they wanted"), then they knew they were going to lose track of the guns as a foregone conclusion, but that wasn't the goal. The goal, as stated, is getting indisputable evidence against people higher in the chain by wiretap.

Now, if (there's the "if" again) AUSA Hurley hadn't severely ****ed things up, it's plausible they could have busted some major players, and that would have been worth losing track of a certain amount of guns (said amount fully dependent on the importance of the people they bust). It may not have as well, the consensus was the operation was not without risk.

However, the way things went down, there's no question the trade off wasn't worth it. The question you should be asking within this framework is why did Hurley do (or not do) what he did. Is it possible he intentionally sabotaged the operation? Sure. But that's different from what you're claming, which is there is no possible way the operation could have had results and is hence proof of a conspiracy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by amartel 

you moron do know that it wasn't the Obama administration that let the gun go to Mexico..The killing of the agent and any of the Mexicans killed is clearly the fault of the NRA.. they the one who got the law passed that block the AG In AZ from being able to stop the gun from leaving the country.. Why don't you moron ask yourself why the NRA scored this vote it had nothing to do with Holder are Obama but simply to distract morons like you guys from notice who really responsible for the killing of the agent...One day maybe you will wake up and learn to think for yourself..

I don't even care about the blatant forum-rules abuses in the above. Just once it would be nice to see a poster who makes such sweeping judgments of others' intellect demonstrate their own mastery of its most basic elements.

Can you try making the connection between the NRA and the gun-running operation a little more clear please? If the ATF/DoJ wants to run guns across the border in some bizarre sting attempt, a US lobbyist isn't going to be able to do much to either support the operation or stop them from performing it.

[ebuddy]

Now, if (there's the "if" again) AUSA Hurley hadn't severely ****ed things up, it's plausible they could have busted some major players, and that would have been worth losing track of a certain amount of guns (said amount fully dependent on the importance of the people they bust). It may not have as well, the consensus was the operation was not without risk.

However, the way things went down, there's no question the trade off wasn't worth it. The question you should be asking within this framework is why did Hurley do (or not do) what he did. Is it possible he intentionally sabotaged the operation? Sure. But that's different from what you're claming, which is there is no possible way the operation could have had results and is hence proof of a conspiracy.

Isn't the "proof of conspiracy" the fact that the above intention was outwardly denied in earlier congressional hearings?

[subego]

Can you hook me up with a cite?

It doesn't have to be thorough, I just want to get to the right hearing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Can you hook me up with a cite?
It doesn't have to be thorough, I just want to get to the right hearing.

No citation necessary. Holder denied knowledge of the program until just "weeks prior to the investigation" when wiretaps had already confirmed communication with Holder much earlier. This is what lead to the subpoena of additional documentation to confirm what Holder knew and when and the subsequent obstruction of the investigation that continues to this day. Were you not aware of this?

[subego]

Firstly: there's all kinds of shit I don't know.

Secondly: this is a hugely complicated case, there are a bunch of people lying to cover their ass, and there are people on both sides spreading misinformation.

Thirdly: your OP was a whole lot more non-specific than you may have realized.


At this point I think I know what you're talking about, but not 100% sure.

Are you talking about how Holder said he knew nothing and then it turned out he knew stuff? Well, yes that is evidence of conspiracy, but not necessarily the goal of the operation was to flood Mexico with weapons as is being claimed.

Note the fact Holder is covering a bunch of stuff up under EP is evidence of a conspiracy, but it gives little information on what the conspiracy is trying to accomplish other than keep peoples asses out of the fire.


The irony here is I still don't feel like I've answered your question, and there's an implication from you it's my fault I don't know what you're talking about.

Not a fun place to be in a debate. I could use some help.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Firstly: there's all kinds of shit I don't know.
Secondly: this is a hugely complicated case, there are a bunch of people lying to cover their ass, and there are people on both sides spreading misinformation.
Thirdly: your OP was a whole lot more non-specific than you may have realized.
At this point I think I know what you're talking about, but not 100% sure.
Are you talking about how Holder said he knew nothing and then it turned out he knew stuff? Well, yes that is evidence of conspiracy, but not necessarily the goal of the operation was to flood Mexico with weapons as is being claimed.
Note the fact Holder is covering a bunch of stuff up under EP is evidence of a conspiracy, but it gives little information on what the conspiracy is trying to accomplish other than keep peoples asses out of the fire.
The irony here is I still don't feel like I've answered your question, and there's an implication from you it's my fault I don't know what you're talking about.
Not a fun place to be in a debate. I could use some help.

I've never maintained the goal of the program was to flood Mexico with weapons. I'm saying all we're capable of doing is speculating and that some of the comments appear to be making excuses for the Administration.
Like I said to wiskedjak; the act of pointing fingers at Congress for wanting answers or pointing fingers at Conservatives for perceived opportunism here only glosses over the fact that an extremely, sloppily-managed program has manifest in the death of scores of Mexicans and a US border patrol agent. The excuses ring pathetic to any normal human being who'd at least want to ensure such mismanagement doesn't occur again. It is not your fault that we don't know what's going on and there's little to debate other than an apparent obstruction of justice that would only bolster speculation.