[stupendousman]

I think that Team Obama is trying to run out the clock on the Holder thing. I think that their plan is try to delay releasing any pertinent info on Fast and Furious until after the election, then Obama can name a new Attorney General for his second term (if miracles happened and he actually won) because Holder wants to "spend more time with his family."

Given that based on current evidence it's unlikely Holder was unaware of FF and it appears that they are trying to cover up his involvement, you'd think that they'd want all this out in the open well before the election. I think that maybe they have miscalculated and they are pushing the revelation of damning info nearing and nearer to the election.

However, given that the current administration has pretty much just ignored the Constitution, I'm doubting they will blink at the Attorney General getting cited for contempt for refusing to allow Congress it's mandated oversight role.

I'm glad Richard Nixon is dead. If he wasn't, seeing what current administrations can now get away with would probably kill him!

[stupendousman]

Justice Dept says president has exerted executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents - The Washington Post

Yep, stalling. There's something damaging in the documents, otherwise Obama wouldn't have exerted privilege (that likely won't be able to be upheld). However, the documents will come out sooner or later and if it's shown that the only viable reason to exert privilege is to cover up administration complicity, there may be another impeachment hearing coming our way.

[BadKosh]

(With)Holder is too big a jerk to ever "MAN UP" and take responsibility for his part in the Agents murder. Now Owe-bama is mixed up in this. Smells like Watergate.

[Chongo]

I thought Oblamea linked F and F to W.

[stupendousman]

This is essentially a "doubling down" on trying to hide what went on. They lied for 10 months that there was no such program until overwhelming evidence turned up that showed it did. Then they admitted it, but then said no one knew anything - it was some other guy who couldn't be named. Now Holder had to admit that his claim that the Bush AG knew about the program wasn't true either. That's when he's not trying to claim that documents that came to light that mention the Fast and Furious program really weren't talking about the Fast and Furious program! :lol

Holder is either criminally corrupt and/or inexcusably incompetent based on him either engaging in a cover up, or being so out of the loop and not in control that he can't get to the bottom of what's happening in his own department. I can't believe that Obama would put himself out there and claim "executive privilege" (which is what brought Nixon down) unless he had prior knowledge and document show that. If that's the case, he may find himself going the same way as Nixon.

[stupendousman]

“Until now, everyone believed that the decisions regarding Fast and Furious were confined to the Department of Justice. The White House decision to invoke executive privilege implies that White House officials were either involved in the Fast and Furious operation or the cover-up that followed," said Michael Steel, the spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio."The administration has always insisted that wasn’t the case. Were they lying, or are they now bending the law to hide the truth?”

OUCH!

Very true though. Either the White House lied, or they've chosen to ignore precedent regarding "executive privilege" that will likely be thrown out in court. Either way, this doesn't bode well for Obama or Holder.

[Snow-i]

Very damaging to the Obama administration. His entire campaign aside from "I'm not Bush" in 2008 was "Transparent Government."

What exactly is he going to run on this year? For him to claim executive privilege, to me, means one of two things

a) Theres something in those documents so damaging to him and his administration that he cannot let the oversight committee see
b) Obama is willing to fall on his own sword for his cronies, even if it means the end of his rule.

Either way, Obama needs a completely new campaign from 2008 as he is 180 degrees from the platform he was elected on.

[subego]

I think it's interesting one of the reasons the DAG gave for withholding certain documents is they were generated in the course of responding to a Congressional investigation...

Wut?

[The Final Dakar]

Mmmmm.... taste that transparency.

Anyway, first good news republicans have gotten in a while (other than the slowing economy).

[hyteckit]

So what does this have to do with:

Jobs, jobs, jobs?


Why doesn't Pres. Obama want to talk about jobs?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Mmmmm.... taste that transparency.

Anyway, first good news republicans have gotten in a while (other than the slowing economy).

I don't think that this administration engaging in cover up and ignoring the Constitution is "good news" for anyone.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why doesn't Pres. Obama want to talk about jobs?

He's likely trying to stay away from discussing topics that make him look bad.

[ebuddy]

We've got Fast & Furious in which Obama invokes executive privilege around an incident that ended up with a dead border patrol officer (that supposedly has nothing to do with him right? So... how does executive privilege even apply again? Oh yeah... he's connected) at the same time they're leaking sensitive information that lands our Bin Laden whistle blower behind bars in Pakistan, weakens our intel reputation abroad with regard to Iran and cyber-war for nothing more than to make Obama look like a tough guy, subverting the judicial process in choosing whichever laws he feels like upholding today in granting amnesty for illegal immigrants, and on and on and on...

He's getting way too sloppy and desperate and has only surrounded himself with people more sloppy and desperate than he is at all levels. Time for the little dictator to go.

[subego]

I thought the cyber-war stuff was pretty slick.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I thought the cyber-war stuff was pretty slick.

Oh... make no mistake it's the sort of cool stuff we've been doing for a long time and all over the place, but... it's very unslick that it was leaked, our partnerships leaked, the methods leaked, and has damaging implications for years to come. I think it's most unfortunate and all this is starting to make Watergate look like a lemonade stand hold-up.

[BadKosh]

Obama is connected and had to protect his comments to others about how they were going to use the guns everywhere 'problem' (that they caused) to clamp down on the 2nd amendment. This is why they don't want you to see the papers. You would see just how little Obama thinks of others, and how he wanted to use the DOJ to help him deal with those pesky gun owners.

Since Exec.Prev has been invoked they now have to catalog every document and submit the list with comments as to WHY they need this protection.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Oh... make no mistake it's the sort of cool stuff we've been doing for a long time and all over the place, but... it's very unslick that it was leaked, our partnerships leaked, the methods leaked, and has damaging implications for years to come. I think it's most unfortunate and all this is starting to make Watergate look like a lemonade stand hold-up.

You can't keep malware under wraps forever. It's going to "leak" no matter what.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Since Exec.Prev has been invoked they now have to catalog every document and submit the list with comments as to WHY they need this protection.

Which reaffirms my belief that this is a delay tactic. They've rather draw this out and potentially have a second term and a special prosecutor than put it all out there and Holder or Obama have to leave office for not telling the truth

[BadKosh]

The question now becomes did Obama do it legally, or will this backfire. It looks like he did it to stall, which might just backfire.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The question now becomes did Obama do it legally, or will this backfire. It looks like he did it to stall, which might just backfire.

Once they started lying about the program not existing, thinking that no one had any evidence otherwise, Holder had to commit and not back down. Holder's clear lying about the fact that documents specifically mentioning Fast and Furious were not really talking about Fast and Furious is evidence that he's backed himself into a corner.

If as suspected both Holder and Obama knew and Holder lied and Obama knew it, then they both are up the creek without a paddle and their best play is just to try and drag things out as long as possible. If Obama doesn't get re-elected, then there's likely not going to be any real action taken after he's gone. If he does get re-elected, then he's at least got a second term out of the plan.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You can't keep malware under wraps forever. It's going to "leak" no matter what.

That kind of strikes me as a bizarre thing to say. Stuxnet for example was supposed to have been first engaged in 2006 and was speculated at best for more than 6 years. Now they have names, countries, methodology, successes and failures which then leads them to flame, etc... That's just sloppy.

So yeah, perhaps malware "leaks", but it'd be nice if our weapons programs, methodology, and intel could maintain some integrity.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So yeah, perhaps malware "leaks", but it'd be nice if our weapons programs, methodology, and intel could maintain some integrity.

This is an unreasonable expectation if your attack relies on inserting copies of your methodology on enemy computers.

It's only going to be a matter of time.

[subego]

I know from the "OAW rule" that a lack of response here must mean you agree with me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is an unreasonable expectation if your attack relies on inserting copies of your methodology on enemy computers.

It's only going to be a matter of time.

The malware itself did not reveal the installer, the countries involved, etc for more than 6 years... the human leak did. It's sloppy and the fact that it was leaked by people means that future people will be entrusted with less across the board which is not good. Among other things. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect intel to be kept secret by those entrusted with it.

I do agree with you from time to time so if it makes you feel better, you're welcome to apply the OAW law of non-responses when I fail to respond to your next post.

[BadKosh]

Do you think he will make a deal to NOT get cited for contempt of Congress? This whole mess suggests that the documents are terribly embarrassing, show law-breaking, mis-management, or even proof that this was part of a scheme to add restrictions on the 2nd amendment, and that Obama was involved. If there really was no connection to the WH, then the claim of Executive Privilege will get tossed by the courts. Boy is this gonna be interesting.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The malware itself did not reveal the installer, the countries involved, etc for more than 6 years... the human leak did. It's sloppy and the fact that it was leaked by people means that future people will be entrusted with less across the board which is not good. Among other things. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect intel to be kept secret by those entrusted with it.

I do agree with you from time to time so if it makes you feel better, you're welcome to apply the OAW law of non-responses when I fail to respond to your next post.

I think we're talking about different leaks.

The "leak" was the code itself. It [Stuxnet] was never supposed to leave the enrichment facility and remain active. One of the code updates had a bug, and it escaped.

Once it was in the wild and analysts got their hands on it, the jig was up.

What leak are you talking about?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Do you think he will make a deal to NOT get cited for contempt of Congress?

No. Congress won't except any deal that doesn't give them the information about who authorized FF, how far it went up, and what Obama knew and when he knew it. Holder isn't going to give them that. Especially right before an election.

Contempt will go through then it will all go through the courts, which will delay any revelations until after the election.

That's my prediction.

This whole mess suggests that the documents are terribly embarrassing, show law-breaking, mis-management, or even proof that this was part of a scheme to add restrictions on the 2nd amendment, and that Obama was involved. If there really was no connection to the WH, then the claim of Executive Privilege will get tossed by the courts. Boy is this gonna be interesting.

Like I said before, they are just trying to run out the clock. Eventually it will all come out. Obama is doomed if regular Americans ever had any real idea about his radical agenda. That's why he lied about his ties to racist Reverend Wright, his friendship with radical domestic terrorists and his membership in socialistic organizations like the "New Party." It's hard to get elected and stay in office pretending to be a moderate, bi-partisan solution finder in the vein of John McCain when the opposite is true. Most of the mainstream media know it and don't care and refuse to vet him to the American public to this day, even if it means dead Americans and Mexicans.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

I know from the "OAW rule" that a lack of response here must mean you agree with me.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I do agree with you from time to time so if it makes you feel better, you're welcome to apply the OAW law of non-responses when I fail to respond to your next post.

Hey hey ... how did I end up in the middle of this?

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think we're talking about different leaks.

The "leak" was the code itself. It [Stuxnet] was never supposed to leave the enrichment facility and remain active. One of the code updates had a bug, and it escaped.

Once it was in the wild and analysts got their hands on it, the jig was up.

What leak are you talking about?

Stuxnet. Yes, it escaped the Iranian facilities, but it wasn't analysts that uncovered any of this information, it was a story broke open by the NY Times as provided them by an Obama Administration insider.

I'm talking about the David Sanger's news story over which Holder assigned Ronald C. Machen Jr, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, to investigate what appear to be disclosures of unauthorized information including the name of the weapons program, the nature and method of its execution, and the countries involved. The punchline of course is the DoJ investigating itself when it's already abundantly clear they'll obstruct Congressional investigations, but the point remains... Stuxnet wasn't as much leaky code as it was leaky people. It is the people component that is of most concern as that is how we distribute and collect important information.

[subego]

No, most of it was uncovered by analysts. The NYT article just confirmed what everybody already knew.

Within weeks of Stuxnet being discovered, all the analysts I listen to had pinned it on us and Israel. I'm not even an analyst, and I had pinned it on one or the other.

The skill with which the code was crafted was a giveaway in and of itself. There are only so many people who could write something that good. Further, it was so precisely targeted there was no question the coders had access to duplicates of the Pakistani designed centrifuges they use at Natanz, along with a duplicate of the attached computer network.

Let's see...

Best coders in the world.
Access to a copy of a fully functioning, Iranian uranium enrichment facility.

Like I said, the jig was up.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

No, most of it was uncovered by analysts. The NYT article just confirmed what everybody already knew.

Within weeks of Stuxnet being discovered, all the analysts I listen to had pinned it on us and Israel. I'm not even an analyst, and I had pinned it on one or the other.

The skill with which the code was crafted was a giveaway in and of itself. There are only so many people who could write something that good. Further, it was so precisely targeted there was no question the coders had access to duplicates of the Pakistani designed centrifuges they use at Natanz, along with a duplicate of the attached computer network.

Let's see...

Best coders in the world.
Access to a copy of a fully functioning, Iranian uranium enrichment facility.

Like I said, the jig was up.

But there was still at least some plausible deniability. Not when LeakyMcLeakerson decided it would be best for his campaign to bring it to light.

My question is how come more information came from this administration regarding clandestine espionage and sabotage operations than a botched domestic operation that led directly to an American Citizens death? Transparency indeed!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But there was still at least some plausible deniability.

How? Spin me a scenario.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

How? Spin me a scenario.

A. Stuxnet (or some other clandestine cyber attack) causes a meltdown. The Iranian government wants to retaliate in nuclear fashion and it plays out on the world stage. Knowing without a doubt that the US and Israel pulled off the attack is quite a bit different then just speculating they did. Especially with your finger on the trigger and millions of lives at stake.

B. Iran is negotiating with the US. We deny having sabotaged their nuclear program but offer concessions in our negotiations. Wouldn't being able to deny (at least officially) that we sponsored the attack give us much greater credibility especially with China and Russia? China and Russia could bolster Iran citing the US attacking them via malware. At least more so than if our involvement is just speculation.

[subego]

I'm not understanding your first example. The confirmation didn't come until 8 months after the the virus was outed.

The second example presumes these major players need the New York Times to know who did it.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not understanding your first example. The confirmation didn't come until 8 months after the the virus was outed.

The second example presumes these major players need the New York Times to know who did it.

But it confirms not only our capabilities but our brazenness in using cyber attacks. If a future attack were to cause significant damage to iranian society, we could inadvertently bolster the Iranian regimes power over their people, and ignite further anti US sentiment abroad. This is all hypothetical of course. What do we gain by admitting our involvement?


The second example presumes that the court of public opinion is stronger then an intelligence agencies circumstantial evidence when deciding whether or not to launch an attack.

[OAW]

Republicans in the House voted Thursday to cite Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt of Congress in a politically-charged vote stemming from an investigation into alleged gun-running by the U.S. government.

The House voted 255-67, with one member voting "present," to cite Holder for criminal contempt. Most Democrats, led by the Congressional Black Caucus, abstained from the vote and staged a walk-out. But 17 conservative moderate and Democrats voted in favor of the resolution; two Republicans broke ranks to oppose it.

The House staged the vote against Holder for refusing to turn over documents subpoenaed by the House Oversight and Government Reform in relation to its investigation into the "Fast and Furious" program. The investigation is probing whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms deliberately allowed firearms to fall into the hands of drug cartels in Mexico.

House votes to cite Holder for contempt - First Read

Naturally, this is being totally overshadowed by the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare.

OAW

[turtle777]

This all would not have happened if we had a POTUS with a law degree who understands and cares about the laws of this country.

Oh, wait

-t

[OAW]

I think it's more accurate to say that this wouldn't have happened if House Republicans didn't insist on the AG handing over documents (in addition to the 7600+ that have been submitted) that are part of an ongoing investigation. Especially when they know good and well he is legally obligated not to.

OAW

[BadKosh]

Or that a US Border agent wasn't killed. Or if they hadn't tried that stunt to spin for tighter regulations on firearms. Or if we had AG's with some morality and sense of honesty.... Or....

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I think it's more accurate to say that this wouldn't have happened if House Republicans didn't insist on the AG handing over documents (in addition to the 7600+ that have been submitted) that are part of an ongoing investigation. Especially when they know good and well he is legally obligated not to.

LOL, so it all wouldn't be a legal problem if you couldn't prove it violated US law ?

BS. Holder screwed up, and Obama should have known better than to have him even start this in the first place.

-t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I think it's more accurate to say that this wouldn't have happened if House Republicans didn't insist on the AG handing over documents (in addition to the 7600+ that have been submitted) that are part of an ongoing investigation. Especially when they know good and well he is legally obligated not to.

OAW

That's what Richard Nixon said too. He had deliberative materials he said where covered under EP too. However, when you're trying to find out what people knew, and when they knew it, after they'd lied to Congress - you don't get to keep your discussions about your deceit private. I'm pretty sure that's why Nixon had to release the tapes of the personal conversations with his aides.

[hyteckit]

OMG. This is Pres. Obama Iran-Contra Affair.

Except Pres. Reagan was a traitor who illegally sold weapons to Iran to fund his contra wars.
Fast and Furious was just a stupid ATF sting program started under Pres. Bush.

[hyteckit]

OMG. This is Pres. Obama 9/11 inside job scandal.

Fast & Furious is an inside job to implement gun control, just like 9/11 was a inside job by Pres. Bush to get into the Iraq War.

[hyteckit]

OMG. This is Pres. Obama Roswell controversy.

UFO crashed in Roswell. Government is hiding something.

Pres. Obama not showing his real birth certificate.

I can only conclude that Pres. Obama isn't from Earth and aliens from other space are real.

Time to tell Eric Holder to open up the Roswell case.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I think it's more accurate to say that this wouldn't have happened if House Republicans didn't insist on the AG handing over documents (in addition to the 7600+ that have been submitted) that are part of an ongoing investigation. Especially when they know good and well he is legally obligated not to.

OAW

I'm confused. If Holder wasn't obligated to hand stuff over, why did Obama invoke EP?

[subego]

@hyteckit

Call me crazy, but I don't see an examples of Republicans breaking the law as all that hot a defense.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

OMG. This is Pres. Obama Iran-Contra Affair.

Except Pres. Reagan was a traitor who illegally sold weapons to Iran to fund his contra wars.
Fast and Furious was just a stupid ATF sting program started under Pres. Bush.

Total lie or you simply don't have a clue. This was another one of Holder's lies that he had to go back and correct for the record.

Fast and Furious was a new program started well after Obama took office. Bush had another program that did sell guns to mexican crime figures, but THEY TRACKED THEM via RFID. They actually intended on trying to use them to get to criminals. There's precedent for allowing criminals to break laws, and then DIRECTLY TRACK THEM in order to fight crime. Though, the plan during Bush's term failed because the criminals found out about the RFID's and disabled them, then they stopped the program considering it a failure.

The Obama administration then decided to just let the criminals have the guns with no ability to track them. Once you lose sight of them, you have no way of knowing where they are, or if they are being used to kill innocent people. Either this was unforgivably stupid of people at the Justice Department and Congress should know who authorized the plan and hold them accountable (the people suspected of being in charge recently got big raises/promotions instead of firing, which typically is what happens when you are trying to hush someone) - or it was purposeful, because just after the plan went into effect Obama made it known that he was planning on trying to bring back the assault weapons ban because of all the weapons going over the border to mexico (that his administration was providing, on purpose) was causing increased violence.

Either it was a evil plan concocted to enact new gun control limits, which would make them complicit in murders, or it was a criminally stupid plan that could have almost no positive effect due to it's complete inability to control where the guns went or what was done with them and Holder should resign due to his inability to control his department. If that's the sort of thing Eric Holder is putting in place at Justice, then he has no business being there. It wasn't a plan that failed due to unforeseen complications like during the Bush administration, it was a plan that at the get go if it completed exactly as planned, would NEVER be able to accomplish what they claimed was it's purpose afterwords and resulted in untold deaths. They never even tried to make it a success using any traditionally accepted law enforcement procedures, which is why whistleblowers came out of the woodwork after it all blew up and why now it looks like this was all done on purpose to justify Obama's gun control plan.

When asked by Congress about there program, Eric Holder lied and said no such program existed. It wasn't until whistle blowers came forward and provided the evidence that the program DID exist that Eric Holder had to change his story and say it did exist. Since holder lied to Congress (or simply is clueless about what is going on at the Justice Department), it's not rational to be able to claim that Congress can not have access to information that tells them who knew Holder wasn't telling the truth, when they knew it, and what they planned on doing about it.

This is WORSE than Iran/Contra, because even if everything Reagan was accused of was true, he would have just bi-passed Congress to get funds to fight communism in foreign countries. Obama would have used his power to illegally give guns to mexican drug lords who were using them to kill other mexicans for entirely criminal purposes, and American law enforcement, to justify unpopular policies.

Nice try though.

[stupendousman]

So, not only did the Obama administration due something either criminal or unforgivably stupid, then they tried to cover it up after the fact and got caught red handed.

Lot's of people on a bi-partisan basis thought it was a good idea to help out the contras to help fight communism in the 80's, though not via going around Congress. Virtually no one with half a brain who isn't the most rabid of partisans will claim that either possible rationale for the Fast and Furious program was a good idea.

If Obama isn't afraid for Congress to know who knew about this, and when, then he wouldn't have claimed executive privilege. It's highly likely that Obama knew about the program from the get-go, and if such where the case he and Holder both would probably be forced out of office.

[subego]

Interesting article in which paints a way different story of what went down with F&F.

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features

The main contention of the article is the vast majority of these guns were legally purchased by American citizens with no criminal record.

In a state where said can buy as many guns as they want and then sell them.

Even if you could find something to pin on them, they're first time offenders and get off easy. This is assuming you aren't actually trampling someone's legit rights.

[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?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Interesting article in which paints a way different story of what went down with F&F.

When the story quotes gun control advocacy groups, and attacks the NRA, you know what pre-determined direction the story will go to. It truly reads as though it was drafted by someone in the Obama administration. For instance, in order to demonize Arizona to make excuses for why it was the base of operations, they quote the guy in charge at the time as saying that in Arizona, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich." The difference is that when you buy a sandwich, the ATF does not require the buyer to go through a background check, and if you buy more than 2 sandwhiches, the sandwhich maker does not have to file a report with the ATF. The ATF is always notified whenever someone buys weapons in bulk, whether in Arizona or elsewhere. The vast majority of gun buyers EVEN IN ARIZONA, do not buy more than maybe 2 weapons at a time. Some of the people in question they KNEW had bought up to $300,000 and had reported almost ZERO income the year before. They knew that the people in question where "straw" buyers. There's really no question about that.

AGAIN, the ATF is notified every time ANYONE IN THE UNITED STATES buys more than 2 guns at a time, and they can track anyone who has a pattern of doing of multiple purchases to determine if the purpose was for resale. If someone buys ten guns in a short period of time, then no longer has possession of them after an investigation, it wouldn't be very tough to prove illegal resale without a license.

The main contention of the article is the vast majority of these guns were legally purchased by American citizens with no criminal record.

.... where it was known that they were "straw" purchasers. They may not have had a criminal record at the time they illegally bought guns to resell to others who where not legally able to do so. It's pretty much irrelevant if they had criminal records, the ATF pressured gun dealers to sell to these people even though they suspected they were purchasing them as "straw" buyers, then did absolutely nothing to track where the weapons went, or what they were used for. The focus on the buyers is a red herring here. The reason why the feds never indicted the buyers was because prosecuting people whom the feds pushed weapons into their hands was never the intention of Fast and Furious, and the reason why Holder initially lied about it's very existence.

In a state where said can buy as many guns as they want and then sell them.

That's the case with most states. However, you can't legally buy them with the purpose of selling to someone else. You have to have a ATF license for that. You can't even buy one for someone in another state who could legally buy one in that state. When the paperwork is filled out for the background check, you have to state under penalty of the law that you intend to purchase the firearm for yourself, and not someone else. All you'd have to do to show that someone was violating the law was that more than once someone sold firearms bought for themselves shortly after making the purchase.

It's really not rocket science.

Even if you could find something to pin on them, they're first time offenders and get off easy. This is assuming you aren't actually trampling someone's legit rights.

All this was known before the program started. They pressured the dealers to sell to these people, then told their agents specifically NOT to then track the guns. You don't do that unless your goal is to get guns into the hands of criminals. It's no surprise that the straw buyers where never prosecuted, because given that as part of the program the feds simply let the weapons vanish into Mexico with no credible plan to get them back (they didn't even tell the Mexican government about it) - it doesn't seem as though they either knew what they were doing or knew what they were doing, but where engaging in criminal activity.