Talk about hypocrisy...HOLDER BEGS COURT TO STOP DOCUMENT RELEASE ON FAST AND FURIOUS

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...ious-documents

Judicial Watch had filed, on June 22, 2012, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious and “specifically [a]ll records subject to the claim of executive privilege invoked by President Barack Obama on or about June 20, 2012.”
The administration has refused to comply with Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, and in mid-September the group filed a lawsuit challenging Holder’s denial. That lawsuit remains ongoing but within the past week President Barack Obama’s administration filed what’s called a “motion to stay” the suit. Such a motion is something that if granted would delay the lawsuit indefinitely.

What, that the Administration has in fact become the largest illegal gun trafficker in modern times and Feinstein was using that operation to justify a gun ban? Now badrose, you're blowing this all out of proportion by actually paying attention to the facts.

Government officials can make mistakes, even egregious ones that in hindsight seem beyond stupid. Hiding and scapegoating is much worse. Be honest. Admit mistakes and move forward. Especially with the election over.

My guess is that those documents will show that Holder and Obama were in on Fast and Furious from the outset, possibly even came up with the scheme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

Government officials can make mistakes, even egregious ones that in hindsight seem beyond stupid. Hiding and scapegoating is much worse. Be honest. Admit mistakes and move forward. Especially with the election over.

---

Admitting mistakes and moving forward are foreign concepts when you are accustomed to covering up and denying. We must also consider the possibility that the documents are being withheld from the House because they contain evidence of impeachable offenses. Withholding information was the beginning of the end for Nixon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

Government officials can make mistakes, even egregious ones that in hindsight seem beyond stupid. Hiding and scapegoating is much worse. Be honest. Admit mistakes and move forward. Especially with the election over.

---

I don't necessarily think it was Obama and Holder directing all this to happen,, but I think we would find that they were supportive of any ATF effort to prove trafficking of guns to mexico and far more encouraging of results that proved it versus asking questions about its appropriateness or safety measures being taken.

At the level at which this happened you have direct interaction between Feinstein's office and ATF as they compiled data on US civilian guns used in Mexico and it's beyond obvious what answer Feinstein had brought to the table a priori. You're at the level at which you get rewarded for coming up with the right results for politicians and appointees.

the only thing that points to something more sinister is how they let the guns go without any apparent way to track them, thus making it nearly impossible to prosecute anyone or even know who is involved.

I really don't want to buy conspiracies, but when you let 2,000+ guns go on the streets and call off surveillance and have no apparent way to track them, and you let that go on for 2 years and it never hits you that you are accomplishing absolutely nothing, even I start to think about the conspiracy angle.

No one has to convince me governments can be jaw droppingly stupid, but this one is almost too dumb to really be believed. I find it hard to believe people at ATF were saying "let's get these guns into mexico so we can do the traces on them and justify a gun ban" but the alternative that they thought this plan would somehow pay dividends when they had for 2 years let guns walk and hadn't tracked anything to anyone about as farfetched.

regardless I know a great way to know. live up to that "most transparent administration in history" promise Obama made.

One clear signal that the Obama administration was either directly involved or at the least rubber stamped Fast and Furious was that an Obama talking point was guns crossing the border into Mexico and an Executive Order on multiple receipt sales that was contemporaneous with Fast and Furious. It appears to me that the goal was to use the plan to prove that guns were being walked across the border, they just didn't plan on anyone knowing that the Obama administration was hands on in walking those guns across the border that they were using as evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

One clear signal that the Obama administration was either directly involved or at the least rubber stamped Fast and Furious was that an Obama talking point was guns crossing the border into Mexico and an Executive Order on multiple receipt sales that was contemporaneous with Fast and Furious. It appears to me that the goal was to use the plan to prove that guns were being walked across the border, they just didn't plan on anyone knowing that the Obama administration was hands on in walking those guns across the border that they were using as evidence.

---

I think it's incontrovertible the F&F program was born of a desire to prove US guns were going to mexico in an attempt to justify gun control proposals in the US.

I have hardcopy proof in feinstein's report that was already done when F&F blew up and had been developed in conjunction with ATF and her basis for enacting the assault weapons ban was to prevent these guns from going to mexico. Have the hardcopy if anyone wants me to upload it. she'd planned release a little later but when F&F blew up she released it.

The Mexican President has on multiple occasions supported strong US gun control including a national registry to prevent guns from going to Mexico. feinstein wants ANY excuse for gun control, and has been pretty honest about it. she's said she'd collect every gun in the country if she could.

so I know the goal was to prove guns were being bought in the US and going to Mexico and being used by the cartels, and the goal of that was to justify more gun control. I don't see how that can even be a question based just on the open statements of those involved and the documentary record.

the question is if, faced with not having enough evidence, they decided to create what they needed. this went from a trickle of guns to a flood, the ATF telling dealers to sell guns even the dealers didn't want to sell.

Think they're above that? the "90% of guns used in mexican gun crimes come from the US" is an abhorrent lie. They cherry picked the exact guns and traces to make sure they got only guns that came from the US and moreover not stolen guns but guns bought at stores. the number is in fact very small and we don't have a precise one b/c the Mexican government won't release the full info on the guns they have confiscated.

so I KNOW the program existed to prove a need for US gun control. people like feinstein haven't even bothered to try to hide that fact. it's just whether they went from trying to find that evidence to making it up when they didn't find what they wanted. From obviously politically motivated enforcement to accessory to murder for political purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

it's just whether they went from trying to find that evidence to making it up when they didn't find what they wanted. From obviously politically motivated enforcement to accessory to murder for political purposes.

---

That is exactly why I think Holder and Obama were in this up to their necks, Feinstein was also probably well aware of what was going on from very early in the game, which means this was not a plan hatched by a rogue ATF agent or two. This harkens back to Obama's comments in the '08 campaign when he successfully deflected anti-Second Amendment allegations by saying their weren't votes to pass any kind of gun ban at that time. This plan was likely hatched in the Oval Office when he was touting the 90% crap.

I have no doubts at all about Obama's stance on guns. He was a down the line supporter of the extreme Chicago view his entire political career. was even against conceal carry for retired police officers, and changed that vote when he got their support in the state senate election.

In a survey while he was state senator he replied he supported a ban on all semiauto guns. he later claimed a staffer filled it out and he didn't agree. Yeah, right. That's not even an extreme view in Chicago. Many want to ban them all, period, so just banning semi autos was a moderate stance by Chicago standards.

I'm real hesitant on the grand plans, so right now I'm of the mind that Obama for sure wanted a justification for an assault weapons ban (they're so hung up on those guns), Mexico was a great angle b/c they didn't have support for it otherwise, and ATF was set about proving it was US sales that were supplying the cartels. Of course the Mexican government was completely happy about this goal as they are wanting a ban here as much as anyone.

So I don't think it set out to run guns, but I think as they started investigations they needed more than busting the straw buyers who would say they didn't know where the guns were going. they needed to prove guns were going to the cartels.

The problem is once they cross the border they're gone. I think they may have had some idea that they'd turn people along the way or something. it's not like there was a downside to dead Mexicans (proven by the lack of outrage over it since this thing went public), their political bosses were happy with the proof of guns being run, and one step followed the other.

I dunno. I like to think that's what happened, but with the underwear gnome logic of "first we let guns walk, then xxxx, then we arrest people" you do have to wonder.

I have a hard time seeing anything other than the whole scheme being intended to manufacture evidence that did not exist in large enough quantity when Obama made the initial 90% claim.

House panel tells judge: Justice's offer in Fast & Furious settlement a 'grave disappointment'


In a joint filing Friday night, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee told the judge in the case that a settlement offer it received from the Justice Department this week was a "grave disappointment" and that a settlement is not possible.

"The parties are very, very far apart," lawyers for the GOP-led committee wrote. "Indeed, they are not even conceptually on the same page. After nearly four months of negotiating in good faith, the committee reluctantly has concluded -- principally as a result of the department's settlement document -- that the attorney general is not serious about settlement." The committee added that it didn't think court-ordered mediation would help.



In a January court filing, the Justice Department had reported progress in settlement talks, prompting U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson to postpone a hearing that had been scheduled for the following week. That hearing is scheduled to take place next month.

Since that filing, Holder told ABC News that the contempt voted didn't bother him.

"But I have to tell you that for me to really be affected by what happened, I'd have to have respect for the people who voted in that way," Holder said in the interview last month. "And I didn't, so it didn't have that huge an impact on me."

That's nice. "I have no respect for the House Oversight Committee to which I am Constitutionally bound to answer, and find myself so above them I'll say so publicly and clearly."

Can you imagine the media firestorm if a conservative Atty General said such a thing?

Of course they aren't going to settle. Waste of time for the court to even try to avoid making this decision. They delayed it based on absolute BS by the Administration. If they wanted to get something done order them to reach a settlement or you'll order a full release of everything including Holder's hat size by X date.