You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ATF Project Gunrunner
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
Sounds like Ms.Waters and Hold-on spent some time gettin' q's and a's sorted out...
Yes, her "shock" and "amazement" at how the "AFT" was being hamstrung was well played.
I liked Rep. Lungren's line of questioning. AG Holder did a pretty good job of skirting it.
Johnson wasting the committee's time with discussion regarding gun shows
The good representative is probably concerned with too many troops on one side of an island in the Pacific tipping over from the weight. . .
Issa is on a roll and Waters is trying to shut him up.
ATF has not had a true director for some time because the nominees have been so bad. They have had a series of "acting" directors. I think Holder is referring to the normal, appointed, Senate-confirmed director when he refers to a "permanent" director.Holder just said that he would like to see a "permanent ATF director". I suppose he means...similar to a Supreme Court justice, appointed by him, to make decisions that jive with his political opinions, for the next 30 years? Or maybe appointed by the Brady Group?
Issa is on a roll and Waters is trying to shut him up.
I've got to say, that three-way interchange really got my attention.
And why is this feller, Johnson wasting the committee's time with discussion regarding gun shows THE UNREGULATED GUN SHOWS!!!
Hank Johnson is referrencing the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act which will soon be introduced by New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=470726
.
Which is directly "off topic" for the subject of this session of questioning?Hank Johnson is referrencing the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act which will soon be introduced by New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand:
Brent
A lot of people went off topic - probably the worst is Zoe Lofgren.
But any time spent not talking about F&F is bonus for Holder.
But it is interesting that Holder commits to taking action against people in his department who shut down a hip-hop blog - he's definately going to make sure that those responsible are going to have the appropriate action taken against them.
But he's never made such a strong comittment to take actions against people who were ultimatly responsible for a Border Patrol agent dying.
But any time spent not talking about F&F is bonus for Holder.
But it is interesting that Holder commits to taking action against people in his department who shut down a hip-hop blog - he's definately going to make sure that those responsible are going to have the appropriate action taken against them.
But he's never made such a strong comittment to take actions against people who were ultimatly responsible for a Border Patrol agent dying.
The hearing is on Oversight of the Justice Department. As it happens, Fast and Furious is the big scandal going on, but this isn't a hearing specifically on the topic.
The Chairmen mentioned two particular topics. F&F was one. The recusal of Associate Justice Kagan from any case involving health care legislation is the other. But for the purposes of the committee, it's not an all-inclusive list.
The Chairmen mentioned two particular topics. F&F was one. The recusal of Associate Justice Kagan from any case involving health care legislation is the other. But for the purposes of the committee, it's not an all-inclusive list.
I don't know if anyone noticed this but Holder is talking out both sides of his mouth.
On the one hand he attributes violence in Mexico to guns from the U.S. on the other hand, with the help of Cohen, he says that the Mexicans who killed Agent Terry "probably would have had those guns anyway."
Which way is it Holder?
If they have the capability of getting guns anyway, then we really don't need to bother with tightening gun laws here right?
On the one hand he attributes violence in Mexico to guns from the U.S. on the other hand, with the help of Cohen, he says that the Mexicans who killed Agent Terry "probably would have had those guns anyway."
Which way is it Holder?
If they have the capability of getting guns anyway, then we really don't need to bother with tightening gun laws here right?
Mexicans who killed Agent Terry "probably would have had those guns anyway."
Technically that is another straight up lie as his people approved the sale.
Nothing like the fed breaking the laws in a manner with blatant disregard for life and then passing laws to restrict citizens who werent even guilty of the crime in the first place......
I know some other groups that think this way..... If these people werent in our government we would have a different name for them.....
I know some other groups that think this way..... If these people werent in our government we would have a different name for them.....
During this hearing, two points came to my mind, for what they're worth.
The first is that it appears that the Department of Justice is not particularly interested in upholding Constitutional Rights. Its interest is in projecting the current administration's policies in such a way that Constitutional and other legal issues are either avoided or obfuscated. Thus, we have a case such as the First Amendment issue raised (a web site domain was seized for a year) and, of course, the regular chipping away at the Second Amendment. The Constitution places limits on the government - the DoJ, rather than observing those limits, seeks to reduce them. It's probably not fair to just pick on the DoJ in this regard - I suspect that any government agency, from towns to the feds, would rather not be limited by certain Constitutional requirements. But since the DoJ is so closely related to our Constitution, they certainly deserve special scrutiny.
The second is that a lot of noise was made about the ease of purchasing significant numbers of "assault" weapons by individuals. The claim appears to be that all sorts of weapons are going over the border due to significant purchases by straw buyers. Now, if nothing else, Fast and Furious should have provided some data on just how widespread the problem is, given that known straw buyers were doing their thing with ATF blessing. So, just how many straw buyers were there? Not how many straw purchases were made, but just how many straw buyers there were. It seems that nobody has asked that question. I suspect that there were a lot of purchases by a very few people who were already known to be straw buyers or who became known and were allowed to keep buying. I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that straw buyers are flooding the Mexican border with weapons (other than, of course, those sanctioned by the ATF.)
The first is that it appears that the Department of Justice is not particularly interested in upholding Constitutional Rights. Its interest is in projecting the current administration's policies in such a way that Constitutional and other legal issues are either avoided or obfuscated. Thus, we have a case such as the First Amendment issue raised (a web site domain was seized for a year) and, of course, the regular chipping away at the Second Amendment. The Constitution places limits on the government - the DoJ, rather than observing those limits, seeks to reduce them. It's probably not fair to just pick on the DoJ in this regard - I suspect that any government agency, from towns to the feds, would rather not be limited by certain Constitutional requirements. But since the DoJ is so closely related to our Constitution, they certainly deserve special scrutiny.
The second is that a lot of noise was made about the ease of purchasing significant numbers of "assault" weapons by individuals. The claim appears to be that all sorts of weapons are going over the border due to significant purchases by straw buyers. Now, if nothing else, Fast and Furious should have provided some data on just how widespread the problem is, given that known straw buyers were doing their thing with ATF blessing. So, just how many straw buyers were there? Not how many straw purchases were made, but just how many straw buyers there were. It seems that nobody has asked that question. I suspect that there were a lot of purchases by a very few people who were already known to be straw buyers or who became known and were allowed to keep buying. I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that straw buyers are flooding the Mexican border with weapons (other than, of course, those sanctioned by the ATF.)
I was doing "gampa duty" when the feed ended... is it over for today or in recess as screen shot states?
The top of page has been saying "Eric Holder Dec. 9th" all along... is there more tomorrow or is that a typo?
http://issues.oversight.house.gov/fastandfurious/live.html
Brent
The top of page has been saying "Eric Holder Dec. 9th" all along... is there more tomorrow or is that a typo?
http://issues.oversight.house.gov/fastandfurious/live.html
Brent
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Sensenbrenner threatens impeachment if DoJ doesn't start cooperating with F&F investigation: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/08/s...admin-officials-as-fast-and-furious-response/
Hardcase amen on point one.
The committee has allready been briefed on where the bulk of the weapons are coming from. The Commander SOCOM stated that the majority of weapons were coming from the Military stocks in Central America.
Most of those weapons sold to the respictive countries through the Forgein Military Sales Office of the Pentagon and the State Department.
How else would they be getting M16s, M60s, LAWS, RPGs and M2s.
Therefore, the stats on the percentage of weapons coming from the US could be correct. Their only problem is that they cannot blame it on FFL dealers in the US.
The committee has allready been briefed on where the bulk of the weapons are coming from. The Commander SOCOM stated that the majority of weapons were coming from the Military stocks in Central America.
Most of those weapons sold to the respictive countries through the Forgein Military Sales Office of the Pentagon and the State Department.
How else would they be getting M16s, M60s, LAWS, RPGs and M2s.
Therefore, the stats on the percentage of weapons coming from the US could be correct. Their only problem is that they cannot blame it on FFL dealers in the US.