ATF Project Gunrunner

jimpeel wrote:

Actually a department of our government, headed by Eric Holder, supplied firearms to those who are enemies of the government of the Republic of Mexico.

That is an act of war against a sovereign foreign state.

I wonder why no one has had the gumption to mention that fact in the hearings.
-----------------

Re Jim's closing, that question is, I suspect, quite far removed from being the only unasked question.
 
BGutzman wrote:

Seems to me someone that supplies weapons to enemies of our country, should be treated like what they are a terrorist

Agreed, if they weren’t in high government offices they probably already be charged and certainly if this wasn’t handled under anti-terror laws then it seems to me the RICO statues would also seem to be a possibility as this does have much of the appearance of an organized crime scheme.

Fox News is reporting a growing move to impeach Eric Holder - I feel this is right on as what he did was a crime against our constitution and our people and an act of war against Mexico

----------------------------

The DOJ a "criminally controlled organization", I think that being "a criminally controlled organization" is a predicate to RICO Act prosecution, which brings me to the following. Can anyone imagine the DOJ prosecuting the DOJ?
 
alan said:
Agreed, if they weren’t in high government offices they probably already be charged and certainly if this wasn’t handled under anti-terror laws then it seems to me the RICO statues would also seem to be a possibility as this does have much of the appearance of an organized crime scheme.
Click to expand...

As a private party a person would be charged as a terrorist, or arms trafficker. If captured in the country to which the arms are being shipped he would be charged as an unlawful combatant or insurrectionist.

Only a government can commit an act of war and, in this instance, it was the government, our government, which committed this act.
 
Here is a lesson from the past (courtesy of the New York Times, no less) about impeaching an Attorney General of the United States.

He’s Impeachable, You Know

I rather like the conclusion:

The real question is whether Republicans and Democrats are prepared to defend the constitutional authority of Congress against the implicit claim of an administration that it can do what it pleases and, when called to account, send an attorney general of the United States to Capitol Hill to commit amnesia on its behalf.
Click to expand...
 
Agreed, if they weren’t in high government offices they probably already be charged and certainly if this wasn’t handled under anti-terror laws then it seems to me the RICO statues would also seem to be a possibility as this does have much of the appearance of an organized crime scheme.
Click to expand...

Does this mean he will get locked up in a secret CIA prison and get waterboarded to tell the truth when testifying before congress?
 
Well according to the [Defense authorization act] passed by our senate 97 for 3 against ,our military will soon be able to arrest American citizens ,suspected of terrorism ,and hold them indefinitely, with no recourse.And our house already passed a bill close enough that they will work out the details and we have that law.
 
Well according to the [Defense authorization act] passed by our senate 97 for 3 against ,our military will soon be able to arrest American citizens ,suspected of terrorism ,and hold them indefinitely, with no recourse.
Click to expand...

Uh no. You need to read the bill. Much of the discourse was a proposed amendment to the defense bill submitted by senator Sessions in an attempt to force president Obama to veto the defense authorization bill. The US DOD and the president did not want this authority.

SA 1274. Mr. SESSIONS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 360, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

(5) Notwithstanding disposition under paragraph (2) or (3), further detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
Click to expand...


Amendment #1274 defeated by a vote of 59-41.

The following US senators voted to allow the detention of arrestees until the never ending "war on terror" ends:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00217


Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)


Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McConnell (R-KY)


Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS

In the end.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-01/...senate-debate-senate-amendment?_s=PM:POLITICS

Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.

"It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language," Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Jimpeel:

Please have another look at my post # 1680. I quoted BGutzman, adding my owh thoughts, below the dotted line.

BGutzman wrote:

Seems to me someone that supplies weapons to enemies of our country, should be treated like what they are a terrorist

Agreed, if they weren’t in high government offices they probably already be charged and certainly if this wasn’t handled under anti-terror laws then it seems to me the RICO statues would also seem to be a possibility as this does have much of the appearance of an organized crime scheme.

Fox News is reporting a growing move to impeach Eric Holder - I feel this is right on as what he did was a crime against our constitution and our people and an act of war against Mexico

----------------------------

The DOJ a "criminally controlled organization", I think that being "a criminally controlled organization" is a predicate to RICO Act prosecution, which brings me to the following. Can anyone imagine the DOJ prosecuting the DOJ?
 
There is no "movement" to impeach Holder. It's a good Sunday morning politico slogan, but has no traction, since he would never be convicted by the Senate.
 
There is no "movement" to impeach Holder. It's a good Sunday morning politico slogan, but has no traction, since he would never be convicted by the Senate.
Click to expand...

+1
US Rep. Issa does not wish to impeach AG Holder.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/2/issa-says-holder-ouster-white-house/


.........................................................................................................

“It is not about one person,” said Mr. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, during a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

“It is about a failure that seems to be pervasive within Justice that investigations play fast and loose with the expectations of what is right or wrong when it comes to what I am going to call collateral damage,” he said.

........................................................................................................

Mr. Issa said Fast and Furious was not the first federal investigation in which “bad people are allowed to continue to do bad things in the name of going after bad people.” He said he was not joining dozens of Republican congressmen in calling for Mr. Holder’s resignation in part because his committee had not “reached all the conclusions that are appropriate in this investigation.”

“(Mr. Holder) did not order this operation,” Mr. Issa said. “He didn’t demand they do something this stupid.” He said Mr. Holder should fix the problem and it was up to the White House to decide whether the attorney general should go.
Click to expand...
 
thallub, quoting Congressman Issa offered:


“It is not about one person,” said Mr. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, during a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

“It is about a failure that seems to be pervasive within Justice that investigations play fast and loose with the expectations of what is right or wrong when it comes to what I am going to call collateral damage,” he said.

........................................................................................................

Mr. Issa said Fast and Furious was not the first federal investigation in which “bad people are allowed to continue to do bad things in the name of going after bad people.” He said he was not joining dozens of Republican congressmen in calling for Mr. Holder’s resignation in part because his committee had not “reached all the conclusions that are appropriate in this investigation.”

“(Mr. Holder) did not order this operation,” Mr. Issa said. “He didn’t demand they do something this stupid.” He said Mr. Holder should fix the problem and it was up to the White House to decide whether the attorney general should go.

------------------------------

Congressman Issa's closing comment is particularly interesting re Holder "fixing" the problem. How is he to do this, given that he appears to be, or in fact is a significant part of the problem himself. As to what the Whitehouse might opt to do, remember that those basketball players stick together, at least for a while. Question is, how long might “a while” be?
 
I don't think Issa's comments can be taken at face value. Though the part about not seeking an impeachment is a remark I can believe, the underlying motivations for this couldn't be farther from those expressed in his statement. The Republican leadership in both the House and Senate has no taste for these hearings - they are holding their collective noses and staying as far away as they can. They have blinders on, you see - everything is about the 2012 elections, and for them there is one message and one message only. That is the economy. Anything that diverts attention from this message is seen as a threat to their election chances and they aren't going near it. Issa, in my opinion, has had his hand slapped in no uncertain terms. More than likely, he's probably been threatened with losing his committee chair and that's why he's soft-stepping now.
 
The Republican leadership in both the House and Senate has no taste for these hearings - they are holding their collective noses and staying as far away as they can.
Click to expand...

Bingo!!!!
Congress critters have no stomach for long drawn out investigations of train wrecks caused by career bureaucrats. The F&F debacle was driven from the bottom up; it did not originate in the office of AG Holder. F&F originated with career employees in the Phoenix office of the BATFE with the concurrence of the local federal prosecutor. It was sold up the food chain.
 
Here is the thing.

TO get a cabinet member to resign he has to become a liability to the president or be vulnerable to getting impeached. Since Holder was fulfilling the will of the people who elected the president he is in little danger of being fired. Now if he were to loosen regulation say by opening up the machine gun registry he would be gone that week.
 
Now if he were to loosen regulation say by opening up the machine gun registry he would be gone that week.
Click to expand...

Since FOPA closed it by law, nothing but a new law can open it again.

It was not closed by a regulation that could be altered without Congressional action.
 
Thallub, in response to your comments about F&F orginating in the AG's office.
You are correct.

Unfortunately, you fail to see the reality of the situation.

An operation of this nature cannot be restricted to one Agency. This operation required the concurence of the following agencies and probably more.

ATF had to approve it and did. The operation was included in the Phoenix ATF SAC in his weekly reports. They used data from the operation to support their effort to impose new regulations on gun dealers and establish a data base, in effect a National gun registery, for long guns.

The FBI had to approve the sales a number of which were reported. They had to approve the use of their confidental informant(s).

Because it crossed international boundaries and excluded the Mexican Government and all of our embassy personnel, the State Department had to approve the operation. Ambassadors get really upset when this type of things happens in their country.

Homeland Security had to be in the loop as their personnel came in contact with the "smugglers" and were instructed to ignore them.

The coordination involved between competing agencys and departments requires White House involvement. If the White House is not involved this would never have happened. Hillary Clinton is to smart to not have a get out of jail free card. We know from that E-Mails from ATF SAC Phoenix were distributed to a NSC staffer at the White House. The copies of the E-Mails contained personal notes to the staffer.

To once again quote my former Attorney and current Sec of State, Hillary Clinton, testimony that the Heads of the ATF, FBI, Homeland Security, AG, SEC Of State, National Security Advisor and at least the White House Chief of Staff were not briefed and did not approve this operation,

Requires a suspension of disbelief.

Congressman Issa is a wiley and tough old bird. He has the goods and will use the information at a most advantagous time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top