Obama's DoJ Corruption exposed in Fast & Furious

Page 1 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

07 Dec 2011, 4:46 pm

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-5 ... gulations/

To point this all out:

ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.


On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:


"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."


On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."


This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-5 ... gulations/

If this traces back to the White House, I think there is enough here for articles of impeachment.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

07 Dec 2011, 5:12 pm

Dishonest? Yes, most assuredly.

High crime or midemeanour? I don't buy it.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

07 Dec 2011, 5:21 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Dishonest? Yes, most assuredly.

High crime or midemeanour? I don't buy it.


Giving guns to Mexican drug cartels specifically to cause a crisis on our Southern Border to push for regulations to make it harder for American Citizens to practice their rights under the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution?

We also have at least 1 US Border Agent dead, and who knows how many other Americans have died as a result of this, all cause Obama and/or Eric Holder wanted to demonize gun owners and make it a lot harder for law abiding Americans to own a firearm.

I think this administration had every intention of having United States Citizens getting killed to further their vendetta against law abiding gun owners in the United States. We're not talking about faulty intelligence like in Iraq, we're talking about the DoJ deliberately forking over guns, ammo, hand grenades (which I doubt they got from a gun store), etc. to Mexican Drug Cartels in order to frame innocent Gun Store Owners of providing guns to the Cartels.

Unfortunately for the DoJ the Gun Store Owners (at least some of them) have ATF officials on tape assuring them that it was a sting operation and that the guns would never make it into the hands of the cartels.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

07 Dec 2011, 5:48 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Giving guns to Mexican drug cartels specifically to cause a crisis on our Southern Border to push for regulations to make it harder for American Citizens to practice their rights under the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution?

We also have at least 1 US Border Agent dead, and who knows how many other Americans have died as a result of this, all cause Obama and/or Eric Holder wanted to demonize gun owners and make it a lot harder for law abiding Americans to own a firearm.

I think this administration had every intention of having United States Citizens getting killed to further their vendetta against law abiding gun owners in the United States. We're not talking about faulty intelligence like in Iraq, we're talking about the DoJ deliberately forking over guns, ammo, hand grenades (which I doubt they got from a gun store), etc. to Mexican Drug Cartels in order to frame innocent Gun Store Owners of providing guns to the Cartels.

Unfortunately for the DoJ the Gun Store Owners (at least some of them) have ATF officials on tape assuring them that it was a sting operation and that the guns would never make it into the hands of the cartels.


It is not a high crime or misdemeanour to pursue stupid policy.
It is not a high crime or misdemeanour to pursue a policy that puts public servants in harm's way.
It is not a high crime or misdemeanour to advocate for constitutional change or for restrictive policy that turns out, ultimately, to offend the constitution.
It is not a high crime or misdemeanour to use questionable evidence to support your advocacy.

Now, what it might well be is an insult to the intelligence of the American electorate. So be it--the electorate will have their opportunity to pass judgement on that question.

The way I see it, impeachment is a 'nuclear' option, and Congress uses it at its peril. The practice of impeachment has the potential to bring not only the official impeached but the entire Congressional process that led to impeachment into disrepute. When both parties can agree that conduct has exceeded the bounds of constitutional constraint, then a case for impeachment is well made out. But if impeachment is used as a weapon by a Congressional majority to exercise political muscle against a sitting President, then it looks like abuse of process, to me.

You don't like Obama. We get it. But that does not mean that every misstep or boondoggle becomes a case for impeachment. Down that path lies chaos, and just as surely as it can be used against your enemy today, it will be used against you tomorrow.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

07 Dec 2011, 6:18 pm

visagrunt wrote:
It is not a high crime or misdemeanour to pursue stupid policy.
It is not a high crime or misdemeanour to pursue a policy that puts public servants in harm's way.
It is not a high crime or misdemeanour to advocate for constitutional change or for restrictive policy that turns out, ultimately, to offend the constitution.
It is not a high crime or misdemeanour to use questionable evidence to support your advocacy.


ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.


On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:


"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."


On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-5 ... gulations/

visagrunt wrote:
Now, what it might well be is an insult to the intelligence of the American electorate. So be it--the electorate will have their opportunity to pass judgement on that question.


I think it goes way beyond that.

visagrunt wrote:
The way I see it, impeachment is a 'nuclear' option, and Congress uses it at its peril. The practice of impeachment has the potential to bring not only the official impeached but the entire Congressional process that led to impeachment into disrepute. When both parties can agree that conduct has exceeded the bounds of constitutional constraint, then a case for impeachment is well made out. But if impeachment is used as a weapon by a Congressional majority to exercise political muscle against a sitting President, then it looks like abuse of process, to me.


Deliberately providing weapons to organized crime so they can use them on American citizens isn't a crime?

visagrunt wrote:
You don't like Obama. We get it. But that does not mean that every misstep or boondoggle becomes a case for impeachment. Down that path lies chaos, and just as surely as it can be used against your enemy today, it will be used against you tomorrow.


Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, is investigating Fast and Furious, as well as the alleged use of the case to advance gun regulations. "There's plenty of evidence showing that this administration planned to use the tragedies of Fast and Furious as rationale to further their goals of a long gun reporting requirement. But, we've learned from our investigation that reporting multiple long gun sales would do nothing to stop the flow of firearms to known straw purchasers because many Federal Firearms Dealers are already voluntarily reporting suspicious transactions. It's pretty clear that the problem isn't lack of burdensome reporting requirements."


On July 12, 2011, Sen. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder, whose Justice Department oversees ATF. They asked Holder whether officials in his agency discussed how "Fast and Furious could be used to justify additional regulatory authorities." So far, they have not received a response. CBS News asked the Justice Department for comment and context on ATF emails about Fast and Furious and Demand Letter 3, but officials declined to speak with us.


"In light of the evidence, the Justice Department's refusal to answer questions about the role Operation Fast and Furious was supposed to play in advancing new firearms regulations is simply unacceptable," Rep. Issa told CBS News.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-5 ... gulations/



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

07 Dec 2011, 6:58 pm

Is Inuyasha licking his chops right now?



SteamPowerDev
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 287

07 Dec 2011, 7:53 pm

They're trying to take our guns!! ! He must be the anti-christ! We should fire that anti-christ and hire one of those good christian republicans! Or that one Mormon. Just not this guy.

Sarcasm.



dmm1010
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 253
Location: Salem, WI, US

07 Dec 2011, 9:24 pm

SteamPowerDev wrote:
They're trying to take our guns!! ! He must be the anti-christ! We should fire that anti-christ and hire one of those good christian republicans! Or that one Mormon. Just not this guy.

Sarcasm.

Our right to keep and bear arms is arguably the most important right, as it ensures the retention of all others.



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

07 Dec 2011, 10:50 pm

There is a good deal of WTF in congress. Wasn't Hezbollah supposedly in Mexico, or was it just surmised? Or just another fear campaign? I don't understand the mindset of people sometimes. War would be over if they just legalized what they are fighting over.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

07 Dec 2011, 10:53 pm

snapcap wrote:
There is a good deal of WTF in congress. Wasn't Hezbollah supposedly in Mexico, or was it just surmised? Or just another fear campaign? I don't understand the mindset of people sometimes. War would be over if they just legalized what they are fighting over.


:roll:

The Department of Justice was providing guns to Mexican Drug Cartels and you're saying the problem is we should legalize drugs?!??!



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

07 Dec 2011, 11:01 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
snapcap wrote:
There is a good deal of WTF in congress. Wasn't Hezbollah supposedly in Mexico, or was it just surmised? Or just another fear campaign? I don't understand the mindset of people sometimes. War would be over if they just legalized what they are fighting over.


:roll:

The Department of Justice was providing guns to Mexican Drug Cartels and you're saying the problem is we should legalize drugs?!??!


To end the drug war, they should end the War on Drugs, and by extension, it would have made gun running an unnecessary mistake, so yes, definitely.

Why the eye-roll? Are you one of the people that think they are not going to be able to control themselves from getting high all day if it did end? :)



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

07 Dec 2011, 11:02 pm

snapcap wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
snapcap wrote:
There is a good deal of WTF in congress. Wasn't Hezbollah supposedly in Mexico, or was it just surmised? Or just another fear campaign? I don't understand the mindset of people sometimes. War would be over if they just legalized what they are fighting over.


:roll:

The Department of Justice was providing guns to Mexican Drug Cartels and you're saying the problem is we should legalize drugs?!??!


To end the drug war, they should end the War on Drugs, and by extension, it would have made gun running an unnecessary mistake, so yes, definitely.

Why the eye-roll? Are you one of the people that think they are not going to be able to control themselves from getting high all day if it did end? :)


Dude, this doesn't look like a mistake here. It looks like the Obama DoJ DELIBERATELY provided these weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels.

Furthermore, we have enough problems with alcohol already...



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

07 Dec 2011, 11:17 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
snapcap wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
snapcap wrote:
There is a good deal of WTF in congress. Wasn't Hezbollah supposedly in Mexico, or was it just surmised? Or just another fear campaign? I don't understand the mindset of people sometimes. War would be over if they just legalized what they are fighting over.


:roll:

The Department of Justice was providing guns to Mexican Drug Cartels and you're saying the problem is we should legalize drugs?!??!


To end the drug war, they should end the War on Drugs, and by extension, it would have made gun running an unnecessary mistake, so yes, definitely.

Why the eye-roll? Are you one of the people that think they are not going to be able to control themselves from getting high all day if it did end? :)


Dude, this doesn't look like a mistake here. It looks like the Obama DoJ DELIBERATELY provided these weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels.

Furthermore, we have enough problems with alcohol already...


Why do you think they did that? To demonize drugs even more?



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

07 Dec 2011, 11:52 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
snapcap wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
snapcap wrote:
There is a good deal of WTF in congress. Wasn't Hezbollah supposedly in Mexico, or was it just surmised? Or just another fear campaign? I don't understand the mindset of people sometimes. War would be over if they just legalized what they are fighting over.


:roll:

The Department of Justice was providing guns to Mexican Drug Cartels and you're saying the problem is we should legalize drugs?!??!


To end the drug war, they should end the War on Drugs, and by extension, it would have made gun running an unnecessary mistake, so yes, definitely.

Why the eye-roll? Are you one of the people that think they are not going to be able to control themselves from getting high all day if it did end? :)


Dude, this doesn't look like a mistake here. It looks like the Obama DoJ DELIBERATELY provided these weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels.


Were you unclear on the admittedly stupid main theme of fast-n-furious? Are you under the assumption that everyone else is?

The whole moronic idea was to track the guns all the way to the mexican drug cartels.

You're accusing them of exactly what everybody knows they did.

It was stupid, but you'd be amazed what is legal in the course of an official investigation.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

08 Dec 2011, 12:35 am

blauSamstag wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
snapcap wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
snapcap wrote:
There is a good deal of WTF in congress. Wasn't Hezbollah supposedly in Mexico, or was it just surmised? Or just another fear campaign? I don't understand the mindset of people sometimes. War would be over if they just legalized what they are fighting over.


:roll:

The Department of Justice was providing guns to Mexican Drug Cartels and you're saying the problem is we should legalize drugs?!??!


To end the drug war, they should end the War on Drugs, and by extension, it would have made gun running an unnecessary mistake, so yes, definitely.

Why the eye-roll? Are you one of the people that think they are not going to be able to control themselves from getting high all day if it did end? :)


Dude, this doesn't look like a mistake here. It looks like the Obama DoJ DELIBERATELY provided these weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels.


Were you unclear on the admittedly stupid main theme of fast-n-furious? Are you under the assumption that everyone else is?

The whole moronic idea was to track the guns all the way to the mexican drug cartels.

You're accusing them of exactly what everybody knows they did.

It was stupid, but you'd be amazed what is legal in the course of an official investigation.


Excuse me?!?!? I don't think you even read the article, and your statements kinda backs up my theory.

They lied to Gun Dealerships about tracking the guns, they turned the guns over to the cartels and then started blaming the Gun Dealerships...

The Gun Dealerships have the ATF on tape, lieing to them, and you're telling me it was some sort of elaborate sting. Looks more like an attempt to frame someone for a crime.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

08 Dec 2011, 1:00 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Excuse me?!?!? I don't think you even read the article, and your statements kinda backs up my theory.

They lied to Gun Dealerships about tracking the guns, they turned the guns over to the cartels and then started blaming the Gun Dealerships...

The Gun Dealerships have the ATF on tape, lieing to them, and you're telling me it was some sort of elaborate sting. Looks more like an attempt to frame someone for a crime.


What has that got to do with the ATF providing guns to the cartels as part of an official investigation?

Sounds more like hackneyed retroactive ass-covering to me.