Video: Ted Cruz smacks down Eric Holder on usage of Drones on American soil

As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) took to the Senate floor to filibuster the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director over the latter's unwillingness to unequivocally state that drones would not be used to kill Americans on American soil, Attorney General Eric Holder was in front of a Senate panel that included Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz wanted Holder to say it was unconstitutional to kill Americans with drones on American soil if said individuals posed no immediate threat.

Shockingly, Holder equivocates three times before ultimately giving Cruz the answer the Senator from Texas was looking for.

Amazing piece of video.

Via MediaIte:

Maddening Video: Ted Nugent FAILS to bring up Fast and Furious in debate when Piers Morgan serves up the opportunities

Why. Do. Gun. Rights. Activists. Refuse. To. Go. On. Offense. In. Debates?!

The latest very frustrating example takes place in a debate between Ted Nugent and Piers Morgan.

Take note at the 5:40 mark when Nugent is asked to respond to Barack Obama's gun control argument. Instead of bringing up Fast and Furious - a very deadly gun walking operation, led by the ATF / DOJ - he brought up Benghazi:

"...the Scammer-in-Chief, who claims that just to save one life would be worth this... He had a chance to save four American lives in Benghazi and refused to do so and now he's sending F-16's to Egypt..."

Both valid arguments to be sure but neither drives a stake into the heart of the administration's position on Gun Control. The ATF knowingly placed thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels who used those guns to commit hundreds of murders. On top of that, just a little over one month ago, the ATF in Milwaukee allowed a machine gun (automatic) and a 9mm to be stolen from one of its vehicles. Those two weapons are still loose on the streets of Wisconsin.

There were plenty of opportunities for Nugent to hammer on this. He got very close when he made reference to a 'gun free zone' in Mexico that isn't working. It was the perfect opportunity to demonstrate how defenseless Mexican citizens were when the U.S. Government flooded that 'gun free zone' with assault weapons (AK-47's and .50 Calibers) that were used by criminals to kill innocents. Nugent missed a huge opportunity.

Beginning at the 7:10 mark, Morgan actually tees up a Fast and Furious reference that Nugent completely missed. When talking about the increase in gun sales nationally, Morgan said:

"Do you think America is going to be safer because gun stores like this are selling so furiously and so much faster, weapons and ammunition increasing both in America?"

Talk about a slow, high-hanging curveball right in Nugent's wheelhouse! Guess what? He whiffed. Instead of saying something like, "Let me talk to you about Fast and Furious, Piers..." Nugent apparently didn't see the natural connection.

I love Ted Nugent but frankly, it is getting beyond tiresome to see second amendment proponents like him completely blow by the slam-dunk argument in the gun control debate.

A take-away line begins at the 3:30 mark when Nugent says, "Leave us the hell alone!" This perfectly captures the problem with gun rights proponents in these debates. They're never on offense and the best way to do that is to highlight the deadly irresponsible / nefarious operations of Obama's ATF / DOJ.

h/t MediaIte:

Eric Holder's gun control audacity vs. John Boehner's political cowardice

The comments by Attorney General Eric Holder at the U.S. Conference of Mayors were intended to help push Barack Obama's gun control agenda. What they did was further expose what Fast and Furious was all about:

"...the administration has called upon Congress to... consider a series of new federal laws imposing tough penalties on gun traffickers who help funnel weapons to dangerous criminals." - Eric Holder on 1/18/13

Aside from the fact that such penalties should apply to high ranking Obama administration officials - to include Holder himself - for what happened in Fast and Furious, this is quite the exercise in contrasting audacity with cowardice.

Audacity: boldness or daring, especially with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions. 

Cowardice: lack of courage to face danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.

First up, the truth regarding what Operation Fast and Furious was all about. It is a truth that Speaker John Boehner has proven he'd rather ignore than confront. That operation was conceived and carried out at the highest levels of the Justice Department and ATF with the irrefutable proof that Attorney General Eric Holder's immediate subordinates knew about it.

Fast and Furious was about ATF Supervisors in Arizona requiring Gun Store owners to sell assault weapons illegally to straw purchasers who would then 'walk' those weapons into Mexico and give them to drug cartels. These thousands of assault weapons were then used to murder hundreds of innocents. Those murders will continue for years to come. As Joe Biden said about Sandy Hook's shooting victims, children murdered at the hands of the thousands of guns our government gave to Mexican drug cartels have been and are being 'riddled with bullets'.

Biden has never referred to the countless victims of Fast and Furious - which include children as well - in such fashion.

This makes the U.S. Government (DOJ / ATF at minimum) complicit in mass murder with... assault weapons.

All along, the plan was to draw attention to these murders as well as to the fact that they were sold by U.S. gun dealers in order to re-enact the 1994 assault weapons ban as well as to enact tighter gun control restrictions. The administration - as well as the usual cast of Democratic politicians like Dianne Feinstein - was even caught lying about the percentage of guns found at Mexican crime scenes.

Once you come to grips with that reality, it's easy to see what's going on with the latest gun control push. The Obama administration is clearly banking on Sandy Hook doing what Fast and Furious failed at doing. This is not conjecture. It is demonstrable.

Here is Holder at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, piggy-backing on the newly christened Sandy Hook exploitation exercise to enforce gun control.



To underscore the point, check out this video of Holder's immediate subordinate, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden in 2009, announcing what the goals of 'Project Gunrunner' (the larger umbrella term for Fast and Furious) were. Take note what he says at the very beginning as well:

"The president has directed us to take action to fight these cartels and Attorney General Holder and I are taking several new and aggressive steps as part of the administration's comprehensive plan."

It's rather eye-opening to watch this after watching Holder above:



That Eric Holder still has a job is not only brazen on the administration's part but it exposes Obama's complicity in Fast and Furious. We already know he's complicit in the coverup.

Just look at Obama's ultimate actions in Fast and Furious and Sandy Hook to this point. The former involved Executive Privilege and the latter involves Executive Orders. The primary difference between the two is that Fast and Furious blew up in the administration's face.

Sandy Hook is Plan B.

Only because it continues to be relevant... Eric Holder in 1995, when he was a U.S. Attorney. Note his comparison between gun owners and smokers. He refers to smokers as people who 'cower outside of buildings'. Nearly twenty years ago, Holder wanted a world where gun owners would 'cower' when it came to owning guns.

What's happening today?

The Obama administration is attempting to get gun owners to 'cower' by somehow blaming them for Sandy Hook. This administration is attempting to shame gun owners and the NRA. It's even brought back its 2012 election campaign team to help do it.

What the Republican establishment still refuses to either learn or admit is that the reason why the Obama campaign was so effective before the election was because the Romney campaign didn't fight. It will only be effective in the gun control push if Republicans repeat their failing formula.

The third presidential debate is where Romney lost the election. Why? Because he didn't hit Obama where the President was weakest - Fast and Furious and Benghazi.

On the same day that Holder was speaking at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Boehner's office was asked to respond to Obama's unconstitutional gun control push via twenty-three Executive Order slaps in the face of Congress.

The response from the most powerful Republican in the United States?

Speaker Boehner will "review the recommendations". One could make the argument that this is strategic on Boehner's part but his history doesn't indicate that in the slightest.

In 2009, Eric Holder called his political opponents 'cowards'. Boehner continues to prove him right.

Holder fighting off FOIA request for Fast & Furious documents by refusing to respond to it

After Attorney General Eric Holder was found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not releasing documents required by a lawfully issued subpoena by Congress, the U.S. Attorney responsible for prosecuting his boss on criminal grounds predictably decided not to do so for obvious reasons. That left the civil contempt charge, which served as the impetus for a lawsuit filed by the House Oversight Committee against Holder that is still pending.

These subpoenaed documents are the same ones over which Barack Obama asserted Executive Privilege to prevent from being released.

Concurrent with the civil lawsuit is an effort by a very effective Watchdog group to have the same documents released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and it's causing Holder to react on a second front.

Via Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a brief on January 15, 2013, in response to an Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) motion to indefinitely delay consideration of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking access to Operation Fast and Furious records withheld from Congress by President Obama under executive privilege on June 20, 2012 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01510)).

Rather than respond substantively to Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit, the DOJ argued in court that the lawsuit should be subject to a stay of proceedings because it is “ancillary” to a separate lawsuit filed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee against the DOJ. The Court “should let the process of negotiation and accommodation [between the House Committee and the DOJ] run its course, and then decide with the input of the parties whether and how this action may appropriately proceed at that time,” the DOJ argued, effectively abrogating the FOIA. The Obama DOJ even suggested that the Judicial Watch litigation might encourage the Congress to fight harder to get the same documents in separate litigation.

To Judicial Watch's argument, consider an exchange between Issa - in his role as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and Holder on December 8, 2011. In the exchange (audio only), Issa was pressing Holder to admit that if the documents relative to Fast & Furious after March of 2011 are not released, the Attorney General will be found in contempt.

There are two very key points (the second is particularly important) expressed by Issa relative to these documents.

1. Issa explains that Holder must cite a Constitutional exemption for refusing to produce the documents.
2. Even if Holder magically cites an exemption, he is still required to produce a log of the documents.

To this point, Holder has done neither, which leaves Obama's assertion of Executive Privilege the lone justification for the American people not knowing the truth about Fast and Furious.

Of all the exchanges between Issa and Holder, this one may just be the best.

h/t Breitbart

Jay Carney reveals truth about Fast and Furious

Once you finally accept the truth about Operation Fast and Furious, it is easy to see what White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney is really saying here. Fast and Furious, a program run by the ATF, with the approval of senior officials in Eric Holder's Justice Department, involved ATF agents instructing gun store owners to sell assault weapons to straw purchasers.

Despite these sales being illegal, the ATF required gun owners to make them under the pretense that the guns would be tracked. They intentionally weren't tracked; they were allowed to 'walk' into Mexico and right into the hands of people the ATF / DOJ knew would use them to murder innocent people.

Thousands of them went across the border, on purpose and for one purpose. That purpose was to use the subsequent murder victims - to include children - to create the political climate for gun control generally and assault weapons in particular.

Here is a direct quote from Carney's January 15th press conference, via RCP [my translated comments of what Carney likely meant are in bold brackets]:

"If these things were easy, they would have been achieved already [If Fast and Furious whistleblower John Dodson hadn't come forward, we could have blamed gun store owners for the deaths of Border Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican nationals]. If renewal of the assault weapons ban were easily accomplished, it would not need renewing because it would have happened already [Fast and Furious was very carefully planned and, as you can see, circumstances beyond our control caused it to blow up in our face. You'll also notice we had to stonewall for two years and rely on the President to assert Executive Privilege. You think an assault weapons ban is easy? Think again.]. The fact of the matter is the president is committed to pushing these proposals [The president has been committed to this issue since he was elected. Fast and Furious began in 2009. How much proof do you need?]. He is not naive about the challenges that exist [The president only pretended to be naive about Fast and Furious for the last two years but he's really not], but he believes that, as he said yesterday, if even one child's life can be saved by the actions we take here in Washington, we must take those actions. [Uh, Fast and Furious is responsible for the deaths of far more children than was the Sandy Hook but we can't exploit Fast and Furious because it was our fault]."

To watch the video of Carney making the aforementioned comments, click HERE.

Here is Carney reading part of a related statement.

Sandy Hook vs. Fast and Furious: The tale of two Bidens

On January 9th, Vice President Joe Biden told reporters that 'it's critically important that we act (on gun control)' and that 'the president is going to act with Executive Orders'. Seated immediately to Biden's right was Attorney General Eric 'gunwalker' Holder. That would be the same Eric Holder who was found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not honoring a lawfully issued subpoena for documents that would help get to the bottom of an operation led by the Department of Justice and the ATF.

The gall of Holder to willingly become one of the faces of gun control today is incredible. This may be the Obama administration at its most audacious - and it thrives on audacity.

For two years, the DOJ stonewalled Congress, culminating in the President asserting Executive Privilege to prevent the subpoenaed documents from being released.

With that as a backdrop, ask yourself if it would have been more appropriate for the likes of Biden to turn to his right in this video and address Mr. Holder instead of reporters:

Whenever gun rights advocates rightfully claim that Operation Fast and Furious was about the DOJ and the ATF intentionally putting thousands of assault weapons into the hands of bad guys so they could murder innocent people, the left claims it's a conspiracy theory. Yet, the facts are in. The ATF ran an operation that did put assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, who then used them to kill hundreds of innocent people.

All that's left to ascertain is motive but for two years, the administration stonewalled. Why is the urgency with which Biden is advocating gun control now, nowhere to be found for two years relative to the DOJ and the ATF? Why wasn't Obama demanding action be taken when the ATF was caught engaging in egregiously criminal behavior? Instead, he deferred to an Inspector General, who took well over a year to issue its final report.

Again, why didn't Obama demand action on gun control when it was learned that the ATF had placed thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels?

Remember this interview with Univision's Jorge Ramos more than three months after the shooting death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry? Compare Obama's stance then to Biden's stance less than one month after the Sandy Hook shootings:



A silver lining to the administration's stance today - enunciated by Biden on January 9th - is that the truth about the motivation behind Fast and Furious becomes even more clear. The actions of this administration today are 180 degrees from its actions in the wake of Fast and Furious being exposed that it is even easier to see why the ATF armed the cartels.

It was an effort to create the climate that would facilitate gun control, just like the Sandy Hook shootings are being exploited for the EXACT. SAME. PURPOSE.

Operation Fast and Furious blew up in the administration's face. Had it gone according to plan, I have no doubt that Biden or someone else from the administration (perhaps Holder) would have been sitting in front of reporters just like Biden did on January 9th and demanded action on assault rifles because of all the deaths in Mexico.

In this excerpt from Biden's comments to reporters, notice how he accentuates the fact that the children of Sandy Hook were 'riddled' with bullets. Yeah, Joe, hundreds of innocent Mexicans have been - and continue to be - riddled with bullets from assault weapons your administration intentionally gave to hardened criminals.

In the video below, Biden says:

"Every once in a while, there's something that awakens the conscience of the country."

Mr. Vice President, the only reason Fast and Furious didn't do that to a greater extent was that the administration for which you work covered it up and stonewalled attempts to uncover it.

Utterly. Shameless.

Firefighter Shooter beneficiary of 'Straw Purchasing' (think Fast and Furious)

In the days after the fatal shootings of firefighters Mike Chiapperini and Thomasz Kaczowka in Webster, NY on Christmas Eve, it was learned that the shooter did not have legal access to guns; he had already been convicted of murdering his grandmother with a hammer. So how did he get them?

If you're familiar with what happened in Operation Fast and Furious, you're likely familiar with the term 'straw purchaser'. In the case of that operation, which began in 2009 and ended shortly after the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) led the operation with the approval of the Department of Justice. Straw purchasing was a key component of Fast and Furious as gun store owners were instructed by the ATF to sell weapons to straw purchasers, who then walked those guns across the border into Mexico, putting them into the hands of the drug cartels. The weapons found at the scene of Terry's murder were purchased by a straw purchaser with the ATF's knowledge and approval.

Back to the firefighter shootings...

It's now being reported that the man who lured firefighters to his burning home before shooting at them - killing Chiapperini and Kaczowka - was the beneficiary of a straw purchaser, who also happened to be his neighbor.

Via the Daily Caller:

The neighbor, 24-year-old Dawn Nguyen, was arrested on Friday after police traced the serial numbers on two weapons used by William Spengler, the shooter: a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun, both purchased in 2010.

In exactly the same way, the guns found at Terry's murder scene were traced back to a gun store in Arizona where they were sold to someone who was known to be a straw purchaser for the drug cartels. When you add in the fact that the ATF knowingly allowed those guns to walk across the border, it becomes a matter involving the U.S. State Department, as this exchange from October of 2011 between Rep. Connie Mack and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton illustrates:



Remember, in the case of Fast and Furious, thousands of weapons were allowed to 'walk' into Mexico by U.S. Government officials and hundreds of people were murdered as a result. Here is what Nguyen did in the case of the firefighter shootings:

Nguyen violated federal law by signing a form declaring to a gun retailer that she would be the sole owner of the firearms, U.S. Attorney William Hochul said Friday. She also faces a state charge of filing a falsified business record, a state police investigator added.

“She told the seller of these guns … that she was to be the true owner and buyer of the guns instead of William Spengler,” Hochul said. “It is absolutely against federal law to provide any materially false information related to the acquisition of firearms. … It is sometimes referred to acting as a straw purchaser, and that is exactly what today’s complaint alleges.”

When it came to the weapons sold to straw purchasers in Fast and Furious, all of the aforementioned things took place, with one difference. The ATF knowingly allowed it in advance. There's another difference when it comes to consequences. No one at the ATF has been arrested. To give one an idea of how criminal this all is, consider the charges that Nguyen is facing based on the fact that she provided her neighbor with guns used in the commission of two murders in the U.S. (which didn't included the added element of straw purchasing and then transporting them across international borders):

The federal charges alone could send Nguyen to prison for a maximum of 10 years and levy a fine of $250,000. Both Nguyen and her brother told the media after the shooting that Spengler had stolen the weapons from her, but Nguyen later called police and admitted buying the guns for Spengler, according to police.

Spengler also possessed a .38-caliber revolver during the shooting, which he reportedly used to shoot himself in the head after his rampage. That weapon has not been connected to Nguyen.

Another difference between what the ATF did and what Nguyen did very well could be motive. Did Nguyen know what Spengler was going to do with the weapons she purchased for him? That has yet to be determined but the ATF absolutely knew what was going to happen as a result of allowing straw purchasers to walk those guns into Mexico; hundreds of people were going to get killed.

So what was the motive of the U.S. Government? The answer is the same thing we're seeing today - the exploitation of a 'crisis' to push a gun control agenda.

It becomes obvious that the rule of law applies to some and not others. In another incident involving the ATF, Meet the Press anchor David Gregory was allegedly allowed to break the law by holding up a 30-clip magazine on national television during a recent interview. Subsequent to that interview, it was reported that the ATF gave him permission to do so, despite their having no jurisdiction. To this day, the ATF official who allegedly gave Gregory permission has not been named.

What was Gregory's motive for displaying the magazine during his interview with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre?

As was the case with the ATF in Fast and Furious, gun control. Yet another example of the ATF allowing laws to be broken for a similar purpose.

Ends always justify the means when you're a creature of the left.

Some might remember this powerful report from Univision earlier this year, in which the carnage that resulted from Fast and Furious was investigated. Remember, straw purchasing is what enabled all of these murders, the same kind of straw purchasing that enabled the Christmas Eve firefighter shooter:

Fast and Furious: Exhibit A in case against Nadler's desire for 'Government Monopoly on Legitimate violence'

If there is a face that illustrates left-wing absurdity in the gun control debate, it belongs to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and he again showed the world why, during an interview in which he said:

"The state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence."

Gee, Mr. Nadler, for someone who sat through many House Judiciary Committee hearings into Operation Fast and Furious, that's quite an insane position. Every time Nadler opens his mouth on matters of gun control, he seems to confirm lines that have already been connected to several dots. For example, Fast and Furious was an attempt by forces in the U.S. Government (at least the ATF and DOJ) to give guns to bad guys to kill good guys so the subsequent carnage could be used to push for that Government monopoly Nadler talks about. The Big Government left denies this claim and smears those who legitimately make it.

Thank you for confirming what we suspected, Congressman.

Just keep talking.

Here is the exchange, via CNS News:



On the day of the Sandy Hook shootings, Nadler literally stated that the president should 'exploit' the shootings for stricter gun control laws. Later that evening, Nadler said that the NRA was 'enablers of mass murder'. Incidentally, NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre did not mention these comments by Nadler during the former's speech on December 21st.



LaPierre's unwillingness to confront the likes of Nadler during his press conference is another in a long line of examples of how Second amendment advocates just don't appear able to actually fight their bullying opposition.

h/t Sipsey Street

The Selective Outrage of CNN's Piers Morgan (Sandy Hook vs. Fast and Furious) speaks volumes

First up, this exchange between CNN's Piers Morgan and Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA). Take note of all the name-calling and where it's coming from. According to Morgan, Pratt is a "dangerous" and "stupid" "idiot" who offends Morgan by "laughing". Though the issue of Fast and Furious doesn't come up, a central theme in this post is Morgan's behavior, so pay particular attention to it.

It's 11 minutes but you won't want to stop watching until the very end, at which point, Pratt even manages to successfully drop a Neville Chamberlain line on Piers.

Via Sipsey Street:



CNN's Piers Morgan has been frothing at the mouth over the issue of gun control since the horrendous Sandy Hook shootings less than one week ago. Yet, for the last two years, his righteous indignation over Operation Fast and Furious has been conspicuously absent, if he has addressed the government-sanctioned operation at all.

At Sandy Hook, a man who reportedly worshipped 'Satan', illegally accessed legally registered guns and murdered people with them. As a brief aside / reminder, Barack Obama's hero, Saul Alinsky, had reverence for 'Lucifer' as well. The resulting carnage is being exploited by people like Morgan and Obama to argue for more gun control.

Conversely, Fast and Furious was the result of the U.S. Government (ATF / DOJ) intentionally putting assault weapons (the same weapons Obama and Morgan want to ban) into the hands of Mexican drug cartels so that there would be similar carnage that could be exploited in the same way that Sandy Hook is currently being exploited. Those plans went sour when it was learned - thanks to whistleblowers - that two guns from the operation were found at the murder scene of U.S. Border patrol agent, Brian Terry. Since then, it has been learned that hundreds of Mexicans have been murdered with guns placed into the hands of those cartels by the ATF.

To put this in the proper context, what the ATF did in Fast and Furious would be akin to someone breaking into the home of the Sandy Hook shooter, getting access to his mother's guns, giving them to the shooter, and letting him do what he did.

The silence from mainstream media types like Morgan on Fast and Furious, coupled with his caterwauling over gun control because of Sandy Hook, says far more than if Morgan had remained measured in his reporting of the Newtown / Sandy Hook shootings. The attempt to gin up a climate for more gun control is exactly what Fast and Furious was supposed to do. Morgan is essentially implicating himself with his own bi-polar behavior when it comes to Fast and Furious vs. Newtown.

Here is an exchange on Morgan's network from June of this year, in which CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin completely dismissed any hint of Eric Holder being culpable in Fast and Furious. In reality, if Morgan were consistent, Holder would be responsible for the DOJ / ATF not only failing to control guns but for giving them to bad guys.

Second of three Oversight Committee reports on Fast and Furious released

The first of three reports released by the House Oversight Committee back on July 31st, honed in on ATF culpability with regard to operation Fast and Furious. The second report, released on October 29th, exposes the degree to which senior Department of Justice (DOJ) leadership not only looked the other way but had a hand in implementation.

The report begins with a prologue consisting of some intimate detail surrounding the ultimate decision of then Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson to testify in front of Oversight Committee staffers. It does serve to garner at least a modicum of empathy for Melson while more outrage at the actions of senior DOJ leadership, about whom Melson asserted was "running the show".

Check out the opening stanza from the Executive Summary:

Operation Fast and Furious was not a strictly local operation conceived by a rogue ATF office in Phoenix, but rather the product of a deliberate strategy created at the highest levels of the Justice Department aimed at identifying the leaders of a major gun trafficking ring. This strategy, along with institutional inertia, led to the genesis, implementation, and year-long duration of Fast and Furious.

Like mad scientists concocting a toxic brew, a new strategy - that came down from on high at DOJ - to stop prosecuting straw purchasers and focus on cartels, coupled with the resurrection of the failed Operation Wide Receiver, gave birth to Fast and Furious in Phoenix.

Check out page 27 for another interesting distinction between Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. It's revealed that in 2009, DOJ's Criminal Division assigned a prosecutor to review Wide Receiver (Laura Gwinn). In an email to that prosecutor by James Trusty (DOJ Main and liaison with prosecutors in Arizona), it was relayed that the Criminal Division's Assistant Attorney General, Lanny Breuer was "VERY interested in the Arizona gun trafficking case..." This was Wide Receiver and the report notes that no evidence was produced which showed Breuer's predecessor had ever been exposed to that operation; it appeared to have been shut down before that reality ever manifested itself.

This would mean that even with the gift of hindsight about how failed Wide Receiver had been and why it was shut down, Breuer was interested in playing with fire.

In a September 22, 2009 email that appears on page 29 of the report, Trusty tells Gwinn that "we're in good shape" if gun-walking is the only concern.

On page 39, the report has the following to say about how wiretap applications were able to get approved at the Criminal Division level of DOJ and, in so doing, makes it quite clear why Attorney General Eric Holder should be held accountable:

Put bluntly, the Department of Justice rubber stamped the most important documents in Fast and Furious. These applications authorized federal agents to continue using the very reckless tactics that Attorney General Holder and many others have condemned in recent months. Rubber stamping these applications allowed the Department plausible deniability about the evidence of gunwalking tactics contained in the applications. The senior Department officials legally obligated to sign the applications did not actually read the documents they were signing. 

Congress demanded heightened scrutiny of these applications by senior officials because they are such an invasive law enforcement technique. Congress vested the power to authorize such applications in the Attorney General or certain of his subordinates, and not in a lower level Justice Department employee. To “authorize” in any meaningful sense must include a review of the document being authorized. By failing to properly read or review these applications before authorizing them, senior Department officials are undermining the law.

Holder's defense in countless appearance before various Senate and House committees was that because so much crosses his desk, he couldn't possibly have been able to read them all. This defense is torpedoed in the above paragraphs. Holder knew or should have known. As such, he has no business being the Attorney General.

Another bombshell is dropped on page 49 as it is revealed that in March of 2010, the Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler, who was the position's placeholder between David Ogden and James Cole - who assumed office two weeks after Brian Terry's murder - was briefed on the details of Fast and Furious. This would mean that detailed information about Fast and Furious was known by Eric Holder's immediate subordinate approximately nine months before the death of Brian Terry.

According to the report, the multiple red flags that would have been raised in any detailed briefing about Fast and Furious, at minimum, were not seen by Grindler.

On page 61, email correspondence between Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein and Lanny Breuer clearly demonstrated that both men knew that guns were walking but were more concerned about how such a reality would play in the media than with the bloody consequences that should have been of an even greater concern.

This paragraph on page 73 says quite a bit:

Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary Grindler took a management approach of delegating tasks and responsibilities to his subordinates and then remaining uninvolved until problems were brought to his attention. This management style insulated him from problems occurring beneath him. Instead of accepting responsibility for his leadership shortcomings, Grindler instead passed the buck to his underlings.

Considering that Grindler held the number two position at DOJ - right below Holder - at the time, he is precariously close to being the highest ranking DOJ official with direct culpability in Fast and Furious, if one is inclined to believe Holder's testimony. The decision not to manage subordinates is a decision to allow their activities to continue. The subsequent interview transcript excerpts involving testimony from Grindler is mind-numbing. His professed ignorance on multiple fronts is simply not the least bit plausible.

This particular sentence from the report says quite a bit:

Senior Justice Department officials were not eager to find out what was going on at ATF during Fast and Furious. After its failure, they were even less inclined to do so.

Investigators concluded that the approach of Holder's Deputy Chief of Staff, Monty Wilkinson, was similar to that of Grindler. When it came to Fast and Furious, they were quite hands-off.

After including relevant testimony from Grindler, Wilkinson and Ed Siskel (Associate Deputy Attorney General at the time) the following conclusion appears on page 82 of the report:

The Office of the Attorney General thought that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General exercised supervision over ATF. The Deputy Attorney General thought his staff, Ed Siskel in particular, exercised supervision over ATF. Ed Siskel did not see it as his responsibility to supervise ATF—even though ATF believed that it needed to report to Ed Siskel. In other words, the management structure at Department headquarters allowed for zero oversight of ATF, with no single person believing it was their responsibility to supervise the agency.

The report then focuses on Attorney General Eric Holder, who stated in an October, 2011 letter that he doesn't read all of the memos and weekly reports, that he relies on...

"Attorneys in my office and in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General to review these weekly reports..."

This poses an obvious problem because the people Holder said would bring any issues to his attention operated under similar guidelines; they would only pay attention if something was brought to their attention.

How about plans for Eric Holder to participate in a press conference touting the success of the Operation Fast and Furious investigation? On page 16 of the report, it's revealed that Holder's Deputy Chief of Staff was making attempts to get his boss to appear at a press conference to speak about Fast and Furious but that the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry led to Dennis Burke, U.S. Attorney for Arizona, recommending against it.

Then, on page 91 of the report, we get specifics:

On December 14, 2010, before Brian Terry was killed, Holder’s Deputy Chief of Staff Monty Wilkinson e-mailed Dennis Burke. The subject of the e-mail was “You available for a call today?”

At 12:28pm that day, Burke sent an email saying that Holder was interested in attending the press conference about Fast and Furious. Obviously, shortly after the midnight, hours later, Brian Terry was murdered and guns from Fast and Furious were recovered at the scene.

Emails show that it was known by late in the day on December 15th about the Fast and Furious connection to Terry's murder.

On page 100 of the report is a screen shot of an email from Burke to Wilkinson dated December 21st, 2010 - five days after Terry's death - advising that Holder not attend the Fast and Furious press conference.

A striking fact in all of this is that Wilkinson testified that he didn't remember much about the communications via email with Burke in the hours and days surrounding Terry's death, which is difficult to believe after such a tragedy being tied back to an ATF operation. Terry's murder should have been a "do you remember where you were when" moments.

The investigators seemed to reach that conclusion as well, on page 102:

Although both Wilkinson and Burke testified they had no memory of phone calls or communications about Fast and Furious and Agent Terry’s death, documents suggest that there was an immediate and obvious instinct to protect the Attorney General from being associated with an obviously controversial operation.

Essentially, the "collective memory loss" on the part of Holder's immediate subordinate is not the least bit believable.

The report's conclusion on page 104 is a must-read. Here is a link to the accompanying exhibits.

Shocker: DOJ seeks to dismiss Fast & Furious lawsuit

Attorney General Eric Holder was found to be in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not releasing documents subpoenaed in the Fast and Furious investigation. As was expected, the criminal conviction would go nowhere because Holder's subordinate is the individual responsible for prosecuting it (gotta protect the boss). That left the civil contempt conviction. The House Oversight Committee filed a lawsuit to demand the release of the documents. Barack Obama asserted Executive Privilege in order to prevent their release. He did so on the day Holder was found to be in contempt.

Now, the Justice Department is seeking a dismissal of the civil suit.

Via CBS News:

The Justice Department says federal courts should stay out of a political dispute between the Obama administration and Congress over documents in a botched law enforcement probe of gun trafficking.

In court papers filed Monday night, the department is seeking dismissal of a lawsuit by a Republican-led House committee, which is demanding that Attorney General Eric Holder produce records about Operation Fast and Furious.

The Justice Department says the Constitution does not permit the courts to resolve the political dispute between the executive branch and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The political branches have a long history of resolving disputes over congressional requests without judicial intervention, the court filing said.

President Barack Obama has invoked executive privilege and the attorney general has been found in contempt of the House for refusing to turn over records that might explain what led the department to reverse course after initially denying that federal agents had used a controversial tactic called gun-walking in the failed law enforcement operation.

There seems to be a slight problem with this argument. In U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that president could not assert Executive Privilege to cover up any crimes that had been committed.

A central component in the documents subpoenaed in Fast and Furious has to do with a February 4, 2011 letter signed by then Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich and addressed to Senator Charles Grassley. That letter alleged that the ATF was not allowing guns to walk into Mexico. Ten months later, the letter was withdrawn because its main assertion had been disproven.

Many of the documents subpoenaed are thought to provide some answers as to how that letter was written in the first place as well as what transpired in the months afterward.

If the precedent in this case is U.S. v. Nixon, a dismissal at this stage should not be considered likely. Then again, we've all seen some bizarre rulings these days.

Left-wing absurdity: Defending Obama administration in the wake of dead bodies

No one screams louder about wanting bi-partisanship than the voices from the left. However, time and time again, it is demonstrated that the left is far more entrenched in the idea of defending its party at all costs. The quintessential case-in-point would be contrasting the fates of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Nixon left office as a direct result of bi-partisan opposition. House impeachment and Senate conviction was inevitable; he resigned.

Bill Clinton remained in office despite being impeached in the House for perjury and obstruction of justice (lies and cover-ups). He wasn't removed from office because there was zero bi-partisanship in the Senate, except for a few Republican Senators who voted 'not guilty'. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate because there wasn't a single Democratic vote to convict on either of the two counts.

In Operation Fast and Furious, the highest officials at the Justice Department were found to be complicit in gun-walking that resulted in the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexicans. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the ranking member on the Oversight Committee, which spearheaded the investigation, fought tooth and nail to defend DOJ as well as the Obama administration. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), to which Cummings belongs, walked out during the contempt vote of Attorney General Eric Holder, who had refused to honor a Congressional subpoena for documents after having to withdraw a letter that was demonstrably false (lies and cover-ups).

The Democrats on the committee demonstrated that even dead bodies wouldn't  prompt them to seek justice when it was their party on the hook. Not one of the Oversight committees' Democrats voted to bring contempt charges against Holder to the House floor, though some Democratic congressmen did vote for contempt once it got there. Just prior to the vote, Barack Obama did what Richard Nixon did. He asserted Executive Privilege to prevent those congressionally subpoenaed documents from being released.

Fast forward to Benghazi-gate. Like Fast and Furious, Obama administration policies led directly to dead bodies. In the case of our consulate, there were four dead Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Administration officials changed their stories multiple times, first saying the attack was the result of an anti-Muhammad video and then being forced to admit the attack was coordinated and planned (lies and cover-ups).

Despite State Department officials and security officers on the ground confirming that multiple requests were made - unsuccessfully - for additional security assets, the left continues to defend the Obama administration on grounds that it didn't know and has a lot on its plate. In the case of Fast and Furious, that included DOJ. In the case of Benghazi,  it includes the State Department.

When Clinton was not removed from office in 1998, it was a major flashpoint in American history. The Democratic Party laid the foundation for its despicable behavior today. Crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice were dismissed and Clinton was defended because of what the lie was about and why he tried to cover it up. A new standard had been set; it was ok to lie and attempt to cover up said lie if the lie itself was perceived to be minor.

In 2012, it's evident the Democrats have set a new standard for acceptable lies and cover-ups. An administration that has lied and covered-up in both Fast and Furious and Benghazi-gate is being defended by Democrats, in the wake of policies that have led to dead bodies.

In Clinton's case, he was protected because the lie was perceived to be insignificant. In the case of Fast and Furious and Benghazi, a different course is being chosen - since lying about murder has not devolved to acceptable behavior - at least not yet (then again, the left seems content with lying about abortion not being about murder).

As a consequence, the administration is defended because it was ignorant of the circumstances that led to murder. In Fast and Furious, we were to believe that neither Barack Obama nor Eric Holder knew that guns were being put into the hands of people who would use them to kill Brian Terry along with hundreds of other innocents. In Benghazi-gate, we are to believe that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton knew about the requests for additional security by those who would be killed, despite testimony from State Department officials to the contrary.

We are also told that when U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House press secretary Jay Carney repeat over and over that the attack in Benghazi was in response to an anti-Muhammad video, they weren't lying. Again, the significance of the lie is not at issue. Denying lies were told - despite evidence to the contrary - is still the chosen course of action. That is, until lying about murder reaches the level of being considered acceptable.

In 1998, Democrats protected Bill Clinton by equating perjury with a white lie.

In 2012, Democrats are protecting the Barack Obama administration by equating dead bodies as the direct result of the administration's policies with events outside the administration's control.

Is this the John Dodson of the Benghazi attacks?

There are some parallels developing between Operation Fast and Furious and the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. First, the man at the tip of the spear in the Fast and Furious investigation has been Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight committee. He now appears to be taking the lead in the investigation into why four Americans - including ambassador Christopher Stevens - were murdered in Benghazi.

Another similarity is the reporting of Sharyl Attkisson of CBS. Many might remember that Attkisson was the first and only real mainstream media reporter who investigated Fast and Furious. In fact, she's the one who introduced whistleblower John Dodson to the country in an interview during which the ATF agent dropped the bombshell that ultimately led to Attorney General Eric Holder being found in criminal contempt of Congress. Specifically, Dodson was the first whistleblower to charge that the ATF was allowing guns to walk into Mexico. The death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was the last straw for Dodson.

Now, as the Oversight Committee prepares for its first hearing into what happened in Benghazi, Attkisson sat down with Lt. Col. Andy Wood, the man who led the Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya before he was told the American mission there would have to do with less. In many ways, Wood does in this interview much of what Dodson did to the Justice Department in Fast and Furious; Wood outs the State Department as being complicit in the Benghazi murders by ignoring calls for more security.

Via CBS News:



Here is Attkisson's interview with Dodson in March of 2011:

Video: Fast and Furious - Under the Radar and Above the Law

Well worth the watch as a re-enactment of Brian Terry's murder is included. This is a short excerpt taken from what will be a full length documentary by Fleming Fuller. Be sure to watch all the way to the end as there are some powerful words put up on screen, set to some ominous music.

Fast and Furious: Under the Radar and Above the Law



h/t Sipsey Street

Video: Univision personalizes Fast and Furious deaths in Mexico

Narrated by Jorge Ramos, a Univision report into Operation Fast and Furious focused on the Mexican victims of the U.S. Justice Department's failed gun walking operation. Over the last two plus years, anyone following the details of the scandal would here about Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was murdered at the hands of a gun U.S. authorities let walk. To a lesser extent, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata has been mentioned, though the evidence linking his murder directly to Fast and Furious isn't as strong.

But what about the hundreds of murdered Mexicans. Until the Univision report aired on September 30th, they were nameless statistics to many in America. They were identified as victims but not as people, teens, or children with families.

That all changed with the Univision Report.

Via Daily Caller:

The Spanish language television news network Univision unleashed a bombshell investigative report on Operation Fast and Furious Sunday evening, finding that in January 2010 drug cartel hit men slaughtered students with weapons the United States government allowed to flow to them across the Mexican border.

“On January 30, 2010, a commando of at least 20 hit men parked themselves outside a birthday party of high school and college students in Villas de Salvarcar, Ciudad Juarez,” according to a version of the Univision report in English, on the ABC News website.

“Near midnight, the assassins, later identified as hired guns for the Mexican cartel La Linea, broke into a one-story house and opened fire on a gathering of nearly 60 teenagers. Outside, lookouts gunned down a screaming neighbor and several students who had managed to escape. Fourteen young men and women were killed, and 12 more were wounded before the hit men finally fled.”

Citing a Mexican Army document it obtained and published, Univision reported that “[t]hree of the high caliber weapons fired that night in Villas de Salvarcar were linked to a gun tracing operation run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).”

That operation was Fast and Furious.

Again, I ask: Where is the Congressional Hispanic Caucus?

Answer: with the Democrats, who have defended Eric Holder at every turn, save for a few that voted to find him in contempt of Congress.

Here is nearly 10 minutes from the one hour long bombshell report from Univision.

Via ABC News:

DOJ Inspector General Report on Fast and Furious: Holder Incompetent but Innocent of wrongdoing

After reading the Executive Summary of the Inspector General's Report on Operation Fast and Furious, I'm struck by one thing. The biggest indictment of Attorney General Eric Holder may just be that he still has a job as Attorney General after these findings, not because the conclusions call for his removal but because Holder shouldn't be able to look himself in the mirror before going to work. Any real leader would literally step aside in utter disgrace or, at best, fall on the sword for his subordinates. If Holder does neither, he shouldn't have the trust of any subordinates.

Yes, Holder was found innocent of wrongdoing but the degree to which others close to him were found culpable makes him look like anything other than a leader.

As it was during the hearings and investigation, a huge stickling point for Holder is that now infamous February 4, 2011 letter in which the DOJ assured Senator Chuck Grassley that no gun-walking was taking place. DOJ didn't rescind that letter until December of 2011. It's clear, apparently even to IG Horowitz, that while the letter itself should not have been written, there is no way it should have taken ten months to rescind it.

From the Executive Summary via AZ Central:

The OIG concluded, as did the Department, that its February 4, 2011, response letter to Senator Grassley contained inaccuracies, particularly its assertion that ATF "makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico."

However, the OIG also found that, by March or April 2011, senior Department officials knew or should have known that ATF had not made "every effort to interdict weapons that [had] been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico," either in Operation Fast and Furious or other firearms trafficking investigations and therefore the February 4 letter contained inaccuracies.

Ok, so the IG says "senior Department officials" should have known the February 4th letter was bogus within one to two months of it being signed (not ten months afterward). Once you're talking about "senior Department officials", you're talking about Holder's inner circle. We're left to conclude that members of Holder's inner circle are culpable when it comes to not identifying the February 4th letter for what it was.

As such, shouldn't Holder by culpable as well? In fact, he should step aside before those identified by IG Horowitz do; it would be the most honorable thing to do.

Then again, the only thing Holder and honor have in common is that they both start with the letter "h".

As for the IG's analysis of how the February 4th letter got written...

The OIG found that a poorly executed information gathering and drafting process, as well as questionable judgments by Department officials, contributed to the Department's inclusion of inaccurate information in its February 4 response letter to Senator Grassley.

In preparing this letter, Department officials relied on information provided by senior component officials that was not accurate, primarily from U.S. Attorney Burke, ATF Acting Director Melson, and ATF Deputy Director Hoover. These officials failed to exercise appropriate oversight of the investigation, and to some extent were themselves receiving incorrect or incomplete information from their subordinates about it.

Once again, Holder's direct subordinates are guilty of "questionable judgments" and relying on information that was "not accurate". Horowitz then says theses "officials (Holder's immediate subordinates) failed to exercise appropriate oversight".

This next excerpt indicates a lack of leadership on the part of Holder, not by name, but based on what his immediate subordinates (plural) viewed as a correct course of action:

The OIG further concluded that the Department officials who had a role in drafting the February 4 letter should have done more to inform themselves about the allegations in Sen. Grassley's letter and should not have relied solely on the assurances of senior officials at ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office that the allegations were false.

Again, Holder's direct subordinates are fingered by Horowitz as being incompetent. Yet, Holder was whistling in blissful and ignorant solitude somewhere while his underlings - whom he hired - were making all of these bone-headed decisions?!

Perhaps most damning was an admission by Horowitz that the DOJ should have corrected the assertions in its February 4, 2011 letter in its May 2, 2011 letter in response to Grassley:

The OIG further concluded that, by the date of its May 2 response letter, senior Department officials responsible for drafting the letter also knew or should have known that ATF had not made "every effort to interdict weapons purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico," either in Operation Fast and Furious or other firearms trafficking investigations, and that the Department's February 4 letter contained inaccuracies and could no longer be defended in its entirety.

Rep. Darrell Issa's team has been very quick in sending out emails in response to this report. Here is an excerpt from a mass email I received from Frederick R. Hill, Director of Communications for the Oversight Committee:

IG Report’s Findings on why Attorney General Holder was not aware of Crucial Information about Operation Fast and Furious and Other Gunwalking (p. 453):

“We concluded that the Attorney General’s Deputy Chief of Staff, the Acting Deputy Attorney General, and the leadership of the Criminal Division failed to alert the Attorney General to significant information about or flaws in those investigations.”

Shouldn't Attorney General Holder be held accountable for the incompetence of multiple direct reports?

If Holder remains on as Attorney General, it will actually (and paradoxically) be the biggest indictment of him, based on the incompetence of the people who he is directly responsible for.

Video: Valerie Jarrett will not defend Eric Holder as DOJ IG prepares for Hearing

At the Democratic National Convention, Washington Times reporter Kerry Pickett confronted Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett and asked her several times if she thought Attorney General Eric Holder should resign. Perhaps what was communicated most was what Jarrett didn't say; she refused to say no.

Via the Daily Caller:



Eric Holder is sure to make news on September 11th because that's the day that the Justice Department's Inspector General (DOJ IG) will be in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).

Here is the hearing announcement that was sent out by Issa's office one day prior to Pickett's attempt to get Jarrett to take a position on Holder:

DOJ Inspector General to Testify Next Week Following Release of Investigative Report on Operation Fast and Furious

WASHINGTON – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa today announced that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, following the release of his report of the investigation into reckless conduct in Operation Fast and Furious, will testify before the Full Oversight Committee on Tuesday, September 11, 2012.   In Operation Fast and Furious, agents failed to interdict firearms destined for Mexican drug cartels while hoping the guns, once recovered at crime scenes in Mexico, would lead them to higher ranking cartel officials.  Guns from the reckless Justice Department program, however, contributed to the deaths of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and an unknown number of Mexican citizens.  It also created an ongoing public safety hazard on both sides of the border.

“For a year and a half, Attorney General Eric Holder has cited the ongoing Inspector General investigation as his reason for declining to hold those responsible for reckless conduct in Operation Fast and Furious to account.  Next week, this excuse for delaying action ends,” said Chairman Darrell Issa.  “Although I am concerned that the Justice Department has not given the Inspector General full and unfettered access to all relevant information, Inspector General Horowitz’s report and testimony should add to the understanding of the operation and numerous related management failures at the Department.”

It looks like Horowitz might be attempting to engage Issa in a game of one-upsmanship. When it was announced that the IG Report was completed and would be released in four weeks, Issa wrote to Horowitz and said it's customary for the release to take place within two weeks. The Oversight committee chairman then proceeded to schedule Horowitz to appear before the committee after three weeks, which would be September 11th.

Earlier this week, the Los Angeles Times reported that Horowitz has written a letter to Issa, in which he appears to be hedging his bets about being ready on Tuesday, the 11th.

Based on how thin Issa's patience has been getting when it comes to this Fast and Furious investigation, Horowitz may be engaging in some ill-advised, petty gamesmanship; there could be a lot more downside than he thinks.

All through this investigation, individuals who have faced tough questions from committee members have chosen to defer to the as yet, unreleased IG Report. Now that the man responsible for it - Horowitz - will be bringing it to the Committee hearing with him, he won't be able to do what those before him have done - defer to the report that isn't released.

In Horowitz's case, he won't be able to defer to the report; he will have to defend it. The buck will stop with him. It might not be a good idea for him to needle Issa at this point. Then again, Horowitz may just need every waking minute to nail his talking points.

GOP Platform names Fast and Furious, blames DOJ

The Republican Party platform that was adopted this week points the finger of responsibility for operation Fast and Furious directly at the Eric Holder - led Department of Justice. The Hill (h/t Sipsey Street) excerpted a portion of the platform that speaks to Fast and Furious but here is the entire quote:

We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority.

Throughout the Fast and Furious investigation, the Republican with the most power in Congress - John Boehner - has come across countless times as not wanting to deal with the scandal, despite it being akin to Watergate with murder. The only reason it got as far as it did was because it was pushed - in large part by the aforementioned Sipsey Street blog. Even then, Boehner scheduled the Eric Holder contempt vote on the same day as the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare.

That leads to this past week. At the convention, Boehner was asked about the Party platform and said he hadn't read it, nor did he know anyone who had. Instead, he attempted to liken the idea of a one-page Party platform to that of single-page legislation, which the Tea Party embraces.

Nice try, Mr. Speaker but that's mixing apples and oranges. Your congressional body writes thousands of pages of legislation constantly. The purpose of those bills is, more often than not, to put more restrictions on the people. Your collective bosses (the people) seem to welcome those single pages of legislation. In fact, it might be nice if the next Congress spent all of its time repealing existing legislation instead of writing more of it.

Conversely, the Republican Party platform of this magnitude comes out every four years and the actual substance of it is approximately 50 pages. There may be some debate about how much teeth is in it but it is a document designed to hold YOU and your congressional colleagues accountable to what your collective bosses have said they want from their party. One page every four years won't cut it and shouldn't be the standard.

Given Speaker Boehner's inclination to avoid the Fast and Furious scandal whenever possible, it's interesting that by refusing to read the entire Party platform, he can ignore the part about the Party wanting him to hold the Department of Justice accountable.

Here's video of Boehner responding to a question about the Party platform after it had been adopted. Note how he says the American people might read it if it were one page. The more American people who read it, the better, for sure. However, it would seem to me that the people who most need to read it are the ones who are supposed to adhere to it while in office.

That would include you, Mr. Speaker.

Sharyl Attkisson: DOJ IG Report on Fast and Furious throws ATF Arizona under the bus

According to CBS' Sharyl Attkisson, the much anticipated DOJ IG report on Operation Fast and Furious is particularly hard on ATF's Phoenix office and may just give Justice Department leadership a pass.

Via CBS News:

Those familiar with the contents say ATF Phoenix officials shoulder much blame, including then-Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell, the lead Fast and Furious case agent Hope MacAllister, and group supervisor David Voth.

Since the controversy was first exposed, a divide has developed between the ATF staff in Phoenix who oversaw and implemented Fast and Furious; and their supervisors at ATF headquarters and the Justice Department. The Phoenix officials say higher-ups approved of the case. But the higher-ups say it was all the brainchild of rogue ATF officials in Phoenix.

Phoenix ATF officials tell CBS News that higher-level officials were integral in shifting focus away from arresting ground level gun buyers, to "a cartel focused strategy" that allowed guns hit the streets in an attempt to make a bigger case. They say the idea was codified in the September 2010 ATF document "Project Gunrunner-A Cartel Focused Strategy." The document refers to using the tactic of "limited or delayed interdiction" of guns, while cautioning that such investigations "must be closely monitored."

A little bit further into Attkisson's article, it appears that we could be watching the beginning stages of a circular firing squad; ATF leadership in Phoenix does not appear to be all that interested in just rolling over:

As alleged proof that they had the blessing of their superiors, ATF officials in Phoenix point to regular briefings provided headquarters and the Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center. Agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had agents working the case. The Justice Department also approved seven wiretaps in Fast and Furious. However, then-head of ATF Kenneth Melson and officials at the Justice Department say they never intended for agents to allow guns to walk, and didn't know it was happening. They also say they either didn't read written briefings submitted about the case, or that the briefings and affidavits didn't reveal the controversial strategy being used. Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, who oversees ICE, also says she knew nothing of the case.

Back on July 30th, the Oversight Committee issued the first of three reports on Fast and Furious. In it, the focus of that report wasn't all that dissimilar from what we're being told is in the IG Report. Report 1 of 3 was extremely critical of Phoenix ATF officials as well as ATF senior leadership. It will be interesting to see if the timing of the release of Report 2 of 3 will correspond with the testimony of the DOJ IG, who was recently called to testify this coming September 11th. That second report is supposed to point directly to the involvement of senior DOJ leadership. Watching the IG defend a position that involves singling out Phoenix ATF leadership while having to respond to a stinging report that outs DOJ leadership will be compelling to say the least.

In testimony before Congressional Committees, Attorney General Eric Holder, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and others all pointed to this IG Report instead of answering uncomfortable questions. Now that the Report is complete, the Inspector General is where the buck will have to stop.

The September 11th hearing may just top them all.

Read it all.

Wow: Darrell Issa calls DOJ IG to testify on 9/11... about that Fast and Furious report

The Fast and Furious investigation started in early 2011. It has been both compelling and painfully slow to watch. Ever suspicious of congressional investigations that almost always lead nowhere - unless the subjects are not politicians - I often waffled between believing that Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Senate Judiciary ranking member, Charles Grassley (R-IA) would give it all they have or succumb to the political pressure that demands little more than dog and pony shows that precede such investigations' fade into the abyss.

When I saw what was billed as the first of three reports to come out of the Oversight committee relative to its Fast and Furious investigation, I'll admit it was discouraging. It appeared that Holder had successfully coughed up his fall guys - five local ATF employees in Arizona. The letter from Issa's committee identified them as the responsible parties; DOJ leadership would escape.

Hang on just a minute. Issa still appears to be fighting despite having limited options. Sipsey Street calls it "three-dimensional chess".

The long anticipated DOJ Inspectors General report that every leader of consequence has deferred to whenever questions from Congress became too uncomfortable, is finally coming out and Rep. Issa is summoning the IG himself - Michael Horowitz - to testify in front of the Oversight Committee on September 11, 2012.

Via Kerry Picket at the Washington Times:

Congressman Darrell Issa, California Republican and House Oversight Committee Chairman, sent a letter on Friday to the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz that summoned the IG inspector to a Capitol Hill hearing to testify before the House Oversight Committee on September 11.

According to Mr. Issa's letter, Horowitz already sent a draft of the eagerly awaited for Fast and Furious report to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) as well as Attorney General Eric Holder and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General on August 21.

Here is a copy of the letter. Note that in addition to calling Horowitz to testify, Issa is doing so prior to the 30-day window the IG has given for the report to be released after DOJ leadership has had a chance to review. Issa points out that 30 days is not customary; two weeks is. Perhaps that's why Issa has decided to split the difference and request Horowitz to appear three weeks after completion of the report.

Issa addresses this concern in the letter.

These committee members have got to be F-E-D U-P with the number of times they've heard testimony that included deferrals to the IG. On September 11th, they'll be grilling a guy that has no one to defer to.

I'm back to believing Issa has no interest in dog and pony shows.

Should be big.