Obama asserts executive privilege over ‘Fast and Furious’ documents

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**AustonT**

Frazzled wrote:
Janthkin wrote:Fortune has a nice article/explanation of the whole F&F history.

The Fortune article is absolute crap. they couldn't track the guns yet forced gun sellers to sell them, even when the sellers reported them. Then they tried to prosecute one seller but he had tapes of their conversations telling the seller to go ahead and sell them despite misgivings. That case was dropped.

was that the guy who owns Lone Wolf guns by chance?

**Frazzled**

AustonT wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Janthkin wrote:Fortune has a nice article/explanation of the whole F&F history.

The Fortune article is absolute crap. they couldn't track the guns yet forced gun sellers to sell them, even when the sellers reported them. Then they tried to prosecute one seller but he had tapes of their conversations telling the seller to go ahead and sell them despite misgivings. That case was dropped.
was that the guy who owns Lone Wolf guns by chance?

Not positive. I haven't been keeping up.

And remember, they didn't try to implement the border stuff. To my recollection the DID implement the reporting stuff. They did pull back from expansion of that only after further outcry. For a while in Texas if you lived South of Austin and bought a couple of 9mms within a week you had ATF showing up and trying to harass you. This kept up until some people started suing and the NRA threatened a major suit about it.

**AustonT**

Frazzled wrote:
AustonT wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Janthkin wrote:Fortune has a nice article/explanation of the whole F&F history.

The Fortune article is absolute crap. they couldn't track the guns yet forced gun sellers to sell them, even when the sellers reported them. Then they tried to prosecute one seller but he had tapes of their conversations telling the seller to go ahead and sell them despite misgivings. That case was dropped.
was that the guy who owns Lone Wolf guns by chance?

Not positive. I haven't been keeping up.

And remember, they didn't try to implement the border stuff. To my recollection the DID implement the reporting stuff. They did pull back from expansion of that only after further outcry. For a while in Texas if you lived South of Austin and bought a couple of 9mms within a week you had ATF showing up and trying to harass you. This kept up until some people started suing and the NRA threatened a major suit about it.

Name's Andre Howard, he runs a pretty nice shop and from what I heard was vocally displeased with being told to sell to people he would normally refuse service to.

**whitedragon**

AustonT wrote:
Name's Andre Howard, he runs a pretty nice shop and from what I heard was vocally displeased with being told to sell to people he would normally refuse service to.

http://www.humanevents.com/2011/09/21/secret-fast-and-furious-tapes-spring-a-watergatesized-leak/

**d-usa**

More takes on Fast and Furious:

Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.
.....
Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

This is going to be something that will go on for many years I fear.

**AustonT**

d-usa wrote:More takes on Fast and Furious:

Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.
.....
Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

This is going to be something that will go on for many years I fear.

I'm going to throw the bs flag that the ATF was "hahmpered by prosecutors and weak laws." The folks at the ATF responsible and any other agencies involved need to get burned for it.
I'll go back and read the whole article later, but from the exert it reeks of blatant political pandering.

**Scrabb**

d-usa, you just reposted Janthkin's article.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:House finds Holder in contempt of Congress.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/holder-contempt/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I'm actually a little surprised they didn't make Holder offer his resignation earlier in the Administration, but I suppose they were trying to maximize their credibility for the passage of healthcare. At this point its really too late in the game to back-pedal, as claiming new information has become available simply makes the President look oblivious.

Actually, I take that back, there was probably mileage in letting the House have Holder and framing it as a witch hunt via the noise machine. It wouldn't convince anyone, but it would place enough doubt in the minds of undecideds to render the issue essentially moot. Especially since, in the grand scheme, its a minor thing. Immigration and border issues are definite back-burners this cycle.

**d-usa**

Scrabb wrote:d-usa, you just reposted Janthkin's article.

Sorry, I scanned the posts before posting but I didn't catch that.

**AustonT**

I saw this on the Huffington Post and followed the link...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/congressional-black-caucus-darrell-issa_n_1637626.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&utm_hp_ref=politics
Talk about misleading headlines. This resolution failed epically in the House and I've seen a recent trend of The CBC attempting to racialize the F&F investigation, walking out of the contempt vote and trying to pretend it's because Holder is black and not because he is refusing to honor subpoenas.