Obama Adminstration Selling Guns to Mexican Drug Lords? REALLY???

Stop being childish. You are throwing insults around like a feeble-brained chimp throwing poop.

You cite a blog, and MediaMatters? MediaMatters is to the Democrats what Fox News is to the Republicans. Regardless, I read your Media Matters cite. It does not mention one shred of VERIFIABLE evidence stating that these are two different programs. If you read it differently, then please quote it here. That's a fair request, isn't it?

Rebecca, you aren't interested in the truth. Your only interest is in being indignant and angry, right?

Operation Gunrunner became Operation Fast and Furious.

Now, Operation Fast and Furious suspended Federal law and allowed guns to be illegally sold for use by Mexican drug cartels, right? And by law in order to suspend the law in this case REQUIRES the approval of the Attorney General, the top law enforcement officer in the USA, who is Eric Holder, correct? Because anything would be systemic corruption. Agreed?

Why is it that the Agents involved in Fast & Furious refer to Fast & Furious and Gunrunner as the same? Didn't you see them on CNN? How is it that the everyone below Holder, including Deputy Attorney General James Cole, knew about Gunrunner/Fast and Furious, and Holder did not? How is that remotely possible? Either Holder is a patsy with a Machiavellian Deputy Attorney General, or he is simply playing the deny game.

How could Holder have not known about an operation that significantly suspended federal law and threatened foreign policy? How?

I give you reasoning, and in return you shove your head deep into the sand while shrieking "liar, lair" like a deranged maniac Huh. Hardly a convincing persuasion technique, is it?

Rebecca, when YOU choose to let your conscience take a back seat so you can play the brain-dead politics of hateful political extremism; when you reference biased blogs rather than engage in intelligent reasoning, then you sacrifice all credibility in this discussion.

So, stop humiliating yourself and show me a reasonable argument. Is that unreasonable?

 

You don't mind dishing out insults but turn into a whiny little cry baby when you receive the same. Let me guess, your knight avatar is to compensate for feelings of inadequacy?

You're the one that posted in this thread saying there was a new revelation in the news proving that Holder lied to Congress. I'm still waiting for the proof.

 

Again neither you nor Mia have added anything new to support you factitious allegations.

The Gov't Oversite Committee has abandoned the case and is now pursuing an equally fallacious investigation of the Administrations campaign for reelection that will have the same result of wasted time and expense that is the result of their own intransigence for proper legislation concerning the issue of campaign financing.

You have been left in the dirt Corwin and with your baseless allegations above and reprehensible language where you belong.

 

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Now you are like a broken record. You will simply repeat the same thing over and over.

Re-read my original post and tell me how Holder could not have known. How do you authorize a project that significantly violates federal law without the approval of the nation's chief law enforcement officer? Especially when the people directly under Holder knew about it? HOW??? Stop being childish and use some common sense instead of posting like a child.

Mia, priceless picture - it says it all!

 

Your speculative questioning is groundless.

The Committee is no longer investigating the matter and has now focused on the Administrations campaign financing - your thread was nothing but a sound bite and you were the fish that got hooked....then cooked.

 

You seem to like that tired cliche. As I said the last time you said it, I don't think we have anything in common.

I've been asking for proof of your last claim since page 4. You pretended that proof just came out in the news that Holder lied to Congress. In reality, there was no new news release, it was the same old speculation. Knowing that you lied, I decided to play the game anyway, and ask you for proof. I've been asking ever since, so yes, a broken record. Why not just admit you are speculating instead of all the idiotic "ZOMG OBAMAS SELLIN WEAPONS 2 MEXICAN DRUG LORDZ!!!...WTH! DIS BE A GUBMENT CONSPIRACY!!!!...OBAMAS HOLDR IZ THE INCARNASHUN OV ALL EVIL. ITZ TOTALLY TRUE CUZ I SED SO" drama. If it were to be actually proven, I guess there is a good chance he would face perjury charges - And, rightly so. But, that doesn't seem to be the case at this time. I haven't read anyone with any actual authority in this matter state that it's proven that he lied. So, why not just say you're speculating rather than all the theatrics? Just out of interest, as far as violating federal law, I'm not sure exactly what law it is that you're talking about. Which one?

 

Wouldn't be nice if the administration actually focused on the economy and leading the country?

 

WHAT??????

Holy Crap! Rebecca must be, what, 14 years old?

Jacob Chambers and Sean Christopher, two of the 20 defendants indicted in the Fast and Furious investigation are convicted felons and have criminal backgrounds that should prevented them from buying firearms. Instead, they bought dozens of guns on multiple occasions while federal officials watched on closed-circuit cameras.

"You cannot sanction the violation of federal law by enabling or co-enabling prohibited persons, which includes felony convictions, from purchasing firearms" according to Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., a former federal prosecutor and a member of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee. It requires the consent of the U.S. Attorney General.

ATF agents called the ATF Headquarters in Phoenix whenever felons tried to buy a gun. The ATF would call the FBI who would usually tell them to ignore the law and allow the transaction. Only the U.S. Attorney General has the authority to authorize that, especially over two branches of law enforcement.

In addition, transporting these guns over the Mexican border while the ATF watched on closed circuit cameras is a serious breach of multiple federal laws, agreed?

The investigation is still ongoing.

Feds Allow Felons to Purchase Guns

Do you know the difference between speculation and reasoning?

Rebecca, you seem to be taking the "head in the sand" approach here. You are not interested in the truth, you are interested in being right. So, instead of uncovering the truth yourself, you are taking the immature attitude that if I don't show evidence to you, it doesn't exist. People's lives don't matter to you. What type of person are you, anyway???

A police officer is dead as a result of this. To you, his death is an inconsequential debating point. Shame, shame on you.

 

Stop Speculating Corwin.

The episode is a Red-Herring, it is a "Law Enforcement" screw-up whoever is responsible, irregardless a position taken by the newly appointed Attorney General.

The Administration has also called for an investigation you completely ignore.

 

Rather than act with integrity and admit that you have no actual proof, instead, you accuse me of acting like a child for calling you out on your dishonesty. You still have no proof, just posting goofy comments asking my age in an effort to divert. You really are a joke.

If Fast and Furious allowed gun sales to known straw buyers trafficking weapons, it wouldn't be surprising if it allowed sales to prior convicted felons. On page one of this thread I posted a pdf, here's an excerpt:

Released on February 8, 1989, ATF Order 3310.4(b) explains ATF’s Firearms
Enforcement Program. The Department of Justice and ATF relied on this Order to defend Operation Fast and Furious. ATF leadership in Phoenix believed a specific clause within the Order, section 148(a)(2), justified Operation Fast and Furious and its policy to allow guns to walk.

The clause reads as follows:

148. “WEAPONS TRANSFERS”
a. Considerations. During the course of illegal firearms trafficking
investigations, special agents may become aware of, observe, or
encounter situations where an individual(s) will take delivery of
firearms, or transfer firearm(s) to others. In these instances, the special
agent may exercise the following options:

* * *

(2) In other cases, immediate intervention may not be needed or
desirable, and the special agent may choose to allow the transfer of
firearms to take place in order to further an investigation and allow
for the identification of additional coconspirators who would have
continued to operate and illegally traffic firearms in the future,
potentially producing more armed crime.1

In other words, the administration in Feb '89 released this ATF order saying agents can allow illegal firearm trafficking to take place, by allowing the transfer of firearms if it's in order to further an investigation (without really specifying if or at what point they would be apprehended). According to your viewpoint, that would be, in and of itself, a violation of Federal law. So, would you also condemn this order - or, be in support of it (since it was issued by a different administration)?


On a side note:

You keep repeating over and over that Holder HAD to authorize the details in Fast and Furious. Even Issa, who wants so badly to get Holder, doesn't agree with you. According to him, he "suspects" he knew about the operation longer, but has no proof. You might want to email him with all your findings from FOX news. Anyway, as Breeze alluded to, it looks like he's getting distracted now, and diverting some of his attention to other areas in the Obama administration i.e. "potentially illegal campaign fundraising."

Weak attempt to project your own behaviour on me, as evident by the "Obama Administration Selling Guns to Mexican Drug Lords" title of this thread.

 

Yes, let's form a committee... Good idea. Problem solved.

 

Ah, Rebecca... I think you said it best in your own teenage way when you wrote:

First of all, the Agents involved did NOT want to allow the gun sales - they wanted to STOP the gun sales. According to ATF agents, the FBI's top officials told them to allow the gun sales, even when the agents wanted to prevent them.

Second, you seemed to have ignored the fact that the ATF does NOT have the authority to deliberately allow firearms to illegally cross the border. In case you haven't noticed, the Mexicans are really upset over that.

Let me cite the law you cited:

Look at what I have bolded. ATF agents can allow the illegal transfer of firearms with the intention of preventing illegal firearm sales in the future. Got it?

This is NOT what Fast and Furious did. It's intention was not to prevent the "illegally traffic firearms in the future", it's intention was to TRACK the sales of firearms to Mexico. ATF agents testified to that. There was no program activity to prevent future firearm sales. Instead, they merely wanted to see where they went in Mexico.

Now, allowing the sales of maybe a dozen guns in one thing. Allowing the sales of over two thousand firearms to criminals guarantees that innocent people are going to get killed, like the law enforcement agent killed by one of those guns. <sarcasm>I suggest you call the family of that dead man and make your argument with them? Remember to throw in some insults, I'm sure it will help with their pain. Remember to tell them that Fast and Furious was a good program.</sarcasm>

By the way, the ATF is a U.S. agency. It's mandate is to protect the United States, not to protect other countries. It requires approval from the top to operate in other countries. Without that approval, I think even you will agree that it risks an international incident, like the one Fast and Furious caused with Mexico.

Understand now, little child?

 

Ah, Corwin...I was mocking you.

As I had said on page one of this thread, I don't support this particular program, so I'm not sure why you're redundantly lecturing on how bad Fast and Furious was. The reason I posted ATF Order 3310.4(b), is because I thought you were arguing that allowing the purchase of a weapon to a felon/straw buyer is a violation of Federal law (in undercover law enforcement circumstances). The part of your post I was replying to:

It seems that now that you've read the ATF order from a different administration, you don't have a problem so much with that particular issue? As far as the rest of your argument, about how they shouldn't have allowed the weapons out of direct surveillance or reach, I concur. (one thing we can agree on).

Look at your statement above that I have bolded. I do believe it is incorrect:

 

Again Corwin, self pity will not solve your problems - you have to wait for further developments and unfortunately for you the Committee has gone elsewhere.

The "Law Enforcement" problem has more (Ghosts) to hide than need for helping a republican on a witch hunt.

 

Breeze, here are a few articles I read about Issa today...

It wouldn't fit his narrative? lol.


Wait, here's another...

It’ll be good theater?

 

"Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“


Corwin, the past Administration is responsible for the Deepest Recession since the Great Depression and the same Congressman you are relying on for your own pitiful contrition is trying now to cover-up the real story on the Great Recession.

Shame on both of you......

 

You're right. I agree. We agree.
Wow.
The past democratically controlled administration is responsible..
Yippie..
Well said Breeze1

 

"Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“


The last Democratically controlled Administration balanced the budget and was paying down the Deficit - Mia you need to pay attention, read correctly if you can, the above quote was in reference to the Bush Administration. See URL and try not to mimic Corwin....(Hint) he has no real thoughts of his own.

* tool bar is not available for highliting or spell check???? anyone else

 

Breeze, you're thinking of a Republican controlled administration (see also Contract with America circa 1994).

I'm not talking about who's in the White House at the time. I'm referring to the controlling party at the time of the administration.

In both cases, you've managed to flip flop them; again.