Fast and Curious: Holder Demands Full Disclosure of Mueller Report Despite His Own Record Of Contempt

Former Attorney General Eric Holder has declared that the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller is not the end of the obstruction inquiry but only the “beginning of obstruction.” Holder has demanded that Attorney General William Barr release the report despite the contrary precedent of Holder himself in refusing to disclose critical information in the “Fast and Furious” scandal. Holder previously declared that Mueller was certain to find criminal obstruction by Trump.

I have been a long critic of Holder whose tenure at the Justice Department was marred by political influence from his role in the Clinton pardon scandals to his defiance of Congress (leading to his being held in contempt). Whether it is his call to “kick” critics or his political actions, Holder’s record is at best checkered.

Fast and Furious was a legitimate matter for congressional oversight after the ATF arranged for illegal gun sales to Mexican drug cartels for the moronic purpose of tracking weapons. Instead, it simply gave criminals low-price, high-powered weaponry– over 2000 in number including the one used to kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. There should have been no question about the obligation to share information with Congress, but Holder was defiant and encouraged Obama to assert sweeping executive privilege claims. It was part of an overall assertion of privilege by Obama that went far beyond what has been asserted thus far under the Trump Administration.

Moreover, the current Democratic leadership supported Holder after his defiance of congressional oversight authority.

Citing “substantial separation of powers concerns,” Holder insisted “I am very concerned that the compelled production to Congress of internal Executive Branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning its response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries would haver significant, damaging consequences.” Imagine if Bill Barr were to quote the same language to the Congress on the current report.

Fortunately, Bill Barr is not Eric Holder. He will do exactly what he promised he would do: disclose as much as possible.

138 thoughts on “Fast and Curious: Holder Demands Full Disclosure of Mueller Report Despite His Own Record Of Contempt”

  1. “Holder has demanded that Attorney General William Barr release the report despite the contrary precedent of Holder himself in refusing to disclose critical information in the “Fast and Furious” scandal”

    Arrogant Liberals

  2. Bob Barr is no Holder. Of course not. Bob Barr is the hack and weasel who pimped out Republicans in Iran Contra. Kinda same what Turley does on his blog for Donny and his minions.

    1. Bob Barr was a member of Congress from Georgia. He hasn’t held public office in 16 years and has long since decamped to the Libertarian Party. William Barr is the current and former Attorney-General. He was in private practice during the Iran-Contra imbroglio.




    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has been without a permanent director for six years, as President Obama recently noted. But even if someone were to be confirmed for the job, the agency’s ability to thwart gun violence is hamstrung by legislative restrictions and by loopholes in federal gun laws, many law enforcement officials and advocates of tighter gun regulations say.

    For example, under current laws the bureau is prohibited from creating a federal registry of gun transactions. So while detectives on television tap a serial number into a computer and instantly identify the buyer of a firearm, the reality could not be more different.

    When law enforcement officers recover a gun and serial number, workers at the bureau’s National Tracing Center in Martinsburg West Virginia — a windowless warehouse-style building on a narrow road outside town — begin making their way through a series of phone calls, asking first the manufacturer, then the wholesaler and finally the dealer to search their files to identify the buyer of the firearm.

    About a third of the time, the process involves digging through records sent in by companies that have closed, in many cases searching by hand through cardboard boxes filled with computer printouts, hand-scrawled index cards or even water-stained sheets of paper.

    In an age when data is often available with a few keystrokes, the A.T.F. is forced to follow this manual routine because the idea of establishing a central database of gun transactions has been rejected by lawmakers in Congress, who have sided with the National Rifle Association, which argues that such a database poses a threat to the Second Amendment. In other countries, gun rights groups argue, governments have used gun registries to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens.

    Advocates for increased gun regulation, however, contend that in a country plagued by gun violence, a central registry could help keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and allow law enforcement officials to act more effectively to prevent gun crime.

    As has been the case for decades, the A.T.F., the federal agency charged with enforcing gun laws and regulating the gun industry, is caught in the middle.

    Law enforcement officials say that in theory, the A.T.F. could take a lead role in setting a national agenda for reducing gun crime, a goal that has gained renewed urgency with the school massacre in Newtown, Conn. But it is hampered, they say, by politically driven laws that make its job harder and by the ferocity of the debate over gun regulation.

    “I think that they’ve really been muzzled over the last several years, at least, from doing their job effectively,” said Frederick H. Bealefeld III, a former police commissioner in Baltimore. “They’ve really kind of been the whipping agency, caught in the political turmoil of Washington on the gun issue.”

    The bureau’s struggles are epitomized by its lack of a full-time director since Congress, prodded by the N.R.A., decided that the position should require Senate confirmation. That leadership vacuum, Mr. Bealefeld and others said, has inevitably depleted morale and kept the agency from developing a coherent agenda.

    At a news conference last Wednesday, Mr. Obama called on the Senate to confirm a permanent director, saying lawmakers should “make this a priority early in the year.” But given the complicated politics, it may be difficult for the White House to get a director confirmed. Mr. Obama’s Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, was unable to do so.

    In 2010, Mr. Obama nominated Andrew Traver, who is now the head of the bureau’s Denver division, for the post. But Mr. Traver, whose candidacy is opposed by the N.R.A., has yet to have a hearing, and his nomination has languished in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The senior Republican on the panel, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, has raised questions about Mr. Traver’s nomination, and his prospects for confirmation looked so dim that the White House told Democrats on the committee to make nominations for other posts a higher priority, according to a Senate Democratic aide.

    The persistent controversy over the A.T.F.’s role, historians say, also contributed to its neglect in the financing bonanza that followed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. While other law enforcement agencies like the F.B.I. have benefited from greatly increased budgets and staffing, the A.T.F.’s budget has remained largely stagnant, increasing to about $1.1 billion in the 2012 fiscal year from just over $850 million a decade ago.

    Lawmakers in Congress have resisted efforts to establish a database for gun sales, and many records are still handwritten. Credit Michael Stravato for The New York Times
    The bureau’s tracing center performed 344,447 gun traces in the 2012 fiscal year, but its staffing is no higher than it was in 2004, according to its chief, Charles Houser. Still, he added, the center manages to complete urgent traces in about an hour, and routine traces are done within several days.

    The distrust between the A.T.F. and gun rights groups is longstanding. The bitterness runs so deep that some critics of the agency are still angry about events from more than 40 years ago. Alan Gottlieb, the founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, cited a 1971 case in which A.T.F. agents raided the apartment of Ken Ballew in Silver Spring, Md., in the belief that he was stockpiling unregistered grenades. Agents found a cache of weapons, according to a lawsuit filed in the case, and Mr. Ballew was shot in the head after pointing a revolver in the agents’ direction.

    Mr. Gottlieb said the “low point” came with the bungled gun trafficking investigation known as Operation Fast and Furious, in which A.T.F. agents, in an effort to trace guns to a network based in Arizona, did not quickly intervene as the weapons were smuggled over the border to Mexico. Last Wednesday, in a development that may inflame the controversy further, Mr. Grassley sent letters to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General demanding an investigation and requesting more information about why a gun bought by an A.T.F. agent involved in Operation Fast and Furious was found at the scene of a homicide in Mexico.

    Edited from: “Legal Curbs Said To Hamper ATF In Gun Inquiries”

    THE NEW YORK TIMES, 12/25/12

    When the Sandy Hook school shooting occurred in December of 2012, the ATF had been without a permanent director for 6 years, a problem Obama inherited which no doubt factored in the Fast & Furious operation. With no permanent Federal director, the ATF was less in command of their branch offices. Fast & Furious was run out of Phoenix, far from Holder’s Justice Department in Washington.

    But more shocking than Fast & Furious is the fact the NRA allies in Congress, mostly Republicans, deliberately kept the ATF dependent on outdated database systems. They were actually using paper files and prohibited from establishing a modern computer base. What’s more, the ATF budget was kept stagnant at a time when its investigations were sharply on the rise.

    1. Just because there isn’t a head of a department DOES NOT mean someone isn’t is in charge and decisions are not made. Quite the contrary.

      BTW, Trump inherited Obama’s failed ISIL/Syria policy and solved the problem without Obama’s input.

      1. Thomas:

        ISIL was already in decline when Trump took office.

        ISIS was largely supported by former allies of Saddam Hussein in Western Iraq. They lent military know-how to ISIS during those pivotal early days. One could say that was blowback from Bush’s invasion of Iraq. I’m not bitter at Bush, however.

        But blaming Obama is not entirely fair. Obama couldn’t keep troops in Iraq without them being subject to Iraqi courts. That’s why Obama left Iraq exactly on the schedule Bush had negotiated. The Iraqi army was not substantial enough to secure the country then. That’s how ISIS took off.

        1. halfway true what you said about iraq peter
          but it does not account for the war being a partial consequence of the US’ covertly backed regime change effort against Assad regime that threw a contiguous part of Syria into chaos. that was a contributor. and Hillary a big part of that under Obama.

          So there’s a nexus that was well after Bush

          1. Kurtz, I have found Republicans tend to doubt the Arab Spring. They don’t believe it was a genuine popular uprising sweeping North Africa and parts of the Arab world. Instead ‘it was Obama-backed regime changes’. That’s right-wing media spin.

            The Arab Spring spread like wildfire from Tunisia to Syria engulfing Egypt and Libya in the process. Obama didn’t have the capacity to put that many people in the streets. Those were restless youths rising up against longtime dictatorships. In fact, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for setting it off. The internet played a part as well.

            The problem is that most of those countries that erupted lacked the institutions for peaceful change. And that was especially true with Syria and Libya. But again, Republicans blame Obama because that was the right-wing media narrative. That narrative assumes that longtime dictators had the moral authority to remain in charge. They didn’t; not even Mubarak.

            1. The uprising against the MidEast dictatorships were genuine.
              If you see 100, 000 protesters ( out of a country of say, 50 million), it’s unwise to conclude that the 100,000 represent the attitude of the entire country.
              The media will focus on and cover the activities of the 100,000 and they’ll likely not have, or present, an accurate view of where the other 49,900 are at in either opposition to or support of a regime.
              One analyst, on the heels of the launching of Gulf War II, stated that we’re going into (intervening in) places and cultures that we really don’t understand that well.
              And predictably, the fallout from that intervention can be much greater and more negative than the initial lofty expections.
              It’s not difficult to figure out that openly challenging a dictatorship carries with it some real risks.
              If those participating in a protest or uprising or revolt……call it what you will……are we expecting an easy transition and change of regimes, they are mistaken.
              And a similar view that our intervention “can fix things” and transform a nation into a Western-style democracy is equally foolish.
              Also, given multiple factions and objectives involved in uprising, it’s a mistake to assume that a revolt against a dictatorial regime is an acrossed the board, pro- democracy revolt.
              Some factions wanting regime change are looking for a change in dictatorship, “their” dictatorship, and are not interested in democratic reforms.
              Anyone who doubts the hazards and stupidity of carelessly American intervention in support of regime change should look at the aftermath of Gulf War II, the the “Mubarek must go”, ‘Gaddafi must go’ U.S. policies.
              I anticipate a question that’s been automatically thrown out ever time I have an exchange on this topic.
              “How long was the U.S. supposed to support Gaddafi?”
              It isn’t a matter of “supporting” Gaddafi ( or Saddam, or Mubarek); it’s an issue of not intervening to overthrow those regimes.
              If someone does not understand that clear and obvious distinction, no amount of explaining that distinction to them will do any good.

                I will add that I’m not an isolationist; I just think we need to be a lot smarter and selective about when and where and how we intervene.
                I’m reminded of an interview with Pat Buchanan, who could fairly be described as a nro-isolationist.
                This “in-depth” 3-4 minute interview is probably about 15 years old, shortly after we launched Gulf War II.
                Buchanan is asked about Saddam, WMDs, and BLTs.

            2. Syria had a drought that caused a food shortage, with a predictable result
              there were some food shortages in Libya too, even though it had one of the highest standards of living in Africa
              I don’t pretend to know why. could have been just the usual problems of life and business, or it could have been sabotage. I dont know\

              I do know that if you had food shortages in the USA you would see riots here too and looting. maybe 3-5 days. that’s why we have FEMA to stop that from happening if the SHTF they roll in fast with food and water.

              it could happen anywhere you have a major metro above a million supplied by a few highways and railway lines from outside. remember that

              1. but there is no question that this chaos, however it arose in Libya or Syria, was leveraged by Salafist, jihaadist factions supplied by, at the very least, saudi paymasters, and possibly covertly organized arms shipments green lighted by Washington spookery

        2. According to Peter everything was fine and peachy. The economy was doing fine despite the fact that one had to use a magic wand and the junior varsity terrorist group was OK. This is what we get with a lousy education system. Peter’s picture should be put on a poster as a sign of ignorance and below should be written ‘do you want your child to look like this?’

          1. The Noise Maker said that the government needs to scare the people with mug shots of abstract nouns. Dada.

              1. picture should be put on a poster as a sign of ignorance

    2. If you don’t like firearms then don’t buy one. It’s that simple.

      Oh, you don’t want *other* people to have firearms. That’s rather elitist.

      1. Thomas Johnson insinuates that the NRA merely advocates for greater consumer choice.

    3. the agency’s ability to thwart gun violence is hamstrung by legislative restrictions and by loopholes in federal gun laws, many law enforcement officials and advocates of tighter gun regulations say.

      The agency was formed from a division of the IRS, Peter. It’s function was tax collection and thwarting off-the-books trade in the commodities named. The segment of the agency concerned with voluntary compliance was later cleaved off and left in the Treasury department while the rest was sent to the Justice Department.

      There is no agency at any level whose mandate is to thwart ‘gun violence’. There is no such thing as ‘gun violence’ The term is liberal sloganeering. There are local police, but they’re concerned with robbery, rape, aggravated assault, and murder.

      1. Tabby, as someone who actually worked with cops I can you with certainty that guns make them nervous. Cops never know when a routine traffic stop might reveal a violent fugitive. Even small town sheriffs can wind up in that situation. Therefore your disingenuous suggestion that ‘no agency of any kind’ should have authority to track firearms disregards cop’s lives.

        1. The recent criminal reform bill had an unintended effect of making it harder to prosecute gang and violent criminals. Many are felons and often are arrested for that – easy to make stick – along with any number of other crimes, like selling drugs – whuch are not so easy. It was useful tool for getting these kind of guys off the street. The recent bill weakened that track.

          By the way, the approach for more gun control should not be about “assault weapons” but guns capable of firing high velocity rounds. Since damage from a bullet increases in a straight line by caliber but exponentially by velocity, and high velocity rounds can therefore be smaller and fire with less recoil, they are particularly lethal and create damage docs just can’t fix. That is what most assault rifles do and why they were designed as the military’s killing weapon of choice. High velocity is not an arbitrary definition and like “assault rifle” based on what something looks like but on the actual mayhem they are capable of.

          1. in other words you want to ban the AR 15. Good luck with that


    4. hamstringing ATF crazy stings means saving decent citizens lives probably
      their normal work is ok

      1. Kurtz, that Chicago story you posted suggests that there was a gun-running ring of some kind that needed to be investigated.

  4. Have The Trumpeters run out of steam? There were 325 comments on the thread about Trump dubbing his critics evil and treasonous. But only 50 comments on the thread about Holder demanding full disclosure of the Mueller report.

    Once upon a time, long, long ago, I used to marvel at the “extraordinary bursts of energy” exhibited by my own children while watching Saturday morning cartoons shortly after having eaten a breakfast of sugar-coated cereal bombs. And then they would all crash. Hard. Bedtime for Bonzo. No mas energy. Si. Gracias. Por favor.

    1. A revealing demonstration of hysteria and incoherence resulting from extreme loss…again.

      The inmates have taken over the asylum.

      “Hysteria Beyond Freud”
      – Gilman, King, Porter, Rousseau, Showalter

      “She’s hysterical.”

      “For centuries, the term “hysteria” has been used by physicians and laymen alike to diagnose and dismiss the extreme emotionality and mysterious physical disorders presumed to bedevil others—especially women. How has this medical concept assumed its power? What cultural purposes does it serve? Why do different centuries and different circumstances produce different kinds of hysteria?

      These are among the questions pursued in this absorbing, erudite reevaluation of the history of hysteria. The widely respected authors draw upon the insights of the new social and cultural history, rather than Freudian psychoanalysis, to examine the ways in which hysteria has been conceived by doctors and patients, writers and artists, in Europe and North America, from antiquity to the early years of the twentieth century. In so doing, they show that a history of hysteria is a history of how we understand the mind.”

      There is no rationale to “…prostrate all ranks to one common level.”

      Governance of hysteria, incoherence and dependence was not the intent of the American Founders.

      “Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.”

      – John Adams, Signatory to the Declaration of Independence, Second President

    2. Dems like Late still butt hurt since they had to give up their slaves.




    “Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [REDACTED] quote, ‘the White House is running this.’,” Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 5, 2016. “My answer, ‘well, maybe for you they are.’”

    Page replied: “Yeah, whatever (re WH comment). We’ve got emails that say otherwise.”
    Strzok-Page texts: How the Obama administration was involvedVideo

    A National Review story suggested that was indeed a reference to the Russia probe.

    The day after, Page also sent a link to a Glamour article about then-President Barack Obama.

    “Okay, so maybe not the best national security president, but a genuinely good and decent human being,” Page wrote.

    Strzok replied: “Yeah, I like him. Just not a fan of the weakness globally. Was thinking about what the administration would be willing to do re Russia.”

    Two days later, Strzok texted Page: “Hey talked to him, will let him fill you in. internal joint cyber cd intel piece for D, scenesetter for McDonough brief, Trainor [head of FBI cyber division] directed all cyber info be pulled. I’d let Bill and Jim hammer it out first, though it would be best for D to have it before the Wed WH session.”

    In the texts, “D” refers to former FBI Director James Comey, and “McDonough” referred to Obama Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, GOP investigators told Fox News. McDonough’s name, though, was redacted and only turned up when viewed by GOP investigators.”

    – Brooke Singman


    “On the afternoon of August 5, Strzok and Page engaged in a tense conversation which involved an imminent meeting with “agency people” — an apparent reference to the CIA. Strzok suggested that, for the new case, they should conduct Monday, Wednesday, and Friday morning meetings “with [REDACTED]” just “like we did with mye” — Mid Year Exam, the Clinton probe.

    Finally, after some back-and-forth over who should be invited to a major meeting about the new case, a meeting was held. In the aftermath, at about 4:30 p.m., Strzok and Page had the following exchange:

    Strzok: And hi. Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [REDACTED] quote: “the White House is running this.” My answer, “well, maybe for you they are.” And of course, I was planning on telling this guy, thanks for coming, we’ve got an hour, but with Bill [Priestap] there, I’ve got no control….

    Page: Yeah, whatever (re the WH comment). We’ve got the emails that say otherwise.

    It would be interesting to know what is in the emails that apparently clarify how the Obama administration divided responsibility for running the Trump-Russia investigation. Just like it would be interesting to know what is behind all the many redactions in these texts about how and why the Trump-Russia investigation got started.”

    – Calabrese

  7. The initial Fast & Furious scheme originated under G.W. Bush. It was a scandal Obama inherited. Yet right wing media kept flogging the scandal as though it had been Obama’s. Republicans, in fact, exploited Fast & Furious as an excuse to hamstring the ATF so it would be less capable of enforcing gun laws.

    1. It is amazing how the left keeps blaming everyone else, Holder is held in contempt of Congress and Obama invokes executive priviledge.

      “The Devil made me buy that dress.”

    2. Wrong. The Bush Administration pulled the plug on the gun running program when they recognized the obvious risks.
      It may have gotten off the ground in the Bush Administration….I’m not sure on that point, if it was actually implemented…..but it is not true that the Obama administration ‘inherited” Fast and Furious.
      It does not appear that the Obama Administration recognized the hazards that the Bush Administration realized were associated with that kind of a sting operation.

            1. Allan said to expect silence from P. Hill. FishWings said that silence is what happens when P. Hill refuses to argue with a drunk or an idiot. And yet, there Allan went making more idiotic noise. Just. Like. A. Drunkard. Sheesh. You are far too idiotic to realize just how idiotic you are, Allan.

              1. Diane Fishtails told me “That’s because you should never argue with a drunk or a idiot.”. Since he was the one saying it I took him at his word and since he was arguing with me the drunk or idiot had to be Peter.

                Now you wake up and make me break Fishtail’s rules.

                (The following will be unable to follow the logic
                and of course Diane, but I am sure there are a few more)

                    1. Allan says: March 27, 2019 at 3:04 PM

                      Tom, now expect silence from Peter.

                      Allan says: March 27, 2019 at 4:47 PM

                      Diane Fishtails told me “That’s because you should never argue with a drunk or a idiot.”. Since he [FishWings] was the one saying it I took him at his word and since he [P. Hill] was arguing with me the drunk or idiot had to be Peter.

                      You addressed your comment to Tom. Tom was arguing against P. Hill. Logically speaking, you failed to exclude Tom from the denotation of FishWings comment about “drunks or idiots.”

                      P. S. Whenever one composes two or more sentences using but one pronoun (“he”) to refer to two or more different people, one’s sentences are inherently ambiguous. Now who else besides The Noise Maker would call his own ambiguity by the name of logic?

                    2. “You addressed your comment to Tom. Tom was arguing against P. Hill. Logically speaking, you failed to exclude Tom from the denotation of FishWings comment about “drunks or idiots.””

                      Diane one of the operative words in my sentence was “arguing” That would exclude Tom since we were not arguing. Try again.

              2. P Hill was working and can’t follow on his smart phone because those squiggly lines are too hard to read.

                But ‘yes, Diane, you’re correct, there’s no point in arguing with Alan. He’s just white noise that’s loud enough to drown intelligent discussion.

                1. So, you’re writing on Prof Turley’s blog during work? Isn’t that unethical? If so, it’s very Holder of you.

                2. You were provided an article by Mackey on healthcare along with various explanations. What did you do Peter? Nothing. Intelligent discussion doesn’t exist where you come from.

                  1. The Maker Of Noise claims some sort of connection between Mackey’s article on health care and P. Hill’s comment about the Fast and Furious program. Undoubtedly, The Noise Maker will claim that the connection is logical (in his own mind). Most likely all of The Noise Maker’s non-sequiturs are “perfectly logical” in The Noise Maker’s own mind.

                    1. “he Maker Of Noise claims some sort of connection between Mackey’s article on health care and P. Hill’s comment about the Fast and Furious program.”

                      Wrong again Diane. I had specifically posted a WSJ article in full for Peter who was talking about healthcare. He was silent there as well as elsewhere whenever the discussion starts to involve more than the superficial.

                      I don’t think you understand logic at all Diane and I noted that when you first were denying the risk of morbidity and mortality that policemen had.

    3. true it was an inherited operation
      false it was flogged to stop enforcement.
      rather I like to think, it was exposed because it was a really, really foolish operation.
      So, are you defending it? what part of allowing very numerous illegal arms sales to straw buyers seems like a good idea?
      I mean, on a certain level, it’s kind of like a lot of other bogus law enforcement operations, like letting Whitey Bulger run rampant for years because he was an informant, but normally people think that is an abuse.
      Did you think it was a good idea, seriously?

        There’s some confusion about which administration did what with the gun running sting.
        “Wide Receiver” pre-dated the Obama Administration’st44r5s Fast and Furious program.
        The Bush program ( Wide Receiver) operated for about 18 months. I don’t remember the numbers, but I don’t think Wide Receiver lost track of 1200-1400 firearms ( out of 2,000 allowed to “walk” into Mexico).

        1. it was an incredibly stupid operation but then again ATF gins up a lot of stupid ideas over the years no matter who is the president. remember waco?

          i find it hard to put the blame for it on obama or bush. just a terminally insane law enforcement mentality that runs too many stings and snitches and other mischief and can’t just stick to investigating complaints as they arise, they prefer to manufacture crime instead

          kind of the vice cop mentality but its shared by some bad apples at DEA, ATF, and the local prostitution cops that want to sample the forbidden merchandise on the taxpayer’s dime

    4. “… the U.S. Department of Justice’s Inspector General released a 512-page report about Fast and Furious.

      “Our review of Operation Fast and Furious and related matters revealed a series of misguided strategies, tactics, errors in judgment and management failures,” the report noted.

      The report also clearly shows that Fast and Furious began under the Obama administration, dating its inception to October 2009. (Obama took office in January 2009.) This directly contradicts Obama’s claim.”
      Several similar sting operations were done by the ATF between 2006 and 2009, but they were separate and were never part of what became known as “Fast and Furious.”

    5. Fail. Even if what you typed is true, Jesus Soetoro Obama could have pulled the plug on Fast and Furious the evening after his inauguration. Unfortunately I suspect Obama spent that night filling his calendar with golf dates.

      How many readers knew the following? Moochelle Obama quit her day job to become First Lady. What was her job? “Earning” $360k/annual as the “Affirmative Action” executive for a hospital in Chicago. She was, ya know, helping lower medical costs, n’all.

      Moochelle’s work was so critical, so important to the survival of the hospitals’ clients, that the hospital left the position vacant after Moochelle quit. Think of the poh blacks that died because Moochelle wasn’t there!

      Why is it, I wonder, that all of Jesus Soetoro Obama’s college records are inaccessible, as if they don’t even exist? I mean, c’mon, historian Michael Beschloss said, “He’s the smartest President in this nation’s history.”

      After Obamacare dies soon, Obama’s legal legacy is zilch. “Elections have consequences,” except in his case!

      1. “Moochelle Obama quit her day job to become First Lady. What was her job? “Earning” $360k/annual as the “Affirmative Action” executive for a hospital in Chicago. She was, ya know, helping lower medical costs, n’all.”

        If I remember correctly one of her legacies was in making sure poor people containing mostly minorities did not end up in the high tier hospital where she worked and ended up in a lower tier hospital.

        1. Allan…….Michelle is so entitled, right?………..which leads to my next question: Where’s our “enigma”tic floridian?
          Can’t find his smelling salts after The Mueller/Barr announcement?

      2. Why is it, I wonder, that all of Jesus Soetoro Obama’s college records are inaccessible, as if they don’t even exist?

        They exist. It’s just that senior officials at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard took pains to lock the hard copy away so that checkbook journalists wouldn’t get their hands on it, a courtesy Al Gore, George W Bush, and John Kerry never received.

    6. Yet it was Holder who failed at honesty, integrity, and full disclosure of all related material to the American people for them judge for themselves. Why?

      1. The Starr Report was 445 pages long. It was submitted to Congress on September 9th, 1998. It was released to the public in full on September 11th, 1998. Just two days after it was submitted to Congress.

        The Starr Report — officially known as Referral From Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr in Conformity with the Requirement of Title 28, United States Code, Section 595(c) — was an investigative account of United States President Bill Clinton by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and released on September 11, 1998.

  8. As to obstruction: we’ve all seen it. It’s in plain sight. Trump admitted to Lester Holt that he fired Comey in a ham-handed effort to stop the Mueller investigation. He fired Jeff Sessions because Sessions complied with the requirements of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and recused himself instead of protecting Fatty and his cronies from Mueller. Consistent with the low-quality emotionally immature loser he is Trump repeatedly vented his anger and regret over nominating Sessions. Who the hell does Sessions think he is to prioritize the integrity of the DOJ instead of protecting the all-important Lord Dotard? After all, isn’t that what the AG is supposed to do? This leads to the question of what did Lord Dotard had to hide and what he needed to be protected from. If it was nothing, then why not cooperate?

    So, we have Barr who sends an unsolicited memo to Justice setting forth his extreme view that a sitting President cannot be indicted while in office, and, lo and behold, Barr is now the AG. We have Barr’s take on the Mueller report, not the actual report, and all Barr’s report states is that Mueller did not reach a conclusion, BUT that Fatso is not exonerated. In fact, Mueller may well have found criminal obstruction, but Barr doesn’t believe such can be prosecuted until he’s gone from the White House. Mueller may well believe it is the province of Congress to decide how to handle his findings as to Trump. So why, Jon Turley, do you find it odd that Holder believed that the Dotard would be found guilty of criminal obstruction? That issue is far from resolved. Are you still trying to sell the story that the Dotard was exonerated?

    Next, you quote Holder: ““I am very concerned that the compelled production to Congress of internal Executive Branch documents generated in the course of the deliberative process concerning its response to congressional oversight and related media inquiries would haver (sic) significant, damaging consequences.” Imagine if Bill Barr were to quote the same language to the Congress on the current report.” Well what makes you think that any of the pre-election collusion activities of Trump, his campaign and his children could ever possibly fall under “the deliberative process” of the President? This is false equivalency. These activities occurred before the Dotard took over the Oval Office. There is a massive amount of evidence of ties between Trump and his campaign and various Russians. Also, I believe Barr may be playing word games by stating that the evidence did not establish collusion between the Russian “government” and the campaign. Trump, his campaign and family have had lots of interactions with Russian oligarchs with ties to the government, but, technically, they are not the Russian government. Also, what were the sources of “evidence”? We know that Trump and everyone connected with him lie and are deceitful, and that Russians cannot be compelled to testify or produce documents, and even if they did, they would be questionable because Russians are equally dishonest. I want to see what Mueller has to say.

    How do you know what Barr will do, or whether any redactions would have a solid, valid, legal basis, versus game-playing and continuing efforts to prevent the American people from learning the truth? Barr campaigned to be AG, and given his position on Presidential immunity, should have recused, but didn’t, which causes me to question his integrity and whether he has an agenda. Given the course of events of how Barr came to be the AG, plus the overall dishonesty of Trump and his Administration, I would question the grounds for any redactions.

    1. As to obstruction: we’ve all seen it. It’s in plain sight.

      Natacha reverts to ‘I say it’s spinach’. Remember, she’s a lawyer.

      1. AG Barr stated three times at his Senate confirmation hearing that abusing the pardon power to suborn perjury and tamper with witnesses would be obstruction of justice. Barr also stated that tampering with or otherwise destroying evidence would be obstruction of justice. Did you know that the emails that Hope Hicks told Mark Corallo would never get out have not yet gotten out? Ag Barr told Senator Klobuchar that he would have to know the specific facts before he could answer her question on that count. Did you know that Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice by means of using a middle man, Vernon Jordan, to offer attractive employment opportunities to witnesses before Starr’s grand jury?

        1. D’oh! I forgot the best part: There was no underlying crime that had to be established before Clinton could be charged with obstruction of justice. Remember?

          1. D’oh! I keep remembering: The Paula Jones sexual harassment suit was a civil proceeding–as in not a criminal proceeding. Clinton gave a deposition in that civil proceeding. Clinton also gave video-taped testimony before Starr’s grand jury–which supposedly was a criminal proceeding. Come to think of it, George Dubya Shrub also gave video-taped testimony before Fitzgerald’s grand jury in the Valerie Plame investigation–which was also a criminal proceeding.

            YNOT is right. It’s Okay If You Are Republican. IOIYAR. But, but . . . Shrub was a Republican.

  9. We do not need Holder back in our government. Thus we do not want a Dem President next time. Maybe Trump will leave and we will get Pence.

  10. For those curious exactly how then-AG Eric Holder (and his then-DOJ Lt. Lannie Breuer) insured Goldman Sachs Chief Jamie Dimon still eats caviar on his yacht instead of prison food for the rest of his pathetic life, and to insure Goldman Sachs did NOT pay for the world wide 2008 depression they positively and directly caused, watch (or just listen) to this 40 minute video:

    It’s best to watch: at key moments the screen splits vertically, displaying the DOJ’s lies on the left contrasted with a photo copy of US Federal Law on the right. Hint: the two texts are mutually exclusive, proving these two lies Holder invented to meet his goals:

    1. Holder and Breuer: “We can not charge because the law requires we prove intent” FALSE: US law requires only to prove dishonesty, period. Q: Did GS lie while selling known poisonous RE securities after having bet billions of dollars the securities would fail? A: Yes, and easily proven.

    2. Holder and Breuer: “We could not charge Goldman because the law REQUIRES us to consider damage to the US economy.” FALSE: Federal Law ALLOWS the AG to consider such potential damage, but it is purely OPTIONAL, NOT A REQUIREMENT. Most obviously, any potential short term damage to the US economy that may have resulted by charging GS would be more than outweighed by the value of properly punishing those who practiced the predatory and illegal lending that caused the world wide 2008 depression, from which many Americans shall never fully recover. If such resulted in the end of GS for their felony crimes, so much the better.

    The video documents the exact day that Breuer met with Jamie Dimon to concoct Dimon’s and GS’s defense, a confirmed felony crime, orchestrated by Mafia Don Eric Holder.

    Breuer came from Cantor Fitzgerald, the world’s largest defender of white collar felons. Holder and Breuer walked out of the DOJ door and into CF’s doors to defend white collars felons like Dimon.

    If you were curious why CF paid Jesus Soetoro Obama $475k for one speech immediately after Jesus left office, wonder no more. It was payback for what I just described above.

    1. and to insure Goldman Sachs did NOT pay for the world wide 2008 depression they positively and directly caused,

      They didn’t. Goldman Sachs was the least troubled of the five bulge bracket securities firms and their assets might have made up 2% of the sum of assets of financial sector firms domiciled in the United States.

      1. Really? Name the other banks and bank CEO’s with whom Eric Holder jumped in bed (and committed major felony crimes) to save their sorry behinds from dying in prison like Jamie Dimon richly deserves (still to this day).

        1. If you want a response, you’ll make a coherent argument. You’re not there yet.

          1. The video I posted above confirms for anyone with eyes and a brain (hint: not you) that Holder and the so-called DOJ invented the two lies I listed to insure Dimon and Goldman Sachs were not punished for their felony crimes.

            Pray tell, what other bankers and banks did Holder jump in bed with besides Dimon and Goldman Sachs?

            What’s your source for your “2%” figure? Jamie? How much GS stock do you own?

          2. Thank you, BTW, for confirming/agreeing with me that Holder and Breuer are known confirmed uncharged felons, and are responsible for letting GS and Dimon get away with their own separate felonies.

  11. The Federal government is gangster at best so do not hold your breaths.

    “If Holder didn’t know about Project Gunrunner, why did he give a speech about it back in 2009?”

    U.S.-Mexico Border Security Policy Mar 24, 2009

    Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg and Deputy Attorney General David Ogden held a news conference to announce the U.S.-Mexico Border Security Policy.

    “If Holder didn’t know about Project Gunrunner, why did he give a speech about it years ago?”

  12. What Barr said in his summary of the Mueller report:

    As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

    In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordinated” as an “agreement–tacit or express–between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

    The second element involved the Russian government’s efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

    What Mueller said in the Stone indictment and various sworn statements including Stone’s and Corsi’s

    •Around July 19, 2016: Fresh off dining with some Brexiteers, Stone calls Trump and tells him, “within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” to which Trump responds, “wouldn’t that be great.”

    •After July 22: A senior Trump campaign official “was directed” (the indictment doesn’t say by whom) to figure out from Stone what else would be coming
    •July 25: Stone emails Jerome Corsi and asks him to “get the pending WikiLeaks emails”

    •August 2: Corsi writes back and reflects knowledge that the emails would include Podesta ones and there would be two email drops, one shortly after he returned and one in October

    •October 4: After Assange has a press conference but doesn’t release any emails, Steve Bannon emails Stone and asks what happened, and Stone replies that WikiLeaks will release “a load every week going forward”

    •October 7: As the Podesta emails start to come out right after the Access Hollywood video — timing that Jerome Corsi has claimed Stone helped ensure — a Bannon associate texts Stone and says, “well done”:

      1. And to summarize the book War and Peace, there was war and there was peace.

          1. Give us all 500 pages of the Mueller report and you can have the peace on the blawg for at least a whole day while we read it.

            Continue withhold the Mueller report and you’ll have nothing war on the blawg until you set the Mueller report free.

            1. I want the Mueller report released. Trump wants the Mueller report released. Diane, you have to be patient. It takes time to vet a report that detailed and long. In the meantime why don’t you go to the liquor store and buy enough of your alcoholic beverage of choice to keep you calm and quiet.

              1. It takes time to vet a report? Barr did it in less than 48 hours and from the people that know Mueller IT WAS detailed and long.

                1. You are an idiot Fishwings. That is why Barr provided a summary and not the entire report. That report is somewhere between 500 -800 pages and links to over a million other papers. That makes the process of vetting very uncertain.

                2. Fully supportive of it’s coming out – properly redacted – as fast as possible, but I can well imagine it will take a little time. How about a week! Pay overtime.

                  1. Starr Report 445 pages. Submitted to Congress September 9th, 1998. Published in full to the public on September 11th, 1998. Just two days after it was submitted to Congress.

                    Even so, there are ongoing investigations that Mueller handed off to other United States Attorneys. There is likely to be a fair amount of classified information that might not have been converted into grand jury information. AFAIK, there was no classified information in the Whitewater investigation. Maybe that, too, was Bill’s mistake. Clinton didn’t do anything that had to be classified to protect the vital national security interests of Donald Trump. Curious. No?

    1. So the statute for Conspiracy Against the United States has two clauses under which charges can be brought–the offense clause and the defraud clause. The offense clause requires the violation of another criminal statute; such as The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (i.e. hacking, identity theft etc.). The defraud clause does not require the violation of another criminal statute, but it doesn’t preclude the violation of another statute, either. Instead, the defraud clause requires an agreement to conceal by deceptive or dishonest means from an agency of the United States information necessary to fulfill the legitimate governmental function of that agency and at least one overt act in the furtherance of that conspiracy to conceal.

      Barr’s summary of the Mueller report appears incorrectly to presume that Mueller can only charge a conspiracy against the Trump campaign under the offense clause–not the defraud clause. Mueller did, in fact, charge the 12 GRU officers who conducted the hack and leak operation with Conspiracy against the United States under both the offense clause and the defraud clause. Meanwhile, Mueller charged the Internet Research Agency and Concord Management who conducted the social-media operation with Conspiracy Against the United States under the defraud clause only. That’s how we know that Barr’s apparent presumption is wrong. But, more importantly, that’s also how we know that Mueller was most likely building a conspiracy case against the Trump campaign under the defraud clause only.

      Consequently, the only way to demonstrate that AG Barr did not interfere with Mueller’s prosecutorial discretion is to release the Mueller report in full. Unfortunately, if AG Barr did interfere with Mueller’s prosecutorial discretion, then AG Barr has a vested interest in suppressing the Mueller report. And that will become a really big political issue going forward into the 2020 campaign season. You bet.

    2. I hope you realize that that pathetic Progressive idiot Podesta opened click bait in an email, on a non-secure server, which caused the DNC emails to be leaked.

      Also, Progressives, the US government, no one has ever proven Julian Asange’s Wikileaks to leak a falsity. Julian has 100% accuracy rating. Julian says Russia and Putin are not the source of the emails.

      Anyone contradicting Julian on this point is a liar, naïve, or both.

  13. It will be full court press from now on. They will be coming for Trump from all directions. Yesterday dropping charges on a hate-crime Trump hater. Last week going after Judge Piro. What’s next? Dropping charges on Avanati?

    Anyone who supports Trump is a target of their wrath. Eric Holder’s just worried about his own part in the coup d’etat. They all have their hands dirty.

    1. Yeah and now they are trying to compare the Smollet quitting on case by State of IL to no findings of Trump-Russia conspiracy. The clear difference is that Smollet case got past the point of grand jury recommendation and state attorney general indictment before the mysterious walk-away. Muler concluded with no Trump-Russia conspiracy indictments. And it does seem suspicious that Michele O might have pulled some strings behind the scenes and Jesse Jackson provided venue for pre-emptive community service.

      1. Gee, Rahm Emmanuel is denouncing the dropping of charges. Someone get him in on the conspiracy! The future of America is at stake!

        1. finally Rahm is speaking his mind. a few years in chicago will make a hater out of anybody

          1. Smollett was symbolic of the Resist Movement and they couldn’t let him go down for doing work for the better good of America. Just like the dirty cops at the FBI were doing and failed.

          1. Anon previously had no objection to Smollett not being prosecuted, but to him things are just peachy.

            Smollett who pretended he was assaulted in a hate crime with strong evidence against him: Innocent
            General Flynn who served his country where the agents interviewed him thought he was innocent: Guilty

              1. Read the complete story. Process crime. Flynn was considered innocent until they felt they could intimidate Flynn into saying something bad about Trump. That is what they did until he was 5 million dollars in debt and they went after his children.

                You can’t pick and choose the facts. The way you manipulate the truth demonstrates what a complete hack you are and that is providing you with undo credit.


              Dec 15, 2018 … … comes four days before Flynn gets sentenced on a charge of lying to the FBI … The following message will be displayed to users with unsupported … Prosecutors said Friday that Flynn voluntarily agreed to meet with the FBI without a … the FBI agents who questioned him did not detect signs of deception …

              1. AS you quote Diane (Flynn)”the FBI agents who questioned him did not detect signs of deception”

                If you (or anyone else) has understood what prosecutors are capable of and you haven’t yet seen this video see it now. I think after listening to the entire video you will agree with me about the imbalance of power between a normal innocent citizen and a government intent on pinning something on that innocent citizen. We have to be careful when government wields such power.


                Additionally, I understand the interview of Flynn by the FBI which is then interpreted by others to decide whethe or not prosecution is needed. The interview is not on tape. That interview relies on a report (not word by word) by the interviewer whose integrity and honesty have to be depended on.

                I don’t think you will disagree with me regarding the imbalance of power and how that power can be misused.

        1. She’s great. It’s a travesty they took her off the air. But, I hardly watch any tv so I find it hard to care too much about that or any other tv drama fake or real.

            1. i said i cared. i just not too much. she has a lot of support and we have to pick our causes. keep moving, don’t get bogged down, like we are here all the time debating peter and nuthatch-di-anon

              you’re smart alan, they’re pinning you down with inflammatory stuff, trying to keep you boxed up here, spending ten minutes refuting new lies they can make up in one.

              gotta go forward, project new content to new eyeballs, don’t be trolled

              1. Kurtz, I control my own time, but before I would consider writing on the blog I sent out a letter to Fox re Pirro because that is more meaningful. Seldom do I ever spend 10 or even 5 minutes writing. When I spend time it is because I am reading something for my benefit not anyone elses. Most of the time I am doing two things at once.

                1. she reminds me a little of this other decent looking middle aged lebanese women that Muslims seem to hate. i forget her name. she’s on the SPLC honor roll of thought offenders. do you know who I mean?

      1. When do I get my 1/2 hour on Fox?

        You said it was a Freedom of Speech issue. No, it’s not. She can join me at the court house square and stand on a park bench with megaphone like the rest of us.

        1. Anon, I said it was a freedom of speech issue, not a Constitutional violation. Your problem is not with reading the words rather with comprehension of what the words say.

        2. you’re not in a public square, you’re on your fat butt stinking up a small room with stale cigarettes, cheap coffee, and bad breath

    2. The “direction” they come from is Obama.

      “I wanted to give you a call on behalf of Jussie Smollett and family who I know. They have concerns about the investigation,”

      – Former Michelle Obama chief of staff Tina Tchen

      (A few hours later, KIm Foxx received a text from a relative of Smollett, who said she’d “…received the number from Tchen.”)

      “If Kim Fox, Cook County State’s Attorney, wants to be D.A. or go any further, she’s going to have to kiss the Obamas’ ass,”

      – Big League Politics

      “POTUS (Obama) wants to know everything we’re doing.”

      – Lisa Page to Peter Strzok

      “The White House is running this.”

      – Redacted to Peter Strzok

      “The texts mean what the texts say.”

      – Lisa Page to Congress

  14. I think this deserves repeating:

    “Fortunately, Bill Barr is not Eric Holder. He will do exactly what he promised he would do: disclose as much as possible.”

    1. He will do what he promised to Donald Trump and that is very different!

  15. Holder was on Harry Melber’s shown on MSNBC earlier this week acting holier than thou. Harry tried to push comparison to Nixon but that falls flat since Watergate actually involved a real crime vs. Trump-Russia hoax. AG already weighed in obstruction and that aint gonna change. Impeachment in House and then removal in Senate is pure fantasy. And please Mr. “who know who”, please spare us the appeal to authority of “actual legal experts” as this ship has sailed past any potential criminal action and aftermath of this hoax now lies in political territory. And now so so easy to see that this crusade is a failed scud missile.

    1. If the Report exonerated him why not publish it in a easily readable book for all to see?

      1. Holmes: Barr promised he would first release summary of findings/conclusions – which he did, and is in-process of releasing redacted version of report. “Release the Muler Report!” is the new hysterical lefty loon mantra. Lefty loons now trying to infer there is some sort of stonewalling/cover-up. Gimme a break.

      2. I keep hearing “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”, in the back of my mind.
        Do you understand, comrade?

        1. Acrimonious: Perhaps you are uninformed. Trump said he had no problem with report being released to public in Barr is in process of preparing redacted report to share with public.

  16. Hey, look over there! The Mueller report should come out. I don’t care who says so.

  17. Holder knows nothing about honor and therefore we shouldn’t be surprised he doesn’t realize he should take the plank out of his eye before criticizing others.

Comments are closed.