Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

General John Kelly: "He said that, in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law."

Friday, June 22, 2012

"Fast and Furious" Makes Stephen Colbert "Quickly Angry"

Stephen Colbert, as usual, puts the Darrell Issa* Show in perspective:


*Via Wikipeda:

A retired Army sergeant claimed that Issa stole a Dodge sedan from an Army post near Pittsburgh in 1971. The sergeant said he recovered the car after confronting and threatening him. Issa denied the allegation and no charges were filed.

In 1972, Issa and his brother allegedly stole a red Maserati sports car from a car dealership in Cleveland. He and his brother were indicted for car theft, but the case was dropped.

That same year, Issa was convicted in Michigan for possession of an unregistered gun. He received three months probation and paid a $204 fine. [...]

On December 28, 1979, Issa and his brother allegedly faked the theft of Issa's Mercedes Benz sedan. Issa and his brother were charged for grand theft auto, but the case was dropped by prosecutors for lack of evidence. Later, Issa and his brother were charged for misdemeanors, but that case was not pursued by prosecutors.

Issa accused his brother of stealing the car, and said that the experience with his brother was the reason he went into the car alarm business.

A day after a court order was issued, giving Issa control of automotive alarm company A.C. Custom over an unpaid $60,000 debt, Issa allegedly carried a cardboard box containing a handgun into the office of A.C. Custom executive, Jack Frantz, and told Frantz he was fired.

In a 1998 newspaper article, Frantz said Issa had invited him to hold the gun and claimed extensive knowledge of guns and explosives from his Army service.

In response, Issa said, "Shots were never fired. ... I don't recall having a gun. I really don't. I don't think I ever pulled a gun on anyone in my life."  [Issa claims "shots were never fired" but then says he didn't recall having a gun?]


From "The National Memo":

"Stirring extreme partisanship together with rightist paranoia, Rep. Darrell Issa and his Republican colleagues on the House Government Operations Committee have transformed a legitimate investigation into a breach of Constitutional authority and a danger to law enforcement. With Wednesday’s vote to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt – for refusing to turn over every document demanded in the committee’s probe of the Justice Department’s “Operation Fast and Furious” gunrunning sting – the reckless Issa invited attention to his own aims and tactics, which cannot withstand much scrutiny.



There was little expectation of scrupulous conduct from Issa, who upon assuming the committee chair announced plans to hold “seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks” to “measure [the] failure” of the Obama administration. While he hasn’t achieved that supersized goal, his blustering tone was telling. He has turned a sober and important committee into a parody of Fox Nation. And now with his most ambitious probe unable to find any evidence of wrongdoing by Holder, he is abusing Congressional power to distract from his own failure.

The Fast and Furious fiasco originated during the Bush administration, when agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms decided to track illegal gun sales by U.S. dealers to Mexican drug cartels by allowing weapons to be “walked” across the border. The agents hoped that with the cooperation of Mexican police, they would be able to make major conspiracy cases rather than merely arresting a few dealers or smugglers. But the operation blew up when two of the weapons permitted to be “walked” by a small-time dealer were identified at an Arizona shootout where a Border Patrol agent was killed."





More here.

There's no question that Congressman Issa has a "colorful" backround.


Fringy Fraud: Darrell Issa’s Fast and Furious Exposed

38 comments:

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw: You posted about logical fallacies awhile back. Maybe you should go reread it.

Issa could be a mass murderer, but that doesn't excuse Heinrich Holder's contempt for our laws and the American People.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I posted on Issa's background in order to inform people.

I'm not drawing any conclusions. If Issa's background makes people think, then I'm glad to help in their education.

Godwin ALERT!

The Attorney General has not been charged with any crime, and has not changed his name to that of a Nazi criminal.

Logical fallacies indeed.

A contempt of Congress brought by a GOP party hack does not magically make someone into a Nazi criminal.

skudrunner said...

I read the post and I missed the part that any of Issa's action resulted in the death of anyone.

On a serious note, what are they trying to hide and why. Now the MSM is saying this is racially motivated because it is a black AG who reports to a black president. Can't the leftist MSM come up with something creditable.

For Polosi to respond that she could have issued contempt charges against Rove but didn't, again I don't remember what he did that was illegal and how many people died because of his actions. This comes from a person who made millions off insider trading and said she did nothing wrong. I guess the WH hiding the AG's actions is OK with her no matter how many people are murdered because of it.

Obama and Holder do not believe in gun ownership and had a plan. The plan failed and now he is trying to cover any involvement and the MSM will support him, as always.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Obama and Holder do not believe in gun ownership and had a plan."

I'm waiting for the evidence to back that absurd statement up...

Steve said...

Nice Hitler reference.
Holder stopped the program that Bush started, that created this tragedy.
Contempt for laws? Mr. Issa is asking the AG to break the law. You see, the documents Issa wants, are illegal for the AG to disclose. I guess you didn't know that. Surprise.
Seems Mr. Issa has no problem breaking the law, yet you see no problem with believing anything such a low character says.
Of course this has nothing to do with Issa's politics, in a presidential election year.
You are a perfect customer, easily conned by any third rate salesman.

skudrunner said...

President Obama keeps pushing for gun control. "I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” President Obama told Sarah Brady, the former president of the Brady Campaign, this past spring.

Steve,
So now you blame Bush for a program that was started by Holder under the direction of Obama. How is it illegal for the AG to supply documents to congress when those documents are supposedly legal. Even for you that makes little sense.

Steve said...

Check your facts, the program was started by Bush.
It is illegal for the AG to disclose grand jury documents, on going investigation documents, secret documents, documents regarding covert operations, not to mention communication between the president and his Cabinet are privileged.
The idea that this is all about Obama taking guns away from Americans, is absurd and like Shaw asked, where's your evidence.
Does a guy have to kill someone, to have proven, questionable, behavior, motives, and varsity?
Why did Issa deny Democrats the opportunity to bring in their witnesses?
The night before they voted for contempt, Holder offered more documents, Issa refused.
Not exactly a through investigation on Issa's part.
I doubt Issa cares he will lose in court, he falsely dirtied the name of Holder and put false ideas of wrong doing into Americans minds, that's the negative effect on Obama's campaign Issa wanted.

Silverfiddle said...

Steve: Check you facts. Bush officials coordinated their efforts with the Mexican government, Obama's did not.

If this were really all Bush's fault, Holder would have dumped everything showing his heroic efforts at stopping a failed Bush project.

Think before you ingest the liberal mslsd.

Shaw Kenawe said...

skudrunner wrote: . "I just want you to know that we are working on [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,”


skudrunner, I've disproved the claims you've made a number of times in these comments, and I've linked to evidence to disprove them.

And now, here you go again, you've probably received this lie from another email and pasted it here, believing I wouldn't check out its veracity. Well guess what?

PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter has rated your latest one a "Pants-On-Fire" lie.

President Obama's overall record has so disappointed the gun control lobby that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave him an "F" grade in 2010.

I'm not sure how much longer I'll allow you to come here and post obvious lies, like the ones you wrote in the previous blogpost, where you claimed Mr. Obama has accomplished nothing, and that there are no records anywhere on his college accomplishments or if he even attended college, or some such nonsense.

Those are outright, easily disputable lies, meant to do what?

You can go after Mr. Obama on a number of policy items, why waste your time copying and pasting lies?

You undermine your position when you take cheap shots like that because it shows you're not interested in a real argument, just in spreading falsehoods and misinformation.


As to your false statement on Mr. Obama and gun control, the person YOU need to do more research on is Mitt Romney. The Gun Owners of America gave him a D-.

Don't you want to know why?

Gun Owners of America 2012 Presidential Candidate Rating:

Ron Paul A+

Rick Perry  A

Rick Santorum B-

Newt Gingrich C

Mitt Romney D-

Shaw Kenawe said...

"The form of executive privilege at stake in the current dispute is 'deliberative privilege.'

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions.


They have to be turned over when the demanding branch can articulate a compelling need for the information to fulfill one of its own constitutional functions -- a need that outweighs the executive branch's interest in confidentiality.

A key problem now for the House Oversight Committee is thus far it has yet to state in a very concrete way why it needs the particular documents it is demanding.

In contrast, the executive branch has articulated a strong and highly specific reason for withholding the documents at issue: Forced disclosure to Congress of internal deliberations concerning how best to interact with Congress would undermine the executive's capacity to function as a co-equal branch. It would undermine the prospects for future candid deliberations about interactions with the other institutions of government."

Shaw Kenawe said...

"The reality Congress faces in separation of powers disputes, no matter how genuine or how principled, is that the public will almost certainly not rally around Congress if it perceives the dispute as more political food fight than anything else.

With no Democrats supporting the committee vote -- and I am guessing few, if any Democrats supporting a contempt citation by the entire House -- that's just what this will look like.

Moreover, as with Whitewater, it will be hard for House Republicans to explain exactly what the problem is. Fast and Furious appears to have been a disaster, but the Justice Department has shared documents freely on Fast and Furious.

The Justice Department sent a letter to Congress in February 2011 that mistakenly denied reports about what the Bureau of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives actually did in Fast and Furious. But the department has been forthcoming in sharing information about the events leading up to that letter, which Holder subsequently withdrew."

Shaw Kenawe said...

"The fight, then, is not about a botched ATF operation or about a botched letter to Congress.

It is about how the attorney general reached his eventual conclusion that Fast and Furious was "fundamentally flawed" and decided how to respond to congressional and other requests for information about a program he now concedes should not have happened. Politically, this now begins to sound like Whitewater -- a story hardly anyone can follow, which really does not seem to implicate fundamental issues of public policy or official integrity.

(One caveat: The dynamics of this dispute could change if it turns out that Republican Committee Chairman Darrell Issa actually has information that the process of responding to Congress after the February 2011 letter entailed specific instances of corruption. Were he to bring such specific information to the attention of the White House, it would be consistent with past White House practice to release all documents related to that misconduct.)

A prolonged fight over Fast and Furious led by Republicans will do two things their presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, surely does not want. It will fill up air space that could otherwise have been spent discussing the economy, and it will intensify the appearance of congressional Republicans as the obstructionists blocking the changes Obama so famously promised.

It also must be said that Issa's past attacks on the administration amply feed a narrative that his subpoena is about politics, not principle."


Darrell Issa vowed to investigate this administration 24/7 when the GOP won back the House, and he also declared at that time that the Obama administration is the most corrupt administration in American history.

So. Do we suppose Rep. Issa is politically motivated?

Why yes. Yes we do.

Source on the above quoted material.

Steve said...

I never blamed Bush, I was correcting someone who said Obama started the program. Think before you ingest the biased reporting of FOX.

"Bush officials coordinated their efforts with the Mexican government, Obama's did not."

Please cite your source on this. Did Obama order the coordination with Mexico stopped?
I ask because that is not a presidential level decision, and when our president changes that doesn't stop ongoing communications on projects like this.

Shaw Kenawe said...

SF, I visited your blog just to see what was being discussed.

I see that you have allowed commenters, two to be exact, to refer to me as a piece of shit. And I didn't even join in on that thread! You did demure and say you didn't think I was a piece of shit, only deluded.

How kind.


Your allowing those two [they are probably one and the same--a certain malcontented persona] commenters to deprecate me on your blog demonstrates to me that you may be part of the unhinged, since you, as well as they, must get a kind of thrill out of reading that juvenalia, so long as it's aimed at a liberal.

I just don't need to be involved with that sort of malignant exchange. And I don't deserve it.

I deleted a "liberal's" attack on RN and do not tolerate anyone attacking or calling my commenters names.

I had thought you joined me and others in this attempt at keeping things lively, passionate, but decent.

I was wrong.

a friend said...

"qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent"

You should be cautious of the company you keep, Shaw.

Associating with those of low reputation may not only lower your own but also lead you astray by the faulty assumptions, premises and data of the unscrupulous.

Anonymous said...

never trust the GOPers, shaw, they'll always stab you in the back...it's a tribal thing...they'll always stick with their own, even if they're pigs...

KP said...

@Shaw:

This is what I posted on SF's blog:

Thank goodness there is a movement to block anonymous posts. In fact, I am in favor of going one step further and requiring a real picture and e-mail address.

You might be surprised to see traffic increase. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but speaking to one another as if we were across a table with eye to eye contact is a healthy alternative.

In my experience, there are many reasonable readers that prefer that and want to engage without being flamed.

That is the way it has been in my business life and that is the way political discussion is moving.

Shaw Kenawe said...

KP, you know I share your opinion about trying to keep blogs a place where we can have strong differences of opinions, good arguments, and an exchange of ideas AND humor!

I just don't feel comfortable in visiting a blog where angry people attack other commenters.

What does calling someone a pos accomplish?

Thanks for your input.

@a friend,

Not necessarily. SF's blog can be a place where lots of ideas and opinions can be exchanged. I just don't want to be there when flame throwers who have no intellectual ability to argue revert to calling people names.

anon,

We are ALL tribal. That's what makes us human. I'm just disappointed that arguing has to end up in the gutter.

KP said...

I strongly urge owners of blogs to ban anonymous posting. At the very least, we should show a consistent avatar and the owner should have an true identity and e-mail.

Personally, I don't see much difference from what anon just posted from being called a pos. Or being accused of racism. I understand we may differ on this.

Either way, owners should police. The blog "Moderate Voice" is almost too restrictive. Their choice.

Recall, I suggested to Dave that by posting we as readers create a psychological passport; and when there is even 'some' responsibility tied to this passport you will see some of the blogosphere 'hysteria' toned down.

Afterall, most of us are not paid to create havoc the way Beck, Schultz, Limbaugh, Olbermann, Hannity, Maddow, Medved and O'Donnell are.

Anonymous said...

I didn't see any anon comments on SF's comment section blasting Shaw.
If you think "profiles" or an "avatar" stop people from being jerks, well, I think SF's comment section shows you are wrong.
I'll accept your apology for flaming me the other day on this blog.

Shaw Kenawe said...

@anon 8:53, here are the comments from Silverfiddle's blog:

"My Conservative Thoughts said...
SF, I read your comments on the blog written by that POS called "Progress Crapola"

And I must congratulate you for your stance and replies to that Idiotic Pissant, Morons progressive blog regarding "Modern Conservatism Has Become a Form of Mass Hysteria"

Good job, keep it up my friend. You have won me over..
Thank you for doing an amazing job over there in that Hell Hole. And thank the Lord that at least some of us were born normal.

[skip]


NOBODY is above the law. And that POS over on that Progressive blog can't see it. She is still blaming Bush and Reagen."

6/22/12 8:25 AM

"Silverfiddle said...
[skip]

And thank you for the fulsome praise! I'm humbled, although I wouldn't call Shaw a pos. She and others like her are in the thrall of their hero and it blinds them to reality and objectivity. I don't understand it.

To make themselves feel better, the latch on to such cotton candy fluff and jump around all giddy from the sugar high, but find themselves unable to intellectually defend their positions. It's a sad place to be.

6/22/12 8:40 AM"

"Darth Bacon said...
SilverFiddle said
"I wouldn't call her a POS"


I would!

6/22/12 9:22 AM"


I don't know who you are, anon, but I don't believe anyone here has called you a piece of shit. I won't allow it.

But apparently SF became so "giddy" over the fawning sycophant's paens to his incisive comments here, that he fell into its cotton candy fluff and is still suffering from his sugar high from an intellectual midget.

KP said...

Anon, you are right that an avatar in itself will not stop flaming unless the owner of the blog takes them to task. In that sense you are correct and we agree. In my view, the owner of a blog should encourage commentors to create a posting passport.

As far as me flaming you ... what did I say? I am not sure which anonymous you are. I did apologize to Sammy here a few days ago for a snarky comment.

Remind me so I know what you are talking about and I will go back and check myself.

Would you consider an avatar or a name?

KP said...

I found it, Anon:

"As Col. Klink might say to Hogan:

"Veeeery in-ter-es-ting!"

:-)

June 20, 2012 10:23 PM"

<><><>

Sorry for that. I am not nearly as funny as I think I am sometimes.

Having said that, you might enjoy the link below. We could probably both place all kinds of politicians and talking heads into the characters on Hogan's Heroes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUrDiALD9nA

Shaw Kenawe said...

One other thing.

Those flame-throwers who attack me on SF's and other conservative blogs don't even have blogs of their own. That would require mental strength. Instead, they come to my blog, read my posts, then go to other conservative blogs and whine and complain to others about what I've written!

That's hilarious. The poor benighted souls, unable to sustain a cogent argument with me based on any resemblance to facts or reality are reduced to lurking here at my blog, then mewling and weeping on other people's blogs about the meanie things I write!

The word pusillanimous comes to mind.

It defines them perfectly.

Anonymous said...

Besides the fact that I don't really want to have an account with Google (not a deal killer) I guess I miss the importance you put on it.
I linked to your name on your comment, and got "No Blog Found." Nice picture. Is that you? And excuse me for being cynical, if I don't trust it's real. I question anything I read, or see, especially in blog land.
Yes, I will get set up. It's no big deal. I don't understand why you think it is. Is it ok if I don't start a blog?
"but speaking to one another as if we were across a table with eye to eye contact is a healthy alternative"
Seeing SF's avatar of Simpson (and what people usually use for an avatar) doesn't give me the result you just described.
I suppose it would cut down on confusion within the conversations (so many anons).
But a moniker has nothing to do with the ideas written, or the hate spewed.

Shaw Kenawe said...

@anon 9:51,

I don't know if you're addressing me or KP.

I can tell you that KP is a real person and a really decent chap.
I can attest to that. And he does have a blog. I linked to it through his initials.

My avatar is a drawing of Mozart that my granddaught made. I change my avatar often. I once used a photo of myself, but will no longer do so.

Too many weirdos out there.

Les Carpenter said...

It will indeed be interesting to see where Holder lands when this is all said and done. My suspicions are there is more than meets the eyes and congress has an obligation to indicate concern and take the appropriate actions in an attempt to get the all information and the facts surrounding Fast and Furious.

I fail to see what Issa's background has to do with Fast and Furious and Holder activities and oversight of the DoJ has to do with anything, other than a diversion from the issue at hand.

Even Jon Stewart apparently has his doubts about rhe handling of his one by Holder and Obama.

Shaw Kenawe said...

From The Daily Beast:


"From the start, Issa has invoked the death of Brian Terry, the Border Patrol agent who was killed in December 2010. The investigation, he said, would ferret out government responsibility for the tragedy. The case quickly became a cause celebre for conservatives, flogged in the right-wing media and all but ignored by the mainstream press. Holder, already a lightening rod to the base of the Republican party because of his association with some of the administration's most liberal policies, was a ready target.


But for Issa, a partisan warrior who has called Holder a "liar" and the Obama administration one of "the most corrupt" in history, there was always the risk of overreach. When he started to go down the road toward a contempt citation, the House Republican leadership began to show signs of nervousness. Some thought Issa needed to leave himself an escape route. In recent weeks he and his staff began negotiating with DOJ, looking for a way to head off the looming confrontation.


During a phone call last week with a senior Justice official, Issa's chief investigative counsel, Stephen Castor, broached a possible settlement. As the conversation began, according to two sources familiar with the conversation, Castor asked the official where things stood on "accountability." By that, Castor meant would any heads roll at Justice. Castor mentioned Lanny Breuer, the head of the department's Criminal Division, whom Republicans had been gunning for because of his knowledge of gun-walking techniques that had been used during the Bush administration. (Their theory was that Breuer should have taken aggressive steps to ensure that such measures were not repeated in future operations.) According to these sources, Castor said that if Breuer resigned, they could head off the looming constitutional clash.


But the Justice official, Steven Reich, an associate deputy attorney general involved in the Fast and Furious negotiations with Congress, rejected the offer, calling it a "non-starter."


Still, Castor’s gambit was seen by DOJ officials as evidence that Issa was more interested in drawing blood than getting to the truth."

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw, I do not understand you animus towards me. We profoundly disagree, but I told that person, and you quoted me, that you are not a pos.

I rarely delete comments, usually if they are vulgar with not redeeming qualities or a vicious personal attack. That comment was neither.

Worse, you copied my "sugar high" analogy. Did you realize you did that?

Can't you come up with your own material?

Les Carpenter said...

Right, the Daily Beast. No partisan tendencies there now is there.

Just saying...

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Shaw, I do not understand you animus towards me. We profoundly disagree, but I told that person, and you quoted me, that you are not a pos."

I guess I don't understand the reasoning behind allowing one commenter to degrade another. It's one thing to go after someone's ideas and argue strenuously and with passion over them, but pointless ad hominem attacks on me when I wasn't even on that thread make for a hostile environment.

You don't believe the comments were vulgar or vicious? I wonder if you'd feel that way had someone called you a piece of shit on my blog behind your back and without any provocation.

Maybe you and your other commenters enjoy that sort of low level trash talk, I don't. I've been attacked by Bacon and his sock puppets on other conservative blogs, but I didn't think I'd have to put up with his personal and vulgar attacks over at Western Hero.

"Worse, you copied my "sugar high" analogy. Did you realize you did that?"

Worse? Oh please. I was being satirical. You apparently didn't get that.

It's your blog and you run it the way you like. If that includes allowing creepy attacks on me, that's your choice.

Shaw Kenawe said...

BTW, SF, if you believe Debonaire Dude World, California Girl, My Conservative Thoughts and This Maddening World are all different bloggers, there's a guy in Brooklyn who'd like to sell you a bridge. LOL!

Anonymous said...

RN,

Partisan?

A reading of sources you choose to post, is as partisan as it gets, especially since you love to bash Obama.

Just saying.

Les Carpenter said...

Anonymous said...

RN,

Partisan?

A reading of sources you choose to post, is as partisan as it gets, especially since you love to bash Obama.

Just saying.


I also post excerpts from the NYT, WaPO and other mainstream media. Not that you've noticed...

Ya see, I truly am independent. Unlike some who visit here.

Just saying...

Anonymous said...

Right
like you claim to bash both sides, then exclusively bash only Obama.
Come back when you find your honesty

Silverfiddle said...

BTW, SF, if you believe Debonaire Dude World, California Girl, My Conservative Thoughts and This Maddening World are all different bloggers, there's a guy in Brooklyn who'd like to sell you a bridge. LOL!

You may very well be right. I have no way of verifying their identities, and I am only familiar with the first two you mentioned.

Attacks? In almost any comment thread, I get slammed way worse than getting called a pos...

Les Carpenter said...

ANON, you have zero credibility. Unless one considers your blabbering BS as credible.

Anonymous said...

Really RN
Your words not mine. So the question of credibility is on you.