Fast and Furious Report Exonerates Holder; Rogue Agents Done the Deed. Right.


Eric Holder

I have to admit that, while I have a copy of the Justice Department Office of the Inspector General's Fast and Furious report, released yesterday, I have yet to read all 512 pages of obfuscatory goodness. What's fascinating to me is that the extensive and, just from the report's conclusions, rather damning document is immediately being spun as an exoneration of Attorney General Eric Holder. Because, really, in a deadly, multi-year gun-running scandal inolving federal officials, that's the most important issue at hand.

As the White House's Eric Schultz told Government Executive magazine:

"Today's report affirms the problem of gun walking was a field-driven tactic that dated back to the previous administration, and it was this administration's attorney general who ended it," he said. "Nevertheless, The Justice Department has taken strong steps to ensure accountability and make sure this does not happen again, including important administrative, policy and personnel changes."

The official take-away is that this was a rogue operation, run entirely by Kurtz-like federal employees, gone native and driven mad in the blinding sun and pervasive heat of the Arizona jungle desert. As Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz today told (PDF) the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

We concluded that both Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious were seriously flawed and supervised irresponsibly by ATF's Phoenix Field Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office, most significantly in their failure to adequately consider the risk to the public safety in the United States and Mexico.

And no way, no how, did the squeaky-clean bureaucrats of Washington, D.C. get their hands dirtied by this irresponsible rogue (did I say "rogue"?) operation.

Former Attorney General Mukasey became Attorney General after investigative activity in Operation Wide Receiver was concluded. We found no evidence that he was informed that ATF, in connection with Operation Wide Receiver, was allowing or had allowed firearms to "walk." …

We found no evidence that Attorney General Holder was informed about Operation Fast and Furious, or learned about the tactics employed by ATF in the investigation, prior to January 31, 2011. We found it troubling that a case of this magnitude, and one that affected Mexico so significantly was not directly briefed to the Attorney General.

Oh, the horror. The horror.

This may sell in Washington, D.C., where journalists know who rubs their bellies, but it's already getting some strong reactions in the Copper State. Today, the Arizona Republic editorialized:

Justice Department's inspector general report released Wednesday is a predictable 450-page exoneration of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

The report blames "misguided strategies, tactics, errors in judgment and management failures that permeated the ATF headquarters and the Phoenix field division, as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Arizona and at the headquarters of the Department of Justice."

Fourteen people, employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Justice Department, face disciplinary action. But the report says Holder knew nothing. Nothing. Did anyone really expect the DOJ's watchdog to bite the DOJ's boss?

I don't think for a moment the denizens of the imperial capital care what does and does not pass the laugh test in the provinces, but the Republic raises some good points. The Inspector General may find it "troubling that a case of this magnitude, and one that affected Mexico so significantly was not directly briefed to the Attorney General," but some of us find it completely freaking preposterous. Either Holder (and Mukasey, before him) knew about these operations and are being given a thorough whitewashing in the report, or else the U.S. Attorney General has lost control of whole sections of his department — whole armed, tax-funded sections that are dealing in weapons and operating in neighboring countries.

An either-or choice between deceitful bastard and incompetent figurehead should not be read as an exoneration.

NEXT: Iran, Israel Argue over Who Is the Bigger Nuclear Threat

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. As I have said, only crazy wingnuts will admit to being anti-gun and anti-free trade if it means criticizing Obama.

    I want more FandF!

    I am pro-gun and pro free trade!

    1. Shriek wants more acts of war against Mexico. You are fucking retarded exhibit XXV A12

    2. You really are a morally bankrupt follower. Anything to protect the “tribe”, right Simple Simon?

      1. I support gun rights and free trade. WTF is ambiguous about that?

        This is no longer a political issue except for the talking vaginas at Fox News.

        People kill people – not guns! The perp is being run down.

        1. Except our government deliberately put guns in the hands of criminals. But hey, only people with morals care about that, right?

          1. So you support criminal checkpoints in gun regulation?

            1. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess he doesn’t support the government acting as an arms dealer.

              1. In order to break his circular reasoning, he has ignored the simple fact that the various straw purchases were flagged by the gun shop owners, and given the go ahead by the powers that be. IE the system worked.

              2. Not what I asked.

                I want the government out of all private transactions.

                1. And this leads you to support BO? Sounds like you haven’t thought things through.

                2. I want the government out of all private transactions.

                  The gun shop owners weren’t willing to sell, so private transactions weren’t at fault. Why is this so hard? Why do criminal background checks need to be a government monopoly?

                  1. You are asking an employee of Media Matters why he is in the tank for Obama? He’s not going to give you a straight answer. He is here to observe, mock, demoralize and report back.

                    1. He It’s not doing very well at that “demoralize” part.

            2. Criminal background checks are already part of gun regulation, and have been since 1776. The difference is they didn’t have a retentive online national database of every pot conviction and traffic citation of every individual in America.

              1. dinkster….what? Felons weren’t barred from owning firearms until 1968.

                In any case, there’s a massive difference between wanting fewer gun restrictions and purposefully giving firearms to an organization that’s murdered thousands of people.

                1. The point was that colonial America had no qualms about taking firearms away from the crazy people, for good or ill. Gun laws certainly existed, they just weren’t very good, I.E. no slave gun ownership, etc.

                  1. They were also very specific.

        2. Every time you vomit Blue Team talking points on these boards, I only think of this scene.

        3. This is no longer a political issue except for the talking vaginas at Fox News.

          But laws against abortion are totally a live issue, amirite Buttplug?

          Count the states that ban or heavily restrict bearing arms outside the home against those that ban abortion.

          1. Yes, anti-abortion laws RESTRICT freedom.

            I am for more Liberty.

            1. That wasn’t what you were talking about. You were claiming no one should care about gun issues because the debate is over, yet you and your pals beat the dead whores of the abortion issue to no end.

              1. yes, my “pals” are constantly under assault from the anti-freedom forces of the right.

                The gun issue is settled — for the 2nd! YESSSS!

                I wish conservatives like the rest of the Constitution.

            2. Re: Palin’s Buttplug,

              Yes, anti-abortion laws RESTRICT freedom.

              Yeah, just like fences RESTRICT your peeping.

              I am for more Liberty.

              What about the liberty of the fetus?

      2. I even oppose the fucking Brady Bill – I am to the right of Reagan.

        1. Go far enough left or right, and it’s the same thing: authoritarianism.

        2. Demonstrating that right and left are meaningless buzzwords.

    3. “Free trade” is not the U.S. government providing arms to drug cartels, dipshit.

      1. Tell Reagan, Ollie North, the Mujahadeen and the Bushpigs that.

        1. Do you have a point, dumbass?

          1. Frylock: What’s your point?

            Shake: I never had one. And that just drives you crazy, doesn’t it?

            1. I guess I’m going to have to check out that show.

    4. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

      As I have said, only crazy wingnuts will admit to being anti-gun and anti-free trade if it means criticizing Obama.

      I would agree with you if it weren’t for the fact that it is still illegal for ME or even a GREENCARD holder to buy a gun unless I get a hunting license and show that I have been living in the U.S.

      So much for “free trade” Holder and Co.

    5. Government taking guns and giving them to whoever it chooses = free trade? Try again.

  2. Something like 1,400 guns sent to Mexico, and he didn’t know about it? If that’s true, then at least can him for sheer incompetence. This is some Oliver North shit going on here.

    1. Why do you hate guns and free trade?

      1. Why do you love murderers?

        1. Dude, seriously, just ignore it. It hates that the most.

          1. Because in your narrow mind a “liberal classic liberal” should not exist.

            We will win eventually – us SoLibs.

            1. Modern liberals and classic liberals are not the same thing. The fact that you carry water for the Dems because they took the label “liberal” tells us a lot about your intelligence, or lack thereof

              1. So what am I?

                Like FA Hayek and Ayn Rand I hate conservatives. So tell us what we are please.

                1. Meaningless. Communists hate conservatives too.

                2. You’re a Democratic hack who blindly defends his TEAM. Although you supposedly have some disagreements with Obama and the Dems, you trivialize and excuse their actions on those issues for the sake of the TEAM. FA Hayek and Ayn Rand were no fans of progressives either, so I don’t know what your point is

                  1. I am a liberal – you moronic dipshit.

                    Like Ayn Rand and FA Hayek.

                    We are rational atheists and we hate conservatives.

                    1. My entire fucking point. You obsess over the term liberal and completely miss the fact that the word has multiple meanings that mean very different things. Barack Obama is in no way comparable to FA Hayek or Ayn Rand. Modern liberals that make up the Democratic party are not at all similar to classic liberals. No one cares that you hate conservatives. The fact that you don’t hold the same contempt for progressives, just because they also label themselves as “liberals” is why we call you out

            2. Actually, I imagine it will play out with you saying “gee, they were right all along” as all of us march towards the new prison camp. Sadly, I’m not comforted.

              1. So Ayn Rand and Hayek are unknowingly marching to gas chambers in volunteer fashion?

                Seriously – you are an idiot.

                Conservatism is a lie – fucking charade and they knew it and I know it.

                1. No one here is defending conservatism you clown. As I said, both of those people also despised progressives. Why do you not as well? Opposing conservatives doesn’t mean you have to support a group that’s just as bad or worse

                2. When the fuck did I say I was a conservative?

                  1. So we agree on Liberty then – fine.

                    I am glad we concur.

                    1. Except we don’t. Because while I do not support the Republicans (with a few exceptions), I also don’t shill and support enemies of liberty like Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. You do.

                3. I think you are seriously confused about what website you are on. I believe you are looking for USNews and World Report.

                  1. No, I first posted here in 2007. I am for Secularism and Free Markets.

                    Still so.

                    1. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

                      Bravo, spoof. Bravo.

                    2. If you’re for secularism and free markets, then why the fuck do you shill for the Democrats? They’re explicitly anti-free market, and they god-bother almost as bad as the Republicans; they just do it from different angles.

                    3. Anecdotally, all the Democrats I’ve meant were buddha loving hippies fretting over their qi’s. I wouldn’t call them anti-religious by any measure of the term.

          2. Exactly. Why are people talking to it.

      2. Reagan and Oliver North concur!

      3. Because I hate the children of course

  3. This is my complete lack of surprise. No one high up in modern administrations will be accountable for anything, ever, especially if there are lesser functionaries to burn as a sacrifice.

    Just keep telling yourselves that you live under the rule of law and not some warlords who call themselves something else so that you don’t realize what they actually are and what you actually are.

    1. Who’s getting burned as a sacrifice? The guys who may possibly face some disciplinary action?

      I think your assessment is overly optimistic.

      1. And I think you seem to have entirely missed the thrust, as it were, of my statement. The degree to which some lesser functionaries get sacrificed wasn’t really the focus.

        1. But what kind of sacrifice are we talking about here? Are we talking Aztec Altar Sacrifice with beating hearts being tossed about, or getting the yellow card in Futbol kind of sacrifice?

          1. It’s a baseball sacbunt. You have to go back to the dugout for this inning, but your other baserunners get to advance.

            1. *slow clap*

              I can’t recall a better analogy used in a more appropriate setting. You win the internets today.

    2. Just keep telling yourselves that you live under the rule of law and not some warlords who call themselves something else so that you don’t realize what they actually are and what you actually are.

      There are shades of gray, Epi.

      1. Yes, varying degrees of…not living under the rule of law, but the rule of man. So you agree with me, then.

      2. Last I heard there were something like 50 of them.

        1. Learning from movies, huh? When you spin the cylinder on your revolver, does it go “Zzzzzz?” Mine neither. But every revolver on the big screen does.

          1. I learn everything from cheesy sex novels written for lonely women with low self esteem.

          2. If you tape an index card above it it does.

          3. My 1851 .36 makes the ‘zzzzz’ sound when you spin the cylinder with hammer pulled back…

    3. It’s not like a complete lack of evidence has ever stopped you believing in a conspiracy theory before.

      1. joe, does being as stupid as you hurt more or less than the pain of being a midget?

  4. There’s an opposition party somewhere, right? There’s another inquiry going on in another branch of government, no?

    1. What you’re describing seems to be some kind of revolutionary system… something where one group is checked or “balanced” by another. Interesting.

    2. There’s another inquiry going on in another branch of government, no?

      Last I heard, they issued some subpeonas to the DoJ, the subpeonas were ignored by the DoJ, and then the DoJ decided not to prosecute anyone in the DoJ for ignoring the subpeonas.

      If you want to see Holder actually investigated, you’re going to have to actually elect the opposition party.

  5. We found no evidence that Attorney General Holder was informed about Operation Fast and Furious,

    See guys? NO EVIDENCE.

    *dusts off hands*

    Are we about done here? I gotta take a craaaappp!

    1. “found” is the key word. It may be there, but, as we reviewed the docs that were given to us and asked weak questions, we didn’t FIND any.

      Someone up-thread had the best take on this: if Holder really knew nothing, then he’s incompetent.

      EXCEPT: Bush did it.

  6. I’m more than happy to believe that Holder didn’t have anything to do with starting this program and ended it once it became important enough to end.

    But there’s the little matter of his perjury to the Congress regarding when he first heard about the program.

    I expect the standard applied to Roger Clemens to be applied to every last administration official. If any subsequent event makes any element of any sworn testimony of an administration official appear to be false, there should be an immediate indictment. Or there is no law.

    1. There is no law. And here is your proof.

    2. How do you know Holder read some piss-ass email from an underling?

      1. An either-or choice between deceitful bastard and incompetent figurehead should not be read as an exoneration.

      2. Hey Buttplug, is this your attitude when corporate executives get prosecuted by the EPA for failing to stop piss-ass underlings from dumping toxic waste into the sewer?

        1. ^^Excellent point. I’m sure he will say something stupid in response to it. Or say nothing at all. Those are my two predictions.

          1. “How do you know the CEO checked some piss-ass monitoring well report from an underling?”

        2. No, it is most certainly not. When has a corporate criminal been prosecuted for pollution?

          Let us start there.

          1. It’s most certainly not, as in, it’s not your attitude that the chief executive is exonerated if he is not informed about the doings of his underlings? So what makes Holder different?

            OH RIGHT, I forgot, it’s because he’s Of The Body.

            1. Or it could be because it’s a sockpuppet who specifically says shit like this to wind people up.

              1. SHUT-A YOU FACE YOU WOP!!!

            2. Was Tony Heyward prosecuted for the BP oil spill crimes?

              Of course not. The GOP House lackey even apologized to Tony for inconviencing him.

              1. Re: Palin’s Buttplug,

                Was Tony Heyward prosecuted for the BP oil spill crimes?

                Nobody is prosecuted for unintentional accidents, you swine.

                  1. Which as you see below the EPA has no trouble prosecuting when it’s a small fish. The fact that a big fish was never so much as threatened with prosecution by BO’s EPA only shows how crony capitalist these turds are.

                1. Yeah, that,s not true.

                2. lets see there has been an iquiry into which company was negligent and BP was fined 20 billion so yes they did go after the corporation which in this case maybe to be equal we should go after the entire DOJ.

          2. Here’s a summary of the 2011 criminal pollution prosecutions by the EPA. It might take a while for your browser to load… that’s one year worth BTW.

            1. nananananananananananananan tony heyward anananananananananaa

          3. WASHINGTON ? The former asphalt facilities manager of Pelican Refining Company LLC
            (PRC), pleaded guilty today to the crime of negligent endangerment under the Clean Air Act in
            federal court in Lafayette, La., announced Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the
            Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice and Stephanie A.
            Finley, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana.

            Mike LeBleu served as the asphalt facilities manager of the Pelican Refinery in Lake Charles,
            La., from May 9, 2005, through Oct. 15, 2009. LeBleu was a member of upper management
            with regard to the asphalt plant and had overall responsibility for the plant’s operations and
            personnel. According to court documents, LeBleu negligently caused the release of hydrogen
            sulfide (H2S), an extremely hazardous substance, into the air, which placed other persons in
            imminent danger of death and serious bodily injury.

            LeBleu faces a maximum of one year in prison and a fine of $100,000.

            1. A wart like Pelican and a 100G fine?

              Stoop some more and dance, wiggle your ass for a few more dollars.

              1. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

                A wart like Pelican and a 100G fine?

                When has a corporate criminal been prosecuted for pollution?

                “Let’s move the goal posts o’eeeeeer…. Here! Shall we?”


            That was tough.

            No sense letting reality get in the way of a perfectly good narrative that anchors your entire worldview in Marxian horseshit.

    3. I think your last sentence accurately sums up the present situation, and not just pertaining to this particular scandal.

  7. So… it’s all Bush’s fault?

    1. Yup. I was so hoping that Holder was going to get his comeuppance, but I guess I was wrong. He was innocent all this time. The report said so.

  8. What I am not seeing is any evidence that this program made any sense at all. I can understand sting-type operations to track people who are buying weapons to take into Mexico. In that case, you intercept them before they get there. But if you are just letting the guns go into Mexico, don’t you need, say, to get Mexican officials involved? Or have your own people in Mexico to see where the guns go? AFAIK, they just let the guns go, and had no way to actually tracking them, which is so idiotic that it lends credence to the conspiracy theory: that it was all a plan to increase violence in Mexico and use it as an excuse for gun control in the US.

    1. That is what I always assumed.

      There’s no other reasonable explanation of why they did it.

      Don’t worry, I’m sure the NRA will be right on this running ads about it. And Mitt Romney too. LOL.

      1. It is a bit stunning that Mittens isnt hammering away at this.

        obama and holder conspire to commit mass murder and what do we get from mitt? I am sure if he gets the office he will jump right on this.

        1. A simple you’ve got to be kidding me would probably suffice from the Romneybot

        2. Hell, Romney almost definitely “secretly” supports the assault riffle ban this whole thing was apparently going to be used as a pretext to have reinstated. And he also seems like a “means to an end” guy to me as well.

        3. To be fair, he just got smeared like crazy in the MSM for questioning the BO’s totally incompetent handling of the Libya embassy situation, so I could understand him being gunshy.

          1. “being gunshy”

            What you did there, I saw it.

          2. Timing is everything – even the White House is admitting NOW that this was a terrorist attack with nothing to do with that – LOOK OVER THERE AT THAT UNICORN!

          3. If he’s going to be gunshy this early in the game then he may as well quit now.

    2. Oh, they had an excellent way to track them, AFTER they were used in a crime. They even gave the Mexicans equipment and training to do it, without telling them about the deliberate gun walking, of course.

  9. An either-or choice between deceitful bastard and incompetent figurehead should not be read as an exoneration.

    This. To the infinity power. This point is often lost when it comes to these govt scandals.. that even if the official was not directly involved in the scandalous activity, it is his or her responsibility. Something the EPA has no trouble understanding when a rogue corporate employee dumps toxic waste into the sewer.

    1. “…the EPA has no trouble understanding when a rogue corporate employee dumps toxic waste into the sewer.”


    2. Did a single person in the “intelligence community” get canned over 9/11? Somehow I doubt it.

      1. BUSH DID IT TOO!!!!!!1!!!!11!!!

    3. Remember, the greater the power, the lesser the responsibility. It’s the government golden rule.

  10. I hate sugar-coated articles like this and I think Tuccille should be ashamed of himself for kowtowing to the power-brokers in DC and the Justice Department.


    1. I was astonished the other night at how many paleocons were attacking GayJay and defending having embassies all over the world.

      Do you have any idea how many cocktail parties ambassadors go to?! It would put the Orange-line cosmo Reason editors to shame. And they’re defending it! Defending cocktail-party producing institutions!

      1. Defending cocktail-party producing institutions!

        Isn’t this what Libertarianism is?

      2. Fuck em’. They’re just worried that they won’t have a consulate to run to when they strangle their next Thai lady-boy. That’s the impression that I was left with. Especially out of dunphy and Tulpa. Who’d a thunk it?

        1. I thought ken shultz made a pretty good case. I have been to some of those shit holes and a US consulate can be pretty handy to have around.

          1. It’d be pretty handy if the federal government supplied me with wheelbarrows full ‘o cocaine and blowjobs, that don’t make it a good use of taxpayer money.

            1. Wheelbarrows full of blowjobs? Yikes. I should caution you to go easy on the blowjobs. Unless she is very careful, extended periods of that can cause…well…uh….just take my word for it and go easy.

              1. “She”?

                You’re crazy man; these are government blowjobs. They just use repurposed drones for that shit.

                Listen, and understand. That drone is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or gag-reflex. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are drained.

            2. Protecting citizen’s rights is a pretty damn good use of tax dollars and that’s what consulates do.

              1. So if I smuggle a gun into Britain the U.S. consulate will help me get out of trouble?

                1. Given the state of Limeyland, a consular official should be handing those out to disembarking citizens at the terminal.

          2. There can be a free market philosophical argument made but it is surprising Gary Johnson took such a doctrinaire approach since he has never been afraid to deviate from strict libertarianism in the past, especially re: foreign policy.

            My guess is he was just caught off guard and was really thinking “military bases” not “embassies” — which is what Ron Paul proposes.

          3. Perhaps GayJay will clarify, but I got the impression he was only talking about embassies, not consulates. Or as someone said downthread, maybe he just shot from the hip without thinking it through.

            1. Or upthread. Whatever.

            2. Probably the latter. He said something stupid. It happens. The kneejerk defense of it is no more admirable than when the other teams do it, though.

        2. That asphyxiation was totally consensual, dude.

          1. Shouldn’t that be warty’s line?

      3. I seriously doubt they’re having cocktail parties at embassies in Muslim countries.

        1. Yeah, yeah. What’s the price on ‘consensual’ nowadays?

        2. Um, I drank booze in Iraq w/ no problem. I have to imagine people much richer and more connected than I are doing the same in their cloisters.

          1. The embassy in Kabul was loaded with liquor too.
            In Baghdad, there was a liquor store between my camp (Blackhawk) and the MNSTC-I HQ. I wanted to weep – so close, yet so off limits.

            1. The Kuwait embassy had a full bar too.

  11. “Today’s report affirms the problem of gun walking was a field-driven tactic that dated back to the previous administration, and it was this administration’s attorney general who ended it,”

    Not one aspect of that statement is remotely near the truth.

    This is a monstrous crime and the punishment should be proportional.

      1. While no one loves ass plug.

  12. Holy Shit!

    Such a thing as “Government Executive” Magazine actually exists? I find that more shocking than the obvious and predictable DOJ whitewash.

    I’m too scared to look up “REMF”, “Pougue”, or “Bureaucrat Weekly” magazines. I might find them.

    1. I prefer Bootlicker’s Monthly

    2. I say we boycott their sponsors.

    3. Look for FOBBIT Journal if you can. Should be on the shelf next to REMF Weekly

  13. So in the movie version, who will play the rouge ATF agents? Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr., Jeremy Renner, Colin Farrell?

    They all seem pretty roguish.

    1. Farrell. Damon will play the well intentioned idiot underling who keeps his boss sheltered from the truth. Downey plays the snark gun shop owner and Renner is the Border Patrol agent who gets shot.

      Oh and Freeman plays Holder.

      1. Freeman’s too old. I’d go with Will Smith as Holder and Jaleel White as Obama.

        1. Jaleel as Barry? Imagine the riots in Chicago.

          1. Oh, I forgot Ed Norton as Rahm Emanuel.

            1. As long as Salma Hayek plays Hilda Solis, I’ll watch it.

              1. Seconded. If Frida Kahlo got Salma to play her then Hilda can too

        2. Not gonna lie, I kinda want to see this movie

  14. If it’s not Holder, then it’s Obama.

  15. Read through the thread. Wow.

    Lately the turdpolisher aka palinsbuttplug has been way more stupider. I am ashamed for having responded to it in the past.

    Commentariat…..if I ever do again tear me a new one please. Sick the squirrels on me. Or Reason should ban me. Something.

    1. If it’s not Holder, then it’s Obama. Tell your friends.

      1. Shrike is Obama?

        Can’t say I’m surprised.

  16. While it’s at least plausible that Holder didn’t actually approve of the tactic (since the guys doing it were in fact assholes who had been assholes before his time), there’s no way that he wasn’t involved in covering it up, lying to Congress, threatening whistleblowers, and in general putting the protection of his own ass above truth and justice to the point of breaking the law.

    1. It’s way past improbable. That is why I think everyone should blame Obama. Maybe we will get some justice if they feel threatened.

      1. To be honest, the “Holder didn’t authorize it” scenario I find most plausible is that someone in the WH went around him and authorized it.

        Kevin O’Reilly (a member of the president’s National Security Staff) was friends with Bill Newell, one of the “rogue agents” behind FF and WR, and they exchanged emails about it. O Reilly was conveniently out of the country for most of the scandal (possibly still is?) and declined to be interviewed for the report. The report notes that the White House didn’t provide any documents or cooperation and basically told the DOJ IG to fuck off because they were outside of his jurisdiction. And some reports have suggested major disagreements between Holder and some members of the Inner Circle — possibly he doesn’t like dragged into Congress to answer for lie about shit that they cooked up without telling him?

  17. Today’s report affirms the problem of gun walking was a field-driven tactic that dated back to the previous administration, and it was this administration’s attorney general who ended it

    Bush’s fault. That never gets old, does it!

    1. Imagine how he feels!…..h_orig.jpg

  18. I never really expected much more than this to come out in the end. At most I expected a huge overhaul of management level ATF for not bringing the issue up to an appropriate level.

    The only thing I hope for – a gossamer thin hope for a fleeting moment – is that somehow the ATF gets kicked hard enough to actually start doing their jobs and going after real criminals doing really bad things. The gig they have been playing for decades – “screw with the average gun owner to make sure the populace follows the finest detail of every rule” – has got to stop. Prosecuting some grey haired garage tinkerer because he assembled a rifle that has a three position selector (without the internal parts to make it function) instead of putting felons in prison for gun possession (a charge that rarely ever gets written up) has been the ATF’s MO for too long.

    Time to make them earn their pay.

  19. So the Department of Justice investigates it’s boss and finds exonerates him?

    This is my shocked face.

    1. god damnit reason really needs an edit button. Strike out “finds” and the fucking apostrophe on “it’s”.

      1. Why don’t you just use the preview function?

        *rolls eyes*

        1. I did. Unfortunately, I was more concerned with whether the link was working and failed to proofread the rest of the post.

          Ah well.

          1. I was joking because the preview function is still fucked up.

  20. Attorney General Holder was informed about Operation Fast and Furious, or learned about the tactics employed by ATF in the investigation, prior to January 31, 2011. We found it troubling that a case of this magnitude, and one that affected Mexico so significantly was not directly briefed to the Attorney General.

  21. “An either-or choice between deceitful bastard and incompetent figurehead should not be read as an exoneration.”

    With thoughtful logic like that J.D. I’m afraid your journalistic opportunities are few.

  22. Washington DC is in danger of accumulating so much bullshit that it collapses under its own gravity and becomes a black hole.


    1. They sure can’t let all of that flow into the Bay.

  23. Considering the administration was talking about banning assault weapons because they were getting into the hands of drug cartels right before Fast and Furious happened, it sure looks like the American deaths were intentional in an effort to build the case for anti-gun legislation.
    I don’t like conspiracies, but the motive is right there and this administration is comfortable with corruption.

    1. Oh I agree. I think it was intentional.

  24. wow. just… wow

    holder = feeb-o-crat

    1. “I was too clueless to know what my Dept was doing”.

      “It’s a big Dept, you can’t expect me to know what is going on everywhere, can you”?

      1. (humming and strumming guitar)

        Where have you gone, Ms, Janet Reno our nation turns it’s lonely eyes to you. woo woo woo

        But seriously.

        I mean jesus h christ. you can’t run a dept. full of jackboots while wearing knee highs and crocs.

        1. Remember when it was the hugest scandal ever when a political adviser might have been at a meeting where they were talking about firing a US Attorney…. and the Atty General had to resign because that was so flerking scandalous?

          1. quaint times those were

      2. “It’s a big Dept, you can’t expect me to know what is going on everywhere, can you”?

        Exactly. Sounds like we’d better cut the Dept down so you can know, eh?

        “Noooooooooooooooo! If the Justice Dept is cut back we’ll all die die die!!!”

  25. Watching this right now. If you disregard the firearm misinformation, which I’ll forgive because it’s Vice and they rule, this is really interesting. It’s about Mormons fighting, or at least standing up to the cartels in Mexico, weird.

    1. “mormons who aren;t allowed to own guns” ??

      i am assuming he means mormons in mexico. i know plenty o’ mormons here in WA and they have guns.

      Thanks, GBN. I just finished episode I. will check out the others.

      the narrator treads the line between self effacing and “i’m a tool”, but it’s still good stuff so far

      1. He snuck into NKorea and made one of the best ‘travel’ docs ever seen. If you haven’t watched it, please do, it’s excellent(Vice Guide to: North Korea…i think). So he’ll continue to get my grudging respect for that, and some other ones that were pretty ballsy.

        Yeah, I think that the mormons don’t want to break mexican law concerning firearms. In a late episode it kinda says something to that effect. Oh, and shit totally hits the fucking fan for those people.

        1. yea, i am already into episode 3. the internet is fucking cool. back in the day, this kind of journalism would never be seen by some guy with a press of the button like now. again, it’s good stuff.

          Episode 3 and so far the theme is the mormons aint pussies.

          1. I’m on four right now.

            Sadface, have to wait for episodes 5-7.

            1. Yup, now moving on to “Female Fighters of Kurdistan”.


        2. Vice Guide to North Korea was incredible. Most disturbing Lonely Planet episode ever.

        3. He didn’t really sneak in… they gave him a tourist visa and he was led around by the nose by his handlers. Still ballsy though, as they threatened his cameraman with criminal prosecution a few times.

          1. Yeah, they filmed a lot of stuff they weren’t supposed to, and IIRC they wondered away from their handlers a few times.

  26. Speaking of guns in Mexico
    This La mujer polic?a can shoot my dog anytime.

    1. Attention: replacement for lobster girl has been found.

      1. That’s fucking blasphemy. And not remotely true, either.

    2. Perhaps the only time I’ve ever seen a legitimately hot cop was when I was in Argentina. There was a female cop patrolling a walking-only street (which is a common sight, at least in Buenos Aires) that legitimately made me stop and turn my head. She was gorgeous. Now I’m just thinking about how awesome that trip was. Argentina’s government may suck, but I definitely recommend it as a great place to visit.

  27. So the political elite is going for it’s usual justification: “we’re not evil, we’re just incompetent”. But if Holder is incompetent why should he be Attorney General?

    A related question is: if the Attorney General can’t keep track of what his “rogue” employees are doing, doesn’t that indicate that the Justice Dept is too big for one person to control? Given that many of its employees carry guns and can use them with impunity some serious thought should be given to reducing the size and scope of the Justice Dept so that it can be kept under control. I think the ideal size would be “nonexistent”.

    1. Agreed fully.
      Funny how it’s those pesky rogue agents all the time.
      Obama’s justice team.
      Nixon’s burglars.
      Reagan’s contras.
      Clinton’s Chinese connection…
      Those damn rogues just seem to constantly embarrass our honorable kings.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.