Just like his boss Obama Holder is lying to save his skin.....You can't believe anything these guys say and they both must think we are just stupid...
Holder Claims Emails Using Words ‘Fast and Furious’ Don’t Refer to Operation Fast and Furious
By Matt Cover June 7, 2012
(CNSNews.com) – Attorney General Eric Holder claimed during congressional testimony today that internal Justice Department emails that use the phrase “Fast and Furious” do not refer to the controversial gun-walking operation Fast and Furious.
Under questioning from Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who read excerpts of the emails at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department oversight, Holder claimed that the phrase “Fast and Furious” did not refer to Fast and Furious but instead referred to another gun-walking operation known as “Wide Receiver.”
However, the emails refer to both programs -- "Fast and Furious" and the "Tucson case," from where Wide Receiver was launched -- and reveal Justice Department officials discussing how to handle media scrutiny when both operations become public.
Among three of the emails (see Jason Weinstein Email Fast, Furious.pdf), the second, dated “October 17, 2010 11:07 PM,” was sent by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein to James Trusty and it states: “Do you think we should have Lanny participate in press when Fast and Furious and Laura’s Tucson case [Wide Receiver] are unsealed? It’s a tricky case, given the number of guns that have walked, but it is a significant set of prosecutions.”
In the third email, dated Oct. 18, 2010, James Trusty writes back to Weinstein: “I think so, but the timing will be tricky, too. Looks like we’ll be able to unseal the Tucson case sooner than the Fast and Furious (although this may be just the difference between Nov. and Dec).”
“It’s not clear how much we’re involved in the main F and F [Fast and Furious] case,” reads the email, “but we have Tucson [Wide Receiver] and now a new unrelated case with [redacted] targets. It’s not any big surprise that a bunch of US guns are being used in MX [Mexico], so I’m not sure how much grief we get for ‘guns walking.’ It may be more like ‘Finally, they’re going after people who sent guns down there.’” (See Jason Weinstein Email Fast, Furious.pdf)
Operation Wide Receiver was run out of Tucson, Ariz., between 2006 and 2007 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), a division of the Justice Department.
In his testimony, Holder said that the emails only referred to Operation Wide Receiver.
Holder told the committee: “That refers to Wide Receiver, not to Fast and Furious. The e-mail that you [Rep. Chaffetz] just read [between Trusty and Weinstein] – now this is important – that email referred to Wide Receiver, it did not refer to Fast and Furious. That has to be noted for the record.”
Operation Fast and Furious was carried out by the ATF. It began in the fall of 2009 and continued into early 2011, during which time the federal government purposefully allowed known or suspected gun smugglers to purchase guns at federally licensed firearms dealers in Arizona. The government did not seek to abort these gun purchases, intercept the smugglers after the purchases, or recover the guns they had purchased.
In some cases, as the government expected they would, the smugglers delivered the guns to Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Two rifles sold to a smuggler in the course of Operation Fast and Furious in January 2010 ended up at the scene of the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.
AND THE PLOT THICKENS....
Mole helps Rep. Issa whack Justice Dept.
By Jordy Yager - 06/07/12 05:00 AM ET
With the help of a mole, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has turned the tables on Attorney General Eric Holder.
Issa has long been exasperated with Holder, claiming that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has been withholding information on a controversial gun-running operation. But through an anonymous source, Issa has obtained information about the initiative that is under a federal court-ordered seal.
Giving such information out is a federal crime, raising the question of whether the Justice Department will seek to prosecute what Republicans are calling a whistleblower.
Issa has asked the DOJ for the documents — wiretap applications it used in the botched federal gun-tracking Operation Fast and Furious — for months. The California lawmaker has taken preliminary steps to move contempt-of-Congress citations against Holder, but it remains unclear if GOP leaders support that move. This new controversy could help Issa attract more Republican support for a contempt-of-Congress resolution.
If Holder does launch an investigation into where the leak originated, the powerful Republican could paint the move as an attempt by the DOJ to hide the documents’ contents. It would also raise the possibility that DOJ investigators will seek information from Issa, who has been trying to determine who approved the “gun-walking” tactics used in Fast and Furious along the U.S.-Mexico border.
On the other hand, not launching a probe would mean turning a blind eye to a criminal breach and could lead Issa’s source and others to reveal other information sealed by a judge.
Issa told Fox News on Wednesday that he has no intention of shining the light on his source: “We’re not going to make our whistleblower available. That’s been one of the most sensitive areas, because some of the early whistleblowers are already feeling retribution. They’re being treated horribly.”
Asked earlier this week where he got the wiretap applications, Issa told The Hill, “You can ask, but you should have no expectation of an answer. By the way, if I asked you where you got yours, would you give me your sources?”
Of course, there is some political risk for Issa. The Obama administration could point out that he is stonewalling federal authorities after complaining throughout this Congress of being stonewalled by DOJ.
As the lead congressional investigator of Fast and Furious, Issa says the documents show top-ranking DOJ officials signing off on the condemned “gun-walking” tactics used in the failed operation. Senior DOJ officials have repeatedly denied that they approved the botched initiative.
The documents have not been made public, and Issa has apparently broken no laws by being given the information.
Regardless, the DOJ is not pleased.
“Chairman Issa’s letter makes clear that sealed court documents relating to pending federal prosecutions being handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California have been disclosed to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in violation of law,” wrote Deputy Attorney General James Cole to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Issa this week.
“This is of great concern to us,” the letter added.
A spokesman for the DOJ declined to comment about whether it was planning to launch an investigation into the leak.
Democrats say that Issa is exaggerating what he has. Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking member on Issa’s panel, reiterated this week that top-ranking DOJ officials didn’t personally review any of the six wiretap applications related to Fast and Furious. Issa sent Cummings the information he received from his source.
In the past, the DOJ has justified not turning over the wiretap applications to Issa by saying that doing so could jeopardize the current criminal cases it is prosecuting.
Two former prosecutors for the DOJ, who were not familiar with the details of this article, independently told The Hill that defense lawyers could use an instance of documents being leaked in violation of a court-ordered seal to justify seeking a mistrial.
It is unlikely that the DOJ, if it does investigate the leak, will have grounds to go after Issa for accepting the documents. In past instances of court-ordered seals being broken, it is the actual breaker of the seal who is held responsible, which in this case could mean criminal contempt proceedings and possible jail time.
The battle between Issa and the DOJ has escalated over the past month, with House Republican leaders writing a letter to Holder asking him to hand over information about who was responsible for Fast and Furious. The letter also asked whether the DOJ misled Congress on when officials, including Holder, became aware of the program.
Issa is set to square off against Holder on Thursday when the attorney general is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee. The Republican lawmaker will appear on a panel to discuss oversight of the DOJ.
Under the now-defunct Fast and Furious initiative, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which is under the DOJ, authorized the sale of firearms to known and suspected straw purchasers for Mexican drug cartels, but lost track of many of the weapons. Some of those guns might have contributed to the December 2010 shooting death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
Wouldn't it be GREAT if for once Holder or Obama would answer a question honestly????
Holder ducks questions on who highest-ranking official with Fast and Furious knowledge was
Published: 12:35 PM 06/07/2012 By Matthew Boyle
Attorney General Eric Holder again today would not answer who the highest-ranking Obama administration official was that had knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious and the gunwalking tactics it employed before Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered.
Instead, when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith pressed him directly during a House Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday, Holder dodged giving a response.
“Mr. Attorney General, who is the highest ranking official in this administration that knew that these tactics were being used?” Smith asked of Holder at the beginning of a Thursday hearing. “And I’m talking about, knew the tactics were being used before the death of Agent Brian Terry on December 15, 2010.”
Holder attempted to answer a question that wasn’t asked. “Well we know that the operation began in the field offices in Arizona,” Holder said. “Both in the US Attorney’s office and in the ATF office there. The inspector general is in the process of examining –”
Smith then cut off Holder and asked his question again: “To your knowledge, who was the highest-ranking official in the administration who knew about the tactics?”
Holder again deflected. “At this point I can say that it started in Arizona and I’m not at all certain who beyond that can be said to have been involved with regard to the use — now there was knowledge of it, but the use of the tactics,” he responded again.
Smith rephrased his question, asking: “No one other than the ATF officials in Arizona, you’re saying, knew about the tactics used in Operation Fast and Furious before December 15, 2010, is that right?”
Holder wouldn’t outright deny that officials in Washington, D.C., knew of gunwalking. “I think that in terms in knowledge of the tactics as opposed to the operation itself, I don’t think that anyone in Washington knew about those tactics until the beginning of the year,” Holder said.
Holder also changed his regularly inconsistent testimony about when he first learned of Fast and Furious. “I don’t know the specific date,” he said when Smith asked him when he first learned of gunwalking in Fast and Furious. “I got a letter from Senator Grassley at the end of January of 2011. I think I became aware of the tactics themselves probably February of 2011, as I’ve indicated in the seven previous times I’ve testified.”
Holder has changed that testimony several times before. On May 3, 2011, he told Congress he first learned of Fast and Furious “a few weeks” before from press reports. In early November 2011, Holder edited that May 3 testimony while appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, admitting it was inaccurate.
“I did say a ‘few weeks,’” Holder said in November, responding to questions from Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I probably could’ve said ‘a couple of months.’ I didn’t think the term I said, ‘few weeks,’ was inaccurate based on what happened.”
Holder saying he doesn’t “know the specific date” on Thursday represents at least the third time he’s edited that testimony.