Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder - Page 21

Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

This is a discussion on Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by LkWd_Don The IG should have paid attention to the whistleblowers and protected them from the get-go.. I am still amazed that did ...

Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111718192021222324 LastLast
Results 301 to 315 of 351
Like Tree251Likes

Thread: Rep. Issa Pushing Contempt Order Against Eric Holder

  1. #301
    Senior Member Array DPro.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    611
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    The IG should have paid attention to the whistleblowers and protected them from the get-go.. I am still amazed that did not happen and it makes me wonder if and who told the IG to ignore such reports for that blatant violation of federal whistleblower laws to have occurred.
    Are you surprised. Just another example of the arrogant at the wheel
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan


  2. #302
    Member Array Tayopo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alamos, Son, Mexico
    Posts
    190
    Gentlemen, being a lonely outcast in Ole Mexico, attempting to make a living in mining by raping poor Mother Nature, I am behind times. But didn't the Atf have a federally approved fund that was used to supply the straw buyers with money for their purchases, since even after many sales, they simply did not have it? Also, according to the published records, they forced various gun dealers to sell to known felons -isn't this in itslf is a felony ?

    Frankly, to me, this appears as an 'aiding and abetting activity / process'??

    As to cooperation from Mexico to follow up the firearms, it appears that they deliberatly kept Mexico completely in the dark on the operation. WHY? And if they intended to trace the movements of the firearms to their ultimate destinaton, generally a murder site, how did they intend to do this?

    Since only the CongressionaL Committee would normally have authorization to review the requested documents, why are so many pages redacted so completely, even to 'whom and from' that they are unreadable?

    Final question. who reviews EP as to it's reasonable / legal use in each case today?

    I realize that these simple questions probably have been answered, and gone over again and again in here, but to go back and read every entry? While I am ORISH, 5th generation US citizen, I am not that bull headed, and limited basically to Immigration law, and that antiquated from the old title 8 CFR .

    So forgive me for entering soo late into this ongoing conversation, but I promise to keep up with it

    Gracias.
    .
    Don Jose de La Mancha
    "I exist to Live, not live to exist"
    DPro.40 likes this.

  3. #303
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    The IG should have paid attention to the whistleblowers and protected them from the get-go.. I am still amazed that did not happen and it makes me wonder if and who told the IG to ignore such reports for that blatant violation of federal whistleblower laws to have occurred.
    It is indeed illegal to retaliate against a whistleblower who goes to the IG.
    But, there are caveats to that; like the complaint must be legit in the first place; or at least
    reasonably thought by the complainant to be legit in the first place.

    You can't go to the IG and tell him you think your boss is spending
    government money on (to be absurd) Russian ladies, but merely be making up a lie. If you do that, you not only don't get protection, you could get prosecuted. The key feature is that the person making the complaint must be making a credible complaint, not a wild accusation. It is pretty much the same as going to your local police to report that your neighbor is dealing. If you fabricate the accusation you
    could be prosecuted, not protected.

    I'm not making a judgment on the credibility of the initial complaint or the veracity of the complainant. I'm just saying, if you go to the IG with a cock and bull story, it can come back on you. Whistleblower protections are for real things. They aren't tools to harass supervisors.

    Additionally, if I remember correctly, the IG might warn a supervisor against retaliation, but I don't think the IGs enforce whistleblower protections. Protection against retaliation is to be found at the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) which enforces the rules against unlawful personnel actions, which retaliation would be. So, if a complainant felt he was the victim of retaliation, or was about to be, the complaint should go to OSC. I do not
    know for certain if an IG would refer an instance of retaliation to OSC for prosecution on their own initiative, or if the complaint must originate with the victim.

    I do not recall how things work for complainants who go to Congress first off, instead of to the IG. But that doesn't appear to be the case here. To whom did the initial complaint go? It wasn't Congress, right?

    Like most of our modern life, there are layers of complexity which may make something look right that is wrong, and something wrong look right to folks who don't know the ins and outs of the relevant laws and regulations and powers.


    Added a few minutes later: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33918.pdf

    Stuff at the above url pretty well explains how it all works.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #304
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Tayopo View Post
    Gentlemen, being a lonely outcast in Ole Mexico, attempting to make a living in mining by raping poor Mother Nature, I am behind times. But didn't the Atf have a federally approved fund that was used to supply the straw buyers with money for their purchases
    No.
    That didn't happen.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #305
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    The key feature is that the person making the complaint must be making a credible complaint, not a wild accusation. It is pretty much the same as going to your local police to report that your neighbor is dealing. If you fabricate the accusation you could be prosecuted, not protected.

    I'm not making a judgment on the credibility of the initial complaint or the veracity of the complainant. I'm just saying, if you go to the IG with a cock and bull story, it can come back on you. Whistleblower protections are for real things. They aren't tools to harass supervisors.
    I don't know about the practice in the DOJs "IG" office but there is a common rule of thumb that when looking into the validity of any complaint of that nature you do not go to the person(s) being complained about asking anything. So who did the IG discuss this with that gave the IG the impression that Agents Dodson and Alt were lying to begin with? That is an explaination I am not finding, so I still have to question. Why and/or how did the DOJ IG determine that they were not being truthful and simply ignore the complaint made?

    For whatever reason, that is a question that even Rep. Issa seems to have overlooked as there is nothing pertaining to it in either the Memo found at:
    http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conten...ment-FINAL.pdf
    or in the 270 Page official Committee report to Congress, found at:
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-11...112hrpt546.pdf
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  6. #306
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    I don't know about the practice in the DOJs "IG" office but there is a common rule of thumb that when looking into the validity of any complaint of that nature you do not go to the person(s) being complained about asking anything. So who did the IG discuss this with that gave the IG the impression that Agents Dodson and Alt were lying to begin with? That is an explaination I am not finding, so I still have to question. Why and/or how did the DOJ IG determine that they were not being truthful and simply ignore the complaint made?

    For whatever reason, that is a question that even Rep. Issa seems to have overlooked as there is nothing pertaining to it in either the Memo found at:
    http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conten...ment-FINAL.pdf
    or in the 270 Page official Committee report to Congress, found at:
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-11...112hrpt546.pdf
    All I can tell you is that having once sat across the table from an IG, on a matter I knew nothing about, I wouldn't want
    to be in that position again. Had they asked the boss of the complainant, I am quite certain he would have been
    under oath when answering; and he would have been questioned harshly. They don't fool around.
    That is why I give the benefit to the IG here.

    Oh, another point-- Any Federal employee questioned by the IG would have been under oath and would have lacked any ability to refuse to answer the questions, or assert the 5th. You can be almost instantly fired for that.

    This case has the earmark of an unhappy employee causing trouble with an unfounded complaint, then crying to Congress when the IG didn't take his incredible story as credible. After that, somehow between politics and news hype, the story grew and took on a life of its own. At the core it is nothing more than that.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  7. #307
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    All I can tell you is that having once sat across the table from an IG, on a matter I knew nothing about, I wouldn't want
    to be in that position again. Had they asked the boss of the complainant, I am quite certain he would have been
    under oath when answering; and he would have been questioned harshly. They don't fool around.
    That is why I give the benefit to the IG here.

    Oh, another point-- Any Federal employee questioned by the IG would have been under oath and would have lacked any ability to refuse to answer the questions, or assert the 5th. You can be almost instantly fired for that.

    This case has the earmark of an unhappy employee causing trouble with an unfounded complaint, then crying to Congress when the IG didn't take his incredible story as credible. After that, somehow between politics and news hype, the story grew and took on a life of its own. At the core it is nothing more than that.
    I will both agree and disagree with you.

    As to your first and second comment, being under oath during questioning implies that someone was under investigation at that point. So this does not apply because the IG never took up the complaint. So in this I disagree with you.

    To say that when an IG is investigating that they do not fool around. I will wholeheartedly agree.

    Now, to the last comment in reference to an unhappy employee trying to cause trouble, that does not apply as they were warning their supervisors that the conduct during the operation(did have investigation) was going to cause problems/get someone killed and then when they got no help from their supervisors they went to the IG with the same. After reading the CRS paper you posted, I see that the IG has considerable time to decide if the case will be investigated or not and lacking other information, I can not say that the Agents waited long enough before taking it to Congress. But considering that Agent Terry died before an investigation commenced, I will not fault them for doing what I probably would have done, had I been in their place. I again will not agree with you and hope at least that you will understand my reasoning.
    Last edited by LkWd_Don; July 1st, 2012 at 02:22 AM. Reason: correct a statement
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  8. #308
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Tayopo View Post
    ...[D]idn't the Atf have a federally approved fund that was used to supply the straw buyers with money for their purchases, since even after many sales, they simply did not have it? Also, according to the published records, they forced various gun dealers to sell to known felons -isn't this in itslf is a felony ?

    Frankly, to me, this appears as an 'aiding and abetting activity / process'??

    As to cooperation from Mexico to follow up the firearms, it appears that they deliberatly kept Mexico completely in the dark on the operation. WHY? And if they intended to trace the movements of the firearms to their ultimate destinaton, generally a murder site, how did they intend to do this?

    Since only the CongressionaL Committee would normally have authorization to review the requested documents, why are so many pages redacted so completely, even to 'whom and from' that they are unreadable?

    Final question. who reviews EP as to it's reasonable / legal use in each case today?...
    There was no approved fund before the fact of the straw purchases. Straw purchasers used their own money. ATF was investigating. However, on occassion, ATF agents got too close to the transactions and used straw purchasers as cooperatives.

    There is an even more egregious exception in which, on June 3, 2010, ATF Agent, John Dodson, using $2500 of ATF funds, bought six AK pistols and sold them to a suspect gun walker. There had to be higher-than-supervisor knowledge of this use of funds. BTW, the guns were lost, and the case was closed with no charges or arrests.

    And, yes, against their better judgement, gun dealers were selling guns to straw purchasers under orders of ATF F&F supervisor, David Voth, for one.

    There's no one, general consensus on EP. It's more a stone wall over which congress and executive will negotiate under the watchful eye of constitutional scholars. Holder's DOJ has a lot of power to interpret. Possibly the courts will decide.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  9. #309
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    There was no approved fund before the fact of the straw purchases. Straw purchasers used their own money. ATF was investigating. However, on occassion, ATF agents got too close to the transactions and used straw purchasers as cooperatives.

    There is an even more egregious exception in which, on June 3, 2010, ATF Agent, John Dodson, using $2500 of ATF funds, bought six AK pistols and sold them to a suspect gun walker. There had to be higher-than-supervisor knowledge of this use of funds. BTW, the guns were lost, and the case was closed with no charges or arrests.

    And, yes, against their better judgement, gun dealers were selling guns to straw purchasers under orders of ATF F&F supervisor, David Voth, for one.

    There's no one, general consensus on EP. It's more a stone wall over which congress and executive will negotiate under the watchful eye of constitutional scholars. Holder's DOJ has a lot of power to interpret. Possibly the courts will decide.
    First Part in Bold--- Why do you make that assumption? It is interesting that the amount of money involved was
    $2500. Very many Federales have purchase cards with a $2500 limit and blanket purchase authority.
    Many others have higher limits.
    A purchase could be made and the supervisor might actually not ever ever find out about it.
    It depends in part on the accounting system the Agency used.

    For example, at on time we received paper statements for our purchase card purchases and had to
    turn these over to our supervisors once a month with a reconciliation of the account and all of the receipts.
    Payment was not made until the supervisor approved. Under that system there would easily be a 20-30 day
    time frame between the purchase the supervisor finding out about it.

    Later a computerized system was installed where I worked. It was "efficient" but not safe. All reconciliation
    of accounts was done by the purchaser on a web site. The receipts were supposed to be kept by the employee
    for two years. Under that system it was entirely possible for purchases to go unnoticed by a supervisor. Perhaps
    an accounting clerk would scan them, but then an accounting clerk would not know the implications of an
    Agent buying 6 guns; and would probably consider that normal given their occupation.

    I think you are assuming a level of supervisory control which may not have existed. Prior knowledge of the
    purchase, especially if it was against instructions, could easily go unnoticed; very easily.
    Last edited by Hopyard; July 1st, 2012 at 01:37 PM. Reason: spelling
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  10. #310
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    This case has the earmark of an unhappy employee causing trouble with an unfounded complaint, then crying to Congress when the IG didn't take his incredible story as credible. After that, somehow between politics and news hype, the story grew and took on a life of its own. At the core it is nothing more than that.
    Hop - if you are right, and you may be, wouldn't it be a simple matter for Holder to turn over the documents and be donewith this matter? It seems like Holder either has something to hide or he wants to play politics and blame the republicans for doing just that.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  11. #311
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Hop - if you are right, and you may be, wouldn't it be a simple matter for Holder to turn over the documents and be donewith this matter? It seems like Holder either has something to hide or he wants to play politics and blame the republicans for doing just that.
    There are two distinctly different sets of documents; perhaps more. IG's reports have been turned over. That
    is required by law anyway; I think each 6 month. There are things which can not be turned over by law. Grand Jury
    testimony for sure, maybe (I don't know) certain personnel matters.

    Finally, there are documents related to internal deliberations between a President and a Cabinet Officer or amongst
    Cabinet level officers. Keeping these from Congress is about preserving Separation of Powers. No President can yield
    to that demand.

    Here for example: http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...-101-1984.html

    http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...c-101-1984.pdf

    Ugh, back in a few moment when I figure out what is wrong with the url. Hold on their K.

    I dunno. SOmetimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...-101-1984.html

    http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...c-101-1984.pdf
    Doghandler likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #312
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    I will both agree and disagree with you.

    As to your first and second comment, being under oath during questioning implies that someone was under investigation at that point. So this does not apply because the IG never took up the complaint.
    Perhaps in ordinary law enforcement. I can assure you I was under oath and I was not under investigation.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #313
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Perhaps in ordinary law enforcement. I can assure you I was under oath and I was not under investigation.
    You hit upon something that is true, but have the wrong side of the equation.

    We are talking about someone being under oath during questioning by an IG for the purpose of a complaint investigation lodged against them. Which is much like giving testimony at a criminal trial or at a Congressional Hearing and not simply law enforcement. The problem here is that you are implying that if the supervisors who the complaint is against are being questioned by the IG they are not under investigation.

    This is where I was saying that I do not know how the DOJ's IG works in the case of an investigation but with most IG inspections, at any point the IG is questioning someone in relation to a complaint against them, they are under investigation.

    Now, if the person being questioned is not named in the complaint, then your assumption that they would simply be testifying under oath without being under investigation would be a valid one.

    Quit trying to confuse or twist the issue.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  14. #314
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    You hit upon something that is true, but have the wrong side of the equation.

    We are talking about someone being under oath during questioning by an IG for the purpose of a complaint investigation lodged against them. Which is much like giving testimony at a criminal trial or at a Congressional Hearing and not simply law enforcement. The problem here is that you are implying that if the supervisors who the complaint is against are being questioned by the IG they are not under investigation.

    This is where I was saying that I do not know how the DOJ's IG works in the case of an investigation but with most IG inspections, at any point the IG is questioning someone in relation to a complaint against them, they are under investigation.

    Now, if the person being questioned is not named in the complaint, then your assumption that they would simply be testifying under oath without being under investigation would be a valid one.

    Quit trying to confuse or twist the issue.
    I'm not trying to confuse the issue. I'm simply stating that an investigation of some sort appears to have occurred and
    concluded that the complaint wasn't credible. That is the part Congress refuses to believe. To get to the point
    where they determine the complaint isn't credible they would have had to talk to people. One, likely would have been
    the supervisor. If they put him under oath, and he pulled a stack of warning letters, improvement plans, and other
    stuff out of his desk to substantiate oral statements about the complainant, the investigation would end.

    I'll admit that some complaints if not the majority are so off the wall that they don't even get to that point,
    and you and I have no way of knowing how the complainant's initial complaint was viewed.

    In any case, I don't want to play a semantic game with you--- my only point here was that the IGs
    do not fool around, and therefore for Congress to simply dismiss their findings the way Issa has done and
    cast outlandish assertions about high level conspiracy is a bit off the wall to be mild about it.

    Now they want to protect the complainant from the discipline that is coming his way. They are meddling
    in personnel actions that are none of their business because he didn't go to them with his complaint.
    He also has plenty of protection in OSC and appeals to the Merit System Protection Board and the District
    Courts if necessary.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #315
    Member Array Tayopo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alamos, Son, Mexico
    Posts
    190
    Hola hopy: You posted -->No.That didn't happen.
    **************
    perhaps, perhaps, we may never know, but we do know from sworn testimony that they made the gun dealer sell to a known felon. despite protests from the dealer. In any event, 'this' is a prosecutable felony. No?

    Don Jose de La Mancha

    "I exist to live, not live to exist"

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

amending u-4 for a complaint where rep is not mentioned
,
complaint seek law license of eric holder unabridged complaint
,

congressperson for concealed carry

,
eric holder 2nd amendment
,
eric holder to be pardon by executor order
,

fast and furious david voth testifing house issa plead the fifth

,
issa page 418
,
rep issa
,
rep. issa skeletons in closet
,
skeletons in rep issa's closet
,
why this is going nowhere with eric holder
,
wiretaps and grand jury transcripts and holder
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors