must read

The same Fortune that is a mouthpiece of Wall Street and the Corporate culture is all of a sudden a great source of reliable information on DU?

Or is this like when a bunch of you all of a sudden liked Scott Walker when he banned guns from some Wisconsin state buildings? Or a bunch of "progressives" that came to love the same Cheney/Bush no fly "Terrah list, that we all hated and denounced for 8 years, when they wanted to use it to ban gun purchases?

Conditional ethics strike again. Any source is good and "trusted" if it's bad for gun rights, and any source that supports them is obviously a right wing shill.

Wasn't it so much more fun when it was just Sipsey Street and WorldNetDaily!

Since Wall Street rags are suddenly "real" reporting.

Must be nice to have such a flexible conscience, if that's what you call it.

The article was written by award winning investigative reporter Katherine Eban.

http://www.katherineeban.com/index.php/about/biography/

Ouch, Rhodes Scholar. There's nothing the gun nuts hate more than a good education!

Conversely, this Forbes article posted by one of our more clueless pro-gunners a while back was written by a moron named Larry Bell, whose day job is being a professional global warming denier.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117216919

But don't let a few facts stand in the way of your gun conspiracy delusions!

is now the gold standard of truth and enlightenment on guns?

I think not..

to their own causes (and mine!) through dishonesty on the gun restriction issue.

So much for formal logic...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/us-news-blog/2012/jul/30/jonah-lehrer-quits-new-yorker

So much for your argument from authority...

Does Oxford have a degree program in firearms issues?

If so, please cite to it.

If not, please explain what part of her studies lends weight to her opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal

...an enemy in common doesn't necessarily qualify one as the best choice for an ally? Hmmm.

Good point.

Conditional ethics? Yes...or situational, if you prefer. It would be amusing if it weren't so sad and disgusting.

* I use this term thinking it must be okay because I've seen "gun nut" used here with impunity.

Don't attack the source. Attack the argument.

This was a 6 month investigation. As you point out, Fortune is generally on the right, this isn't one of your lefty boogeymen (or boogeywomen). If the facts in here stand up (and the article appears to be airtight), this is a real eye-opener and blows the lid off of over a year of F&F howling.

I understand that gun rights people have a great deal of emotion tied up in this. Hopefully you guys can digest this material, and come to the inevitable conclusions. The only person who intentionally allowed guns to go to criminals was your sainted whistleblower, who comes off as a complete ass, btw. The ATF was aware of straw purchasers and attempted to bring them to justice, only to be stymied by Federal Prosecutors in AZ.

It seems quite plausible that the DOJ has reasons to protect what may still be ongoing investigations, and Obama is doing the right thing by shielding the DOJ from politically motivated attacks on the AG. I'm no fan of Mr. Holder, but even Issa admits that he had no knowledge of any tactics used by the ATF, even if they included gun-walking which it appears THEY DID NOT.

Read the article. Then check with Sipsey Street or anyone else you would like to. If you have been duped this whole time, at least have the ovaries to admit it. I was duped, it's hard not to be with all the misleading coverage on this issue. But if these are the facts, then you've got some crow to eat.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=259842

Obviously I don't expect beevul to be terribly interested in facts, but my past experience here is that there are many pro-gun people are reasonable people capable of rational thought.

Now I have to remember how to ignore folks.

Awesome.

more substance

and less anger. Mind if I call you Lazarus (of Bethany)?

I'd prefer it if you called me daddy.

Now none o you have anything to say about the article? Sad...

Actually, there is a lot to say about it. Much of it has already been said. Basically, it is a puff piece written by magazine writer who interviewed a couple of ATF agents, the ones with something to hide. What was not covered:
Mexican authorities did not know, therefore there was no coordination between ATF and Mexican Federal Police.
ATF had no tracking mechanism what so ever, so how would they figure out where they went?
ATF has no jurisdiction in Mexico, so how are they going to take down cartels?

One more thing, her article said that the penalties for straw buying is weak. Since when was ten years a weak sentence? She never bothered to look up or mention what those penalties are.

The denialism is so strong. I guess it's not easy to hear that the conspiracy theory that all gun nuts were so worked up about for over a year crumbles to the ground. That's what happens when you put your trust in gun blogs!

In reality this article is the single best piece of reporting since the beginning of the F&F story. Rather than just take the word of one disgruntled ATF agent who didn't get along with his boss, and build a whole strange conspiracy theory around his allegations, this reporter actually talked to everyone involved to figure out what was going on. The "couple" of people interviewed turns out to be 39:

Oh, and the penalties for straw purchases are weak. Ten years is the maximum, but what matters is not the maximum, but what happens in practice, and in practice straw purchases are both hard to prove and also don't get large sentences. For some reason, this notion seems to be well beyond the complexity threshold of what NRA bubblers are capable of understanding.

And what conspiracy theory is that? What is the average sentence for straw purchasing? You think it is the single best piece only because it conforms to your pre conceived view. Talk about denialism.

page 40
http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/minority_report_13112.pdf
Wow, I can copy and paste too. I read the article.

Such condescending bullshit. Ideologues of any stripe have problems with complexity, that makes them ideologues. Brady/VPC bubblers are incapable of basic critical thinking. Yes, ten years is the max. What is the average? The article never mentioned. Either way, the guideline should be increased if not a mandatory min. like being a felon in possession.
Straw purchasing may or may not be hard to prove. It is not that hard to get probable cause. If the FFL reports it as a possible straw purchase, that gives ATF probable cause. If there is a pattern of multiple gun purchases in a short period of time, that is probable cause. That is why multiple handgun purchases have to reported directly, and has been since the 1960s. That is the point behind the multiple long gun sale reporting requirement as well.

Last edited Sat Jun 30, 2012, 09:05 PM - Edit history (1)

they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized. Holder testified in December that "the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."

This goes a bit deeper than 1 disgruntled ATF field agent.
This excerpt was taken from the article that you linked.
Feel free to keep denying ,just don't expect the rest of us to fall for ,a bad political hatchet job, disguised as journism.

the one that turned them in. So how did the whistleblower let 2000 guns walk in one incident? Notice how those who got turned in are blaming the whistleblower and some people don't stop to ask WTF?

argument is well and truly busted."

That's all.

Prevented thousands of grandmas with MS from becoming heads of Mexican Drug Cartels.

...that said 'Beer leads to heroine?'

(I thought it was a good pun)

But one does wonder why such obvious truth needs Executive Privilege to hide it.

right wingers just as he stuffed his birth certificate down Trumps throat.

it's amazing. Utterly amazing.

Nothing like finding a disinterested party as your source.....

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 09:40 PM - Edit history (1)

after telling us we were going up in a mushroom cloud.

Where's NRA blame in the post?

Sheesh.

Ole King George got fooled.

that the administration cooked up some Nixonian scheme. I actually could picture it with some of the characters Nixon and Reagan had in their administrations were around. But seems Obama hired a better class of people. I will say my biggest problem with Holder remains coddling Wall Street, Massey Coal, and BP.
I'm sure we agree on this much, Tim Geithner is thanking whoever moved ATF from Treasury to Justice.

Eric Holder's sworn testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,?

OR: 5 unnamed law enforcement agents, who tell Fortune that ATF didn't do what Eric Holder, testified that they did?

As political pressure has mounted, ATF and Justice Department officials have reversed themselves. After initially supporting Group VII agents and denying the allegations, they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized. Holder testified in December that "the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."



Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic.

I'm a little confused, am i supposed to believe our Attorney General when he gives sworn testimony before a house committee, or am i supposed to believe 5 anonymous law enforcement agents, giving interviews to a fortune reporter?



Our attorney general wouldn't lie under oath, to a congressional committee, now would he?

So are the evil, right wing tea party Democrats who wrote this:

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/minority_report_13112.pdf

They are all stooges of the eeeevil NRA!!!11!!!11!!!!1!!

It's worse than we thought!1!!!!!!11!!!!


(Either that or there might be some minor issues with the Fortune story.)

Not possible, the author is a Rhodes Scholar ya know. Rhodes Scholar...

We all know that Rhodes Scholars would never write a slanted misleading article,
about guns, and government corruption.

But you won't be hearing it from our government.

Flawed and reckless is a bit of an understatement. My single question would be: Why are the idiots who dreamed up and ordered this project still in management positions, let alone still employed with ATF"?

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/minority_report_13112.pdf

are being protected from any real threat of prosecution.


Unless DOJ is compelled to hand over the relevant documents,we will likely never find out who these "idiots" are.

This apparent coverup, may end up being a bigger scandal, then the actual gun walking.

The unintentional consequences of a bunch of bungling bureaucrats.

I've gone to reasonable lengths to make sure my firearms are secure from children, thieves and the like. The fact is, the ATF is complicit in the end result.

OOPS, it was just an accident is no fracking excuse. Just like the moron who says I didn't know my gun was loaded.

Screw up, own up. Stop the excuses.

No Arizona laws were broken. This was a Federal investigation into the breaking of Federal gun laws and had nothing to do with Arizona, other than location. Since only the Federal government is allowed to control gun movement between states and across U.S. national borders, 'raising Arizona' is a red herring.

Unless, suddenly, Arizona enforcing Federal laws is now a GOOD thing?!?!

Also note that when the ATF and Federal prosecuters obstructed arrests and seizures, Federal agents asked Arizona law enforcement for assistance.

So, what gives? Should Arizona be enforcing Federal law or not?


MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MINDS.

Or perhaps they suddenly remembered an appointment for a root canal...

...jpak has them. Maybe if you had more to say than "yup" your threads wouldn't get locked






Yup.

that depicted by his avatar he'd have a shot as well.

So, the reality, as the article points out, is that it is virtually impossible to stop gun traffic into Mexico, because most of what constitutes gun trafficking is actually legal, thanks to the overwhelming success of pro-gun lobbyists. ATF agents, already hampered and largely defanged by the relentless "jackbooted thugs" campaign carried on by the NRA, went as far as New York to try to get the obvious trafficking they were witnessing prosecuted. But they couldn't. It's not illegal for an 18-yr-old to, say buy $20,000 in weaponry, repeatedly, on the theory it might be for "personal use," and then sell them all the next day having "changed his mind."

So, the reality is that gun laws are so weak that Mexico is flooded with American guns in a process that essentially isn't illegal, because gun rights are so broad here. That's what's actually happening. ATF can't arrest anyone because you basically would have to witness someone saying, "Here, let me illegally traffic this firearm to you, hahahahahahaha!"

The conspiracy theory cooked up to deal with this is a gob-smacking piece of cognitively dissonant genius. It's just so bald-faced nuts that it makes perfect sense, if you just invert reason entirely. You just have to believe that law enforcement agents never wanted to do their jobs, bust people and stop weapons trafficking -- how naive! Nooo, they wanted to FAIL, so gun trafficking would get bad, so we'd all THINK we needed better enforcements and / or legislation. Because law enforcement agents think like that, and readily agree to engage in complex conspiracies involving deliberately letting their comrades be murdered, just to please President Obama and his secretly anti-gun stance that he has never revealed in speech or policy. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA!

Wow. This is exactly the same flavor of proving-something-via-its-utter-nonexistence that NRA President / gibbering nutwad Wayne Lapierre introduced a while back, where Obama has been soft on gun control, BECAUSE HE WANTS TO BE HARD ON GUN CONTROL!!

It's perfect logic, if you're insane. And the best part is yet to come. You see, as soon as it sort of sinks in that the ATF was actually (gasp) trying to do its job, and not pretending to not be able to do its job in order to ... TAKE OUR GUNS! someone will be tempted to suggest that maybe we need some kind of database to track gun sales, instead of those boxes of forms the article talks about agents having to painstakingly review by hand. Or, maybe there could be some kind of limit on large sales to individuals. Or something. Anything. But they won't be able to, because as soon as anyone tries, a trillion screaming NRA acolytes will shout ...

AHA! WE KNEW IT! Look at the gun grabbers, using the ATF's "fake" failure to stop guns from going to Mexico to falsely try to justify laws to actually stop guns from going to Mexico! !!! !!! !!!

So at last we scrape down through all the crazy slogans and pseudo-logic, and unending hysteria about jack-booted G-men coming to take Grandma's shotgun and we see what's really most important to the mega-powerful gun lobby in America.

Gun-running to Mexico. All of this nonsense, from Lapierre to Issa, and this galactically impossible non-scandal, is aimed at protecting gun shops that sell a hell of a lot of weaponry to mules headed to Mexico. It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Nothing to do with self-defense, or hunting or target shooting, or a Swiss-like ideal of every citizen being prepared to defend the homeland.

Gunrunner profits. That's what matters here. That's what all the screaming and sweating and false visions of gun-stripping apocalypsi are about. They knew people were wondering why there is a steady river of arms flowing from Arizona directly to Mexician drug lords, and got worried someone might eventually want to do something about it. So we all got Congressman Car Thief Issa's epic hearings, the first attempt to hold a USAG in contempt of Congress, and the "Fast and Furious scandal."

But no talk so far of doing a single thing to stem the flow of illegal American guns. Because once again, when it comes to firearms in America, crazy works just fine.

The evil NRA? Gun store owners profiteering off the gun trafficking to Mexico? Who ordered the ATF to let guns walk, when they could have been seized?
Weak laws? Really? Read this again...

ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized..

Since when ,have the ATF ,followed the marching orders of gun shops , and the,
NRA?

This is one of the more hilarious out-of-context excerpts I've seen. Not only do you slice the first sentence in half, but you also fail to mention the fact that the next sentence after your quote is "There's the rub." I'll give you NRA bubblers credit for one thing: no level of dishonesty is too brazen, and no amount of facts will stand in your way when it comes to pushing a conspiracy theory!

Try reading the whole article. It's really very informative! You can start with the context surrounding that quote of yours.

Please explain to me, what are the details
of the conspiracy theory , that I'm pushing, in your own words.

BTW, that quote I keep quoting,
that belongs to your Rhodes scholar, not
me

Do you know what "out of context" means?

The conspiracy theory is that this is some orchestrated effort to intentionally arm Mexican drug cartels. As Darrell Issa put it:

The reality, as DirkGently pointed out, is that the gun laws are so weak that the ATF couldn't legally interdict the guns headed for Mexico. If anyone in the NRA crowd actually cared about illegal guns in Mexico, the first thing they would do is agree to tighten up these laws, for example, by implementing the gun trafficking statute that numerous Democrats and ATF agents have called for. Instead, the NRA works tirelessly to ensure that it is as difficult as possible for the ATF to track and catch gun traffickers. And then when, predictably, tens of thousands of guns from US gun stores end up in the hands of Mexican criminals, they concoct some absurd story about how it the ATF let the guns go on purpose in order to build up a rationale for gun control.

I see no deception, nothing of what is implied by "out of context."

It is raw data, stripped of the explanation (or spin) surrounding it. Raw data can be used by either side as they see fit, it must not always be placed in the context of the other side's arguments.

If it is indeed true that Justice Department officials "have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized" it becomes no less true if one quotes that from an opponent, stripped of her arguments.

It is a serious charge to say that the Attorney General of the United States of America lied under oath, throwing honest agents under the bus and undermining the President:

Either the Attorney General knows more about this than the author of the Fortune article and he is telling the truth or he apparently purjured himself by admitting intentional gunwalking as a government practice. (And that seems like an especially stupid tactic, if the facts would support him in denying it.)

Quoting the article to show that even it admits what Holder testified is legitimate, even if one strips the quotation of the arguments or spin as the case may be. Raw data stands on its own feet.

This is the exact opposite of what the Fortune investigation found. It's about as severe an example of quoting something out of context that you can imagine. For example, if I said, "some people still think the world is flat, but they are idiots", and you excerpted this as "the world is flat", that would be out of context, no matter how much you argue that really you're actually quoting the "some people" and not me.

As to why Eric Holder said that, who knows. The article hints that it was done out of political expediency. That sounds plausible. Or maybe he was referring to the guns that were intentionally walked by Agent Dodson in the one incident described in the Fortune article. Or maybe there were other isolated incidents of gunwalking by rogue agents.

In any case, what the Fortune article makes clear is that F&F was actually not a "gunwalking" operation, and that the evidence used to reach this conclusion has largely been cherry-picked, first by a right-wing gun blogger, then by gun crazies thirsty for a conspiracy theory, and finally by Republicans in congress looking to score political points. The reason they let the guns "walk" is because the couldn't legally seize them, due to the absurdly weak gun laws that are currently in place.

Could the Fortune article be wrong? Of course, anything can be wrong. But so far, it is the best researched article on F&F, and it explains a lot of things that were previously unclear. It is simply impossible to intelligently discuss F&F and gun trafficking along the border while ignoring the fact that the largest culprit is the weak gun laws, and not some strange gun-running conspiracy that was hatched by a loony right-wing militia guy.

But the real authority being appealed to is "they"-- senior Justice Department officials, including Holder. The article you cited is just a convenient summarizer of some undisputed facts. The exact same points could easily have been made using direct quotations from Holder and others.

In other words, what Oneka said is not a representation of the article's position, never mind a misrepresentation.

IMO, the idea that Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie under oath, against their own interests, against their department, and against the President on camera before the American people is one of the most outlandish conspiracy theories that I have ever heard advanced in US politics.

And, with all due respect--I'm not trying to be provocative here, just honest--you are advancing this outlandish Conspiracy Theory even though you can't articulate a credible motive. You know, someone has Holder's child, there are nukes hidden in several US cities, or the like.

Maybe he actually thought there was gunwalking. In fact, as the Fortune article pointed out, there really was at least one instance of gunwalking on the part of Dodson. Maybe there were a few more such isolated incidents. Maybe Holder figured it was easier to just say "this should never happen again" than to try and explain to Darrell Issa what actually happened. After all, it's been obvious from the beginning that this is just a witch hunt and has nothing to do with the GOP's concern about gun trafficking.

According to the article, the Justice department first said there was no gunwalking, and then they switched and said there was gunwalking. So, at least once they were wrong. Apparently a DoJ official making an incorrect statement to congress isn't all that outlandish after all.

Last edited Tue Jul 3, 2012, 12:07 AM - Edit history (1)

That's the most obvious, consistent reason why Holder reversed himself.

LOL!

Maybe... Maybe... Maybe...

Why don't you listen to a real authority (3:20 to 3:50):



Does it sound like he is referring to "at least one instance of gunwalking on the part of Dodson" or "a few more such isolated incidents"?

How about 5:14 to 5:47, where he talked about the "tactics" of Fast and Furious? Does that language naturally bring to your mind "at least one instance of gunwalking on the part of Dodson" or "a few more such isolated incidents"?

If Dodson and a few isolated bad apples smuggled drugs and killed rival dealers, would that make drug trafficking and murder "tactics" of an official Federal program too?



It's hard to take this seriously. Who said that a DoJ official making an incorrect statement to Congress was outlandish? Here's what I said:



Can't you see the differences between that and making an incorrect statement by mistake?

Let me itemize the issues, since you obviously missed them earlier. For your conspiracy theory to work, we would have to believe the following:

1) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie under oath

2) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie against their own interests

3) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie under oath, against the interests of their department

4) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie under oath, against the interests of the President--their boss

5) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to sabotage themselves, their department, their subordinates, and the President on a election year

6) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to subject themselves, at least theoretically to criminal charges and prison time

7)The best reasons you can give are "Maybe...", "Maybe..." and "Maybe..."


This is the mother of all Conspiracy Theories! Conspiracy against self, against department, against subordinates, against President and boss and imperiling one's freedom, all for... what, exactly? And the idea that a Fortune reporter got further investigating this than the Attorney General of the United States, while not impossible, is far from a slam dunk.

You might like what this reporter is saying, but assuming that her piece is definitive is, to put it mildly, funny.

It's really important, because once you move past the third grade, you will find that the world is full of situations like this one, where you don't have all of the facts.

People who can't reason in the face of uncertainty often tend to buy into conspiracy theories, UFOs, things like that. There is a lot of "evidence" for conspiracy theories that can't be immediately explained away, so you need to be comfortable with uncertainty. I don't know why that picture looks like an aircraft and 20 different people said they saw a bright light, but I'm still pretty sure it's not a UFO. I don't know why the pictures of the moon landing have no stars in them, but I'm pretty sure there's some explanation besides it being faked in a studio and they forgot the stars. I don't know why Obama decided to wait for so long before releasing the "long form" birth certificate, but I'm pretty sure it's not because he had to wait until his operatives had bribed enough people to get it faked. Etc.

Actually, since a government official getting something wrong in congressional testimony is not really very unusual, it's kind of surprising that your head is exploding over this. I guess the thought of losing the beloved F&F conspiracy theory strikes terror and triggers desperation. Like I said, getting something wrong doesn't imply lying -- Holder could have been mistaken. Or not -- like I also said, there actually was at least one instance of "gunwalking". We simply don't know how thorough an investigation the DoJ performed, after all, they did give two different answers to the "gunwalking" question, so they got it wrong one of those two times. What it looks like to me is that Holder's testimony was motivated by political expediency, but in the end, we don't know.

This whole incident reminds me again of that study about the difference between thought patterns of conservatives. As I've noted before, the thought patterns pro-gunners and conservatives are very similar. And this is not just because they are usually the same people, it's because the kind of propensities that would drive people towards believing the NRA line are simply more common among right-wingers. Not surprisingly, intolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity and a need for order, structure, and closure are some of the significant differentiating characteristics. This is one of the reasons why conservatives have trouble dealing with the chaotic real world in which reasoning under uncertainty is an essential skill.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf

Tpaine7,
You disagree with my point of view.
Your arguments are better than mine, and are rooted in fact,that I cannot refute.

Therefore:
You are a 3rd grader, you are intolerant,
you are a conspiracy theorist, you are a right wing ,gun lover ( they are one in the same according to research ,I found on the Internet) you are a birther,you are a moon landing denier.

Please respond , when/if you gain the life skills to do so.











As if it were really needed:



I'm quite sure I have never seen such a condescending post.

You present some article as "The Truth about Fast & Furious," do not at any point acknowledge that there might be some doubt about that claim, and then tell other people they need to work on their "tolerance of uncertainty"? You have got to be fucking joking. Yes, I'm sure we'd all like those of us who disagree with us to doubt their side of the story while we ourselves need labor under no such requirement, but let's not pretend it'd be more than a little hypocritical to criticize others for failing to do so while feeling no compulsion to do so ourselves.

What i have articulated here in several posts,is essentially what you summarize above. The author of this article, has proven herself to
be advancing an agenda that is IMO, nothing more then a really bad attempt at a political hatchet job.

The reason i say "really bad" is that, she opens with FACT, right from Eric Holders mouth, then spends the rest of the article attempting to tell her readers that the "FACT" didn't happen, then goes on to say, that it did happen but blames the whole fiasco on "weak gun laws".
Some here have the cognitive dissonance to fall for such "really bad" reporting , but most of us here can see through it immediately. Some hereabouts even have the gall to call me out as a conspiracy theorist, when they are the ones working with fishy unproven "facts", then go on to make weak dodges about taking real FACTS out of context, when the statements stand on their own quite
nicely.

This is the conspiracy theory in question: it is not mine however.

The conspiracy theory is that this is some orchestrated effort to intentionally arm Mexican drug cartels. As Darrell Issa put it:

For fairness sake , I asked him to lay out the theory, that he hung around my shoulders upthread.

But the first part of this theory:


is supported by "FACTS" written in the article in the OP, and here. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody


The second part is supported by, Demand letter 3.

So how does this statement:


Square up with,this statement:

they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized

.and this sworn testimony from Eric Holder:

"the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again."

I must be missing that "context" thingy again. Maybe someone can tell me how two guys on DU have more authoritative "facts" than
congressional testimony from the highest ranking law enforcement agent in the USA?
I'm sure it's just a context thing

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 08:29 PM - Edit history (1)

and no, it is not the best researched. It is the one you like the most, but it is not the best researched. It might explain a few things, but raises more questions.
What "confidential documents" did she look at? Did she have free reign, or did ATF management just hand the ones that serve their purpose?
Which ATF agents did she talk to? Again, did she have free reign and agents could talk to her openly and honestly, or were they hand picked by management. The military hand picks who gets to talk to the media or politician all of the time, why would ATF agent Voth be any different?
So, they are saying Dodson became whistleblower to cover his own ass? More likely they are trying to scapegoat Dodson.

Then she, and you, are accusing Dodson of perjury before congress.

I put in bold what would be a slam dunk conviction for "lying and buying"
http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2011/06/15/statement-of-john-dodson-about-atf-gunwalker-scandal-the-very-idea-of-letting-guns-walk-is-unthinkable-to-most-law-enforcement/



It seems that the loony right wing militia guy that started the conspiracy theory was....CBS news? Faux and others jumped on it only after CBS interviewed Dodson. It is simply impossible to intelligently discuss FF, gun and drug trafficking without having to let go of "to be a good liberal/conservative, I must believe this regardless of the evidence."

dereliction of duty and lying to congress? Is Holder going to use the article as evidence to go after Dodson for perjury? Wait, I don't think he can. I think it might be hersey. I stand by what I said, puff piece and snow job.

&feature=g-vrec

and unlike the Fortune article these reports do not discount the possibility of an actual scandal.

If only Fox News and the NRA were publishing propaganda about the gun running scandal, I might have a different view but I always thought CBS news was a reliable source of information. It's all to easy to label this story as a "gun nut" fantasyn containing nothing but lies but it does seem to a possible basis in fact.

If you took the time to read through the Fortune article I suggest you read the primer from CBS news on the "Fast and Furious" incident. I will post a couple of excerpts.



Sharyl Attkisson is the investigative reporter for CBS who has been behind the CBS stories on Fast and Furious and other gun walking schemes. Just who is Sharyl Attkisson?





I suggest that when an investigative reporter for a major news organization with the background and awards that Sharyl Attkisson has received focuses her attention on an incident such as "Fast and Furious" there might be not only smoke but fire.

This story is beginning to gain momentum and there does appear to be a steady drip of new information to keep it alive. Since the facts will not come out until after the election, I can't see any reason for the Republicans to focus on it. It detracts from their best issue which is the state of the economy and will only fire up the Republican base which feels Obama plans to instate another "assault weapons" ban. Those voters will show up at the polls to foolishly vote for Romney who is no friend of gun owners so there is little gain for the Republicans and indeed the issue might cause more Democrats who support Eric Holder to vote against Romney on election day. It appears to me that this issue is a net loss for Republicans. Perhaps that is why the Republican speaker of the House was reluctant to peruse the contempt ruling against Eric Holder.

One of the reasons that I voted for Obama is that I felt his administration would be far more transparent then previous administrations. Perhaps Obama has good reason to claim executive privilege but since at the worst (at this time) "Fast and Furious" appears to be a minor scandal that could have been resolved quickly with a just a little embarrassment it doesn't make sense that he would invoke this privilege.

I don't wish to compare "Fast and Furious" to the Watergate scandal but it is true that "Fast and Furious" not only involves the death of a border patrol agent it also may have caused several hundred deaths in Mexico. It's impossible to say but if the scandal does have legs and grows it might negatively impact the second Obama term if there is indeed a coverup.

I feel that as a Democrat we are fortunate to have the support of most of the mainstream media because had "Fast and Furious" been uncovered under a Republican Administration it would have received far more attention in the media. However the media can be fickle and may well value profit over values if it senses in the future that covering this story might increase their bottom line profits.

I also don't wish to view myself as a hypocrite. I would have been infuriated had this story broke under a Republican administration. I expect my party to have even higher standards than I do of Republicans. That's why I am a Democrat!

I will agree that this incident is being played for political gain by both Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately unlike so many other political issues many people have died and families are suffering the consequences.

I hate to mention this but could there be a possibility of CIA involvement in this incident? Could they, once again, be playing games in foreign nations to support their friends? It's highly unlikely but I keep remembering Iran-Contra and many other incidents. While I have always loved conspiracy theories I also love to debunk them. Unfortunately some are factual.

As an American citizen and as a Democrat, I personally feel our citizens should know exactly what led to this fiasco called "Fast and Furious." The investigation should be through and detailed and it should also deal with similar programs during prior administrations. Let the chips fall where they may.

If democracy and freedom and the way our government conducts its policy are important to us we need to know how and why these poorly conceived gun running programs came to be. We have a major problem here as many deaths have occurred and we need to know how to prevent it from happening again in the future.

We hold ourselves up as a shining beacon to the world. If we wish to live up to that lofty ideal we have to hold ourselves accountable for our mistakes. At this time I feel an independent, nonpartisan investigation of this incident is warranted.

...invariably produces a unison cry of "GUNZ DONT KILL PEEPULZ" from the NRA crowd. And yet, somehow, when it comes to the Fast and Furious conspiracy theories, suddenly these same pro-gunners have no trouble blaming the death of Brian Terry squarely on the ATF.

In a way, it is refreshing to see pro-gunners agree that guns cause deaths, even if the only reason they are doing so is because they love strange conspiracy theories even more than they love repeating mantras. I'm not sure how they survive what I can only imagine is a life-threatening attack of cognitive dissonance that results from blaming guns for death only in the special case of guns that came from F&F, but I guess this is a step closer to sanity from their usual full-on denial.

The reality is that, when it comes to guns on the Mexican border, our weak gun laws are responsible for far more deaths than even the wildest Fast & Furious conspiracy theories could even hope to aspire to. As the Fortune article demonstrates, while there may have been an isolated case of gunwalking here or there by rogue agents like Dodson, the lack of effective gun laws is systematically allowing traffickers to get away with guns by the thousands, and preventing the ATF from legally seizing guns that are pretty clearly headed for Mexico. To even attempt to discuss F&F and gun trafficking without mentioning the gross inadequacy of our gun laws is simply dishonest.

It's not a surprise that the NRA crowd prefers the conspiracy angle to the facts. But this may turn out badly for the right-wingers. Any sane person who looks at the situation objectively, will quickly come to wonder why, for example, we don't actually have a statute against gun trafficking, despite the fact that numerous ATF officials have pointed out that this is needed to really slow or stop the flow of guns.

When the only people talking about F&F were teabaggers and militia members, things were a bit different, but the more mainstream attention this gets, the more the NRA types look like birthers with their devotion to crazy conspiracies, and the more they risk people wising up to just how many poeople are dying due the the fact that the gun lobby has been blocking badly need gun laws.

(With rare exceptions involving defects.)

However, anyone choosing to arm criminal gangs is responsible for empowering them--the criminal gangs, not the weapons--to kill innocent people.

of criminal drug gangs in Mexico would not result in their misuse and consequently cause death. It wasn't the firearms that caused the killings, it was the people who pulled the trigger on the firearms. Firearms are inanimate objects that merely function in the hands of a human.

You also have to realize that American gun stores are not supplying the drug cartels in Mexico with many of the weapons that they use. Fully automatic firearms which are common weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels are tightly controlled in the United States and generally they are not available at mom and pop gun stores in the United States. Nor are grenades and rocket launchers.

Obviously it serves the purpose of those who would like to see another assault weapons ban or gun registration to claim that guns from mom and pop gun stores are the primary armament of the drug cartels in Mexico. However this is untrue as the weapons come from many sources. I will admit that the straw purchase of firearms in our nation does indeed occur and the result is the smuggling of firearms to both Mexico and the streets of our cities.

I will agree that we need to better enforce existing laws and possibly increase the punishment for anyone involved in the straw purchase of firearms or their smuggling. I also believe that the goal of stopping the drug wars in Mexico is important as the violence there will eventually lead to similar violence in our own nation.

I don't believe that another assault weapons ban will stop the wars in Mexico nor will any draconian laws in our nation that effect only honest gun owners. If such laws would accomplish this goal, I would support them despite my views that favor gun rights for civilians.

I personally feel we would be far better off if we just reconsidered continuing our failed War on Drugs. Just as with our experience in prohibiting alcohol from 1920 to 1933, the War on Drugs has backfired and led to the creation of powerful criminal gangs that are terrorizing Mexico and our nation. We had the commonsense to stop a foolish effort in 1933 and once again legalize alcohol. We need to rediscover that same commonsense today and legalize some drugs such as Marijuana. Obviously there will be drawbacks as drugs are dangerous just as alcohol is, but we may live in a far more peaceful society.

I look more for results than to support my personal beliefs. If furthering the goals of gun control groups such as the Brady Campaign and other gun control advocates would actually accomplish something positive I would support such efforts. I feel that enforcing our laws is the correct goal and have no problem with tweaking them to accomplish that result but I definitely feel that when our government decides to bypass our laws and deliver dangerous firearms to Mexican drug gangs is a foolish plan and deserves a serious investigation as to motives.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/31/atf_whistleblower_us_gun_sting_fast

Last edited Tue Jul 3, 2012, 11:31 PM - Edit history (1)

As an aside, did anyone else notice the author's apparent ignorance of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the ITAR treaty?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117245461#post44

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117245461#post50

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117245461#post59


In gun control circles, it would seem deliberate ignorance is a positive virtue...

conspiracies...

Have you taken that into account?!!!!

you are feeling VEEEERRRRRYYYY SSSSLLLLEEEEEEEEPPPPYYYY<>>>>

Your eyelids are getting VVVVEEEERRRRYYYY HHHHEEEEAAAAVVVVYYYY>>>>>>

As you drift off to sleep you are feeling VERY relaxed , very sleepy, your arms become limp and loose as you drift off farther deeper.....


NOW,, when you awaken you will only remember this:

Only the facts that I present have any value whatsoever, all other facts are to be questioned as outright lies.

When i count to three, you will wake up with a renewed sense of wellbeing, you will in fact feel better then ever before.
when you wake up you will believe only the facts that i present,

ONE;
When you wake up you will feel the urge to throw away any cigarettes, you own, in fact they will taste terrible and you may want to throw away your spouses cigarettes. only my facts are really facts.

TWO;

When you awaken you will feel the urge to quit drinking,, and only my facts are important

THREE:
you will awaken NOW and forget all i have said here but will have the deep seated fear of any objective Fast and Furious facts, unless they are prestented by, Rhodes scholar "Fortune" reporters, or me.


WAKE UP!!!

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/7-31-12-FF-Part-I-FINAL-Appendix-III.pdf

So not only are you citing a piece of right-wing propaganda by a guy pushing a conspiracy theory against the Obama administration, you actually try to pretend that this is some kind of non-partisan "opposing view" by "someone" rather than a GOP hit piece.

I guess pretty soon you are going to be citing the Paul Ryan budged as an "informative opposing view" by "someone" on the question of whether we should cut taxes on the wealthy and pay for it by slashing medicare...

Are you a Republican in real life, or do you just play one on DU?

You have no evidence that it came from Issa, or any other Republican for that matter. Much of what the writer claimed is contradicted by sworn testimony and documented, and public, evidence. At no point does the report claim that the WH is part of any Nixonian conspiracy. It only shows that the AUSA was derelict in his duty to prosecute easily proven trafficking cases. It shows Voth as an idiot. If one of those "confidential documents" was in fact Dodson's, or any other whistle-blowers, personnel file, Voth should also fact appropriate criminal civil sanctions for violating privacy laws.

It's the appendix to the report titled "Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed Operation", by Issa and Grassley. Yet again, you and the rest of the NRA crowd are siding with the Republicans and teabaggers and ignoring the facts.

http://oversight.house.gov/release/congressional-investigators-release-first-part-of-final-joint-report-on-operation-fast-and-furious/

that refutes every bit of that whistle-blower retaliation nonsense. Not claimed to have seen "confidential documents" including records that Eban had no legitimate right to have access to.
It has nothing to do with the NRA or Tea Party. As chairs of the committee, their names are going to be on it. Sounds like you are the one being dogmatic and ignoring the facts. The facts are these:
The AUSA failed to do his job, and he lost his job. That is how it should be.
Voth fucked up and tried to retaliate against whistle-blowers, following the same pattern used by corporations. Eban was a freelance writer who was used as a mouthpiece.
I'm not siding with anyone. I am siding against Voth for not only be an idiot that got caught, tried to retaliate against whistle-blowers, and apparently give unauthorized people access to documents including personnel records. I don't know about the ATF, but if it were the military, Voth would be in the world of shit for violating the Privacy Act. If he gave Eban access to those records, without Dodson's permission (apparently, that is how she found Dodson's ex-wife) then Voth or Newell should be nailed for it. Simple as that. In my world view, there is only right and wrong. I don't give a fuck if it serves a partisan interest or not.

As for the first, where the Rhodes Scholarship of the author cited is claimed to be a sign of credibility:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117246555#post14

there's an easy and obvious rejoinder: Jonah Lehrer

For the second, I see much squawking about Republicans, Paul Ryan, and teabaggers but no actual refutation of the claims made in the linked document, save carping about the source.

The whole reason I quoted Katherine Eban's credentials is because I was responding to a clueless pro-gunner who attacked the report for being published in Fortune, rather than, as you put it, attempting to refute the actual claims. In fact, so far, nobody has come close to refuting anything from the Fortune report, least of all your hero Darrell Issa.

The Rhodes scholar thing was just funny to me, as a contrast to the anti-intellectualism and uneducatedness that is so typical of the NRA crowd.

If it is inaccurate, it would strengthen your arguments against Issa, et al, would it not?

(added on edit) God knows I'm certainly ready to take after the VPC or the Brady Campaign when they issue forth with a clanger, so it would only be fair for Issa to get the same treatment.

Do you really think that this is a non-partisan document, and that the names of Issa and Grassley just happen to be on it because they are the committee chairs? LOL.

None of your "facts" are actual facts. This is just standard partisan politics: a detailed investigative report comes out with evidence that refutes some of the misinformation that the GOP has been peddling about F&F, and so they issue a propaganda document purporting to discredit the report.

I know how to go to the supporting documents to see if the citation supports the claim. I also know giving some freelance writer access to personnel records or records that are classified or For Official Use Only is a crime. She makes a lot claims with subjective language, but I'm not seeing anything to back it up. Simply saying "I investigated" doesn't cut it. She accused Dodson and other whistle blowers of committing felonies, I hope she can back it up. If Dodson is anything like me, her lawyer would be meeting my lawyer. Voth would be meeting my lawyer for violating the Privacy Act by giving her access to personnel records, or any personal information, without his permission.

No, but I do read the cited sources. That is the difference. That is what scientific minded people do. I spent enough years writing similar reports, with footnotes for source documents.

No, go to the primary source documents that are attached. That is the evidence.

I'm supposed to ignore that for claimed evidence, not presented but claimed, based on information from a whistle blower target? If this evidence is real, let's see the primary sources. Oh yeah, they were "confidential", as in she had no legal right to see them. When is Eban going to include copies of these documents she had access to? Oh wait, that would cause a world of shit like someone going to jail or getting the shit sued out of them. Or are they simply claims made on Voth's lawyer's stationary? Is Dodson's personnel folder part of those records? For her and Voth's sake, better not be. Like I said, that is violating the Privacy Act.
You don't know subjective language from what primary source documents? Can't help you other than suggest you take a high school comp class. Maybe taking a critical thinking class would help too.

So once again, you use call names, use logical fallacies and can't point to anything to support her or your claims.

Turning up the volume on your complaints about the source(s) isn't cutting it...

...just to point out each and every flaw to kool-aid drinkers like yourself. The few pages I read were just the same tired talking points, and nothing to cast any doubt on the Fortune report.

The point here is that the pro-gunners are once again citing right-wing sources (and then trying to deny it... LOL). If there were any truth to the pro-gun dogma, you'd be able to cite something that doesn't come from the likes of Darrell Issa from time to time.

You really are ideologically blind or fucking clueless. The first red flag on the article was that she was given access to "confidential documents" that she had no authorization to see. If fact, her access violated laws. Cummings would have authorized access. The Democrats did not write any thing based on any of these documents. That in itself casts doubt. Subjective language in describing people, the way one would in fiction, is also a red flag.

The now former AUSA you are defending, along with Voth, is a Bush appointee who was sent there to look for "voter fraud". Based on the congressional report, which is based on sworn testimony and other documented evidence, is either lazy or corrupt. Voth is just a dim wit covering his ass.
What dogma? The ATF fucked up?
The cited sources does not come from Issa or Grassely, they come from the original authors. That is most of the 300 pages. You could also just skip to the part that debunks the hit piece. Here is one, can you back up any of her claims from another source that isn't political propaganda?

Yes, Virginia, an investigative reporter managed to get access to confidential documents. Also, she decided not to take the word of a rogue agent who had an axe to grind against his boss, and instead talked to the other people involved. I'm sure it would be easier for you if everyone just swallowed everything that the GOP fed them, but fortunately, not everyone lives inside the NRA bubble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism

but bullshit is.
can she provide the documents?
How did she obtain the documents? None of those are public records. Read the Wiki page closer, investigative reporters have use public records. She has no subpoena powers, so she had to depend on someone leaking them to her, risking their job or freedom. The leaker can pick and choose the documents they hand out. In this case, it is an incompetent agent in charge with an axe to grind. She said she talked to these other people, more people that were involved such as Dodson's ex wife. Again, a lead gained by the leaker committing a crime to serve his own purpose.

I'm missing the ideological angle to this. This is a standard whistle blower case where an incompetent agent in charge gets busted, and tries to retaliate against the whistle blowers. It not as Alex Jones claims, a plot to pass stricter gun laws. Or is it a CIA plot to give one of the cartels the upperhand. But then, I never quite understood what passes for thought in the Brady bubble.

You really don't think do you? Why isn't Cummings using any of these documents in the Democratic report? He has every legal right to them, and make them public to support his case. Write and ask his staff. If Dodson committed the felonies Eban and you claim, I'm certain Cummings would jump at exposing him and embarrass Issa.

Getting more entertaining by the post. Anyway, enjoy your conspiracy theories and your Darrell Issa reports, which I'm sure sit very nicely with your utter ignorance of the way either investigative reporting or partisan politics work. Whatever it takes to keep believing the NRA story.

I have not endorsed nor advanced any conspiracy theory. You seem to have the unlikely and absurd conspiracy theory.

I know very well how investigative reporting works, certainly more than you. I also know, far more than you, about confidential government documents and how and why they are released. Any document marked "For Official Use Only" or classified document, could not be legally obtained. Voth did not have the authority to release them to anyone, certainly not someone claiming to be an investigative reporter. Personnel records can not be released either. The only person on the planet that has the authority to let anyone see his personnel record, outside of his chain of command, is Dodson himself. But you claim to be an expert on everything, when you can't make your point.
It is kind of amusing when you can't address or refute the substance of anything. You call the other person ignorant or stupid while not having the slightest clue what you are talking about. Let's try this:
Can you address a single point I made?

Starting out with your claim that Issa and Grassley didn't actually write the report that had their names on the cover of it (OK, their staffs probably wrote it...) and your bizarre denial that this was a partisan report written by Republicans with political intentions, on to your strange theories about confidential documents and investigative journalism, your insistence that a piece of investigative journalism should be called an "article" rather than a "report", what you hypothetically think that Cummings would or should have done in your alternate reality universe, and so on.

The fact of the matter is that Katherine Eban, for the first time, did a thorough job of interviewing a whole bunch of people associated with F&F, to get a complete and accurate picture of what was going on, and she also obtained a large number of documents, some (but not all) of which she made public. Yes, of course it's possible that she's lying or she got tricked or she's an anti-gun stooge or whatever other unlikely theory that you manage to convince yourself of in order to justify your devotion to Darrell Issa's witch hunt, but like I said over and over again, outside the NRA bubble, you have yet to make a single cogent point.

What strange theories are those? Partisan or not, they have documents to back up their claims. I know how the system works, and the laws governing official documents. Since the article only uses the unofficial term "confidential", I am left to assume they refer to administrative markings like FOUO (or a DoJ equivalent) or is actually classified as CONFIDENTIAL. At the same time, Dodson claims that Eban contacted his ex wife, getting her address from Dodson's personnel record.
If that is true, it was obtained without Dodson's permission, violating the Privacy Act. If someone did that to me in the Air Force, they would be in jail.

Either way, a felony was committed because both are exempt by FOIA. I have processed for FOIA requests than you. I also spent enough time dealing with and writing such documents, FOUO through SECRET, to know what I am talking about. I find it strange that someone who doesn't seen to know anything on that aspect of government bureaucracy would describe explanations based on actual knowledge as "strange theories". Ask Pvt Manning about those strange theories. What do you think the charges against him actually are? Disclosing classified information to unauthorized persons.
Look up the Privacy Act. It is an article in a magazine. I don't know what Cummings should or should not do, I do know what I would do if I were in his position.


You can think whatever you want. She only quoted two people, including Voth. She did not make any documents public, she included excerpts from documents that were already public. We only have her word for it. The whole article makes Voth look like Mr. Squared Away Marine and the rest of the crew as a mess that needs to be cleaned up. The whole article actually reminds me of the movie Heartbreak Ridge. It has the same basic plot.

Pro or anti gun has nothing to do with it. It is a standard whistle blower case. Issa might have decided to turn it into a witch hunt, but I'm talking about Voth. It started with a group of whistle blowers rolling over on Voth's stupidity. Where Issa or anyone else decided to take it is beside the point. If anyone has failed to make a single cogent point, it is you because you have no idea what you are talking about. If name calling is "cogent" by your definition, then I can understand why you didn't make the debate team.

...Issa-Grassley report. Do you remember this?

As usual, you're just going to pretend that didn't happen, along with the other absurd things you've said so far this thread. Your strategy seems to be to simply write whatever crazy thing that comes to mind, and then when you are proven wrong simply ignore it and move on to the next crazy thing in the hopes that you'll eventually get something right just by accident.

Anyway, you obviously have no clue how investigative reporting works. I'll take your word about how man FOIA requests you've made, but it doesn't seem to have helped your understanding of either reporting or government processes. And, most important, you have yet to make any kind of substantive criticism of the Eban report that anyone outside the NRA bubble would take seriously.

and not relevant.

What absurd things are those? All you are doing is ranting incoherently. You have proven nothing I was was wrong. I have proven you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Actually I do. Learn to read, I did not say I made any FOIA requests. I said I processed FOIA requests made by others. No understanding of government processes? That was funny. I know far more than you do. Look let's be blunt. You like to pretend you know more than everyone else, even on things you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Kind of reminds me of Walter Mitty.
What do you know about investigative reporting or government processes? Or laws and regulations concerning government documents?

...was a partisan document, written by Issa, Grassley, and their staffs. It was not, as you suggested, an apolitical document:

Now, what I don't know is how someone who doesn't understand that can claim to understand government processes. Maybe you'll enlighten me. Or you can just keep ignoring this point.

Other than holding Holder in contempt. What in the supporting documents contradicts what Grassley approved in the report? Staffs write reports, the head guy signs it. Partisan or not, they have the sworn testimony and documents to back it up.

Now, how did Eban get those records? If I were accusing whistle blowers of felonies, including giving false testimony to congress, I would have a lot more to back it up than what she provided. At least I know a snow job and retaliation against whistle blowers when I see it. Why Eban wrote it, doesn't really matter to me. That said, if I were on of the whistle blowers, my lawyers would be finding out.

Cummings's document saying it is full of shit? What? Are you just making things up now? And by "now" I mean "again"...

Also, as the Eban report pointed out, the right-wing has been conveniently cherry-picking the evidence from the beginning, and this latest report that you admire so much is no different in that regard. In short, the evidence does not actually back up what Issa is saying, no matter how much you keep repeating that.