Issa on F&F report: It “showed what went wrong all the way to the very top of Justice”
posted at 11:21 am on September 20, 2012 by Erika Johnsen
Yesterday, the DOJ Inspector General’s Office released their report on the findings of their (internal) probe into the DOJ’s, at best, unbelievably incompetent and reckless handling of the deadly gunwalking operation Fast and Furious. Although the report insisted that Attorney General Eric Holder had no personal knowledge of the operation until after it ran afoul, it was also clear that he staffed up his department with (again, at best) nonproficient buffoons — two DOJ officials have already stepped down.
House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa, who’s led the pursuit of this investigation for months in the face of relentless executive stonewalling, appeared on Fox News last night to break down strengths and shortcomings of the more than 400-page OIG report and to react to AG Eric Holder’s victory dance:
“It’s a good report. There were a few things they weren’t able to get to, and they’re still looking for them, including White House officials who were briefed but not made available to the IG. But overall, what they did, they outlined what went wrong at ATF, what went wrong in Phoenix, and then went up the chain to show what went wrong all the way to the very top of Justice. … Well, certainly, the coverup goes further. …[The Terry family] want the answers, and they want everyone held accountable for the initial failure, but they also want answers on the coverup, where for ten months the American people were told that ‘they don’t let guns walk.’ Those false statements came from Justice, all the way to the very top, including Lanny Breuer and ultimately Eric Holder. … One of the critical people in his office, required to brief him, handpicked by him, resigned today, and it’s still only the tip of the iceberg. The fact is that, just because you’re not convicted, doesn’t mean you’re vindicated. Attorney General Holder didn’t ask the questions, didn’t read the memos, and up and down the chain, the people who worked for him, the political appointees responsible to him, failed to do their job, including denying reading wiretaps that they were responsible for signing. There’s no question there needs to be real reform at Justice. …”
As I wondered yesterday, though — none of this adequately explains President Obama’s issuing executive privilege to shield the Justice Department from having to comply with Congress’s investigation. Okay, fine, even if it wasn’t to protect Eric Holder’s guilt, it was meant to help protect him from having to take responsibility for his (at best) egregious negligence and his imbecilic hand-selected appointees. Jim Geraghty has more on the wildly strained plausibility of this whole sketchy affair:
A suspicious mind could look at this strange pattern of underling, after deputy, after staffer not mentioning critical information, and information getting all the way to Holder’s office but not being seen by the AG himself, and conclude Holder’s staffers were keeping him in the dark. Would that be to preserve his “plausible deniability”? Another conclusion might be that someone just wasn’t honest with the inspector general.
We now know that the best that can be said about Holder is that he was oblivious to a major, exceptionally dangerous operation going on within his organization. And the most generous interpretation of that is that he had staffed his office with professionals who had epically flawed judgment in deciding what the nation’s top law-enforcement officer needed to know.
There are still some big questions that remain – including whether this should stand as the final investigation of the subject; and whether it is appropriate for a government official assigned to sniff out mismanagement, corruption, and cover-ups to be reporting to the exact officials he’s investigating.
Eric Holder might not have personally designed this dangerous and fatal scandal, but his department and the people he hired are certainly suspect — and hey, remind me who it was that hired Eric Holder?
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.
hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?
mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?
parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM
They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.
They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.
A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM
MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.
rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM
I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.
fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!
And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM
They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!
KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.
Do they even know or care that they are morons.
marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM
His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.
DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:
You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM
That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.
myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Nah. I’d detest the little pissant s.o.b. if he was white…or Asian…or any one of the myriad of made-up racial divisions.
Solaratov on May 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2