Posted on 12/11/2011 12:11:39 PM PST by PJ-Comix
Maybe. Just possibly maybe. Check out the video below showing freshman Rep. Sandy Adams of Florida – I had the pleasure of interviewing her last year, by the way – grilling Attorney General Eric Holder over Operation Fast & Furious. For those of you unfamiliar with the Congresswoman, Rep. Adams is a former police officer whose first husband (also a police officer) was killed in the line of duty… so you can imagine what kind of reception Holder got from her when it came to Holder explaining why the US government deliberately gave guns to cop-killers.
The part that I want to highlight starts at about 4:38: a transcript of the relevant comments after the fold, with items of especial note particularly highlighted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozsWUV87Umg&lr=1
Rep. Sandy Adams (R, FL): …let me ask you another question, because one of my colleagues asked you about your e-mails and you went straight to your work e-mail. Hardly anybody has that. I’m going to ask you a very direct question. You have a personal e-mail account. Did you at any time – at any time – e-mail on your personal account with Lanny Breuer – or Lanny Breuer and Gary Grindler in regards to Fast and Furious ever?
Attorney General Eric Holder: Ever?
Adams: Yes…
(CROSSTALK)
Judiciary Chair Lamar Smith (R, TX): The gentlewoman is recognized for an additional minute so the attorney general can respond to her questions.
Holder: I don’t know. I can tell you that I didn’t know…
(CROSSTALK)
Adams: Would you check and get back with us? If you need some help, I’m sure that your agency personnel can get into those computers.
Holder: Well, with regard to provision of e-mails, I thought I’ve made it clear that after February the 4th it is not our intention to provide e-mail information consistent with the way in which the Justice Department has always conducted itself. The exception that I made, that I made in the hope that the Justice Department would be seen as transparent was to go against that tradition and to make available deliberative material around the February 4th letter.
(CROSSTALK)
Adams: So, again, as in when you were here before and I asked you about a totally different issue, you were saying that you refused to provide that information, is that correct?
Holder: I didn’t hear the – you were talking the same time I was talking. And, please, she can have more time. I don’t – I don’t want to cut off your time. I’m – I just didn’t hear the question.
Adams: Previously, in another committee, when you were here earlier I asked you another question, you said you would not answer that question. Now you’re saying that you won’t provide those e-mails because that’s not consistent with whatever policy was previous. I’m asking you, if there is clean hands here, will you provide those e-mails to this committee…
Holder: As I said…
Adams: … yes or no?
Holder: … I’m going to act in a way that’s consistent with all attorneys general before me.
Adams: That’s not my question, Attorney General.
(CROSSTALK)
Adams: I – you know, with due respect, that was not my question. I asked you, with clean hands, would you supply those e-mails, whether it’s work-related or personal e-mails, as they apply to anything that had to do with and to this committee, yes or no?
Holder: And as I said – as I said, with regard to the Justice Department as a whole…
Adams: I yield back.
Holder: And I am…
(CROSSTALK)
Adams: Mr. Chair, I’m not going to get the answer…
(CROSSTALK)
Holder: … with regard to the Justice Department as a whole – and I’m certainly a member of the Justice Department – we will not provide memos after February the 4th. And that is a way in which we are…
Adams: With regards to e-mails, I didn’t ask memos, I said e- mails.
Holder: E-mails, memos – consistent with the way in which the Department of Justice has always conducted itself in its interactions…
(CROSSTALK)
Adams: What about prior to February 4th?
Smith: The gentlewoman’s time has – the answer was no, is that correct, Mr. Attorney General?
Holder: No, but consistent with the way in which the Justice Department has always conducted itself. This is not something that I am making up in terms of new policy.
Smith: I know, but you used the word “not.” I took “not” to be no.
Holder: Oh, I said no.
Smith: OK.
Holder: I’m saying no. But, again, consistent with DOJ policy.
…Now, I am not a lawyer; but that sounds to me a whole lot like the Attorney General tacitly admitting that there are personal emails originating from him and sent to Lanny Breuer (Assistant AG; admitted knowing of Operation F&F in April 2010) & Gary Grindler (Holder’s Chief of Staff: possibly briefed on Operation F&F in March 2010) that discuss Operation Fast & Furious. Now, I understand that AG Holder is trying to use the old Jesuit tactic of “I am not a priest and if I were I would lie to you about it:” specifically, that he doesn’t remember any emails and if there were he wouldn’t give them to the Judiciary committee anyway. Whether or not that tactic will be permitted to work depends on whether the the Judiciary committee is willing to accept that a Justice Department that went out and got cops killed is really qualified to do its own internal vetting.
Judging by the response from Judiciary so far, they very well may not accept that. Isn’t it nice to have more people in public office who get upset about the same things that get you upset? I think that it’s nice…
Moe Lane (crosspost)
Attorney General Eric Holder: Ever?
...Holder: I don’t know. I can tell you that I didn’t know…
...Holder: No, but...
That is a YES!!! Nobody answers a question like that with such evasion unless the true answer is YES!
FYI
BTW, just to be clear, the “no” stated by Holder wasn’t a denial that he sent Fast & Furious e-mails to Breuer. It was NO, he won’t supply e-mails to the committee. So he in NO way denied that such e-mails exist. Therefore this goes down as a solid YES!
Check out the YouTube video and when Adams starts grilling Holder about the Fast & Furious e-mails, the DOJ guy in civvies behind Holder starts nervously moving around like he has to take a giant dump in his pants. I’ve seen that guy at all these hearings and he always has some weird facial expressions. Anybody know that guy’s name?
I have been all over this since it came out that Lanny Breur had forwarded the Feb 4 ‘Grassley letter’ to his person GMail account. Breur originally tried to say he had even read the Feb 4 letter, but once it came out that he had forwarded the letter from Weinstein to his own GMail account, that seems impossible to believe.
After I saw that Breur was using a GMail(Google) account for Dept of Justice official business, it occurred to me that maybe a lot more higher ups in the Obama Admin (Holder, Napolitano, etc) were using private email accounts rather their their official gov’t email accounts to avoid FOIA requests and Congressional investigations.
It is obvious from Holder’s response that maybe the gentle CongressLady from Florida struck a nerve with him.
These people are lying, obfuscating, hiding pertinent information and feel they do not have to answer to anybody. I think it is time for a special prosecutor to be appointed, even though that will push all this past the election. The way the Obama Admin flaunts the law, I do not see any other options to get to the truth.
I am also taking that as a big 10-4. LOL!!!
You know that they have held back the most damning evidence.
GOOD WORK..!
I agree —he’s tacitly admitting it.
This is the tiny end of a huge ball of string, and it needs a huuuge tug, many, many times.
BIGGEST SCANDAL IN US HISTORY.
NOW catch this... “The exception that I made, that I made in the hope that the Justice Department would be seen as transparent was to go against that tradition and to make available deliberative material around the February 4th letter.”
He basically admits he that he did release material so that DOJ WAS “PERCEIVED” as transparent. He wanted to give the illusion that they were..... Now, tell me something. Would you ever used that phrase unless you were trying to obfuscate, hide or inhibit someone from knowing something you didnt want them to?
“Holder: Oh, I said no.”
PING
Anyone who ever litened to Jim Quinn knows that everything before but is BS.
Exactly right PJ!! He’s guilty as sin!
bttt
Linky Dinky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozsWUV87Umg&lr=1
-
Why’d the other thread get yanked?
Someone cried “VIRUS” and it got yanked for supposedly being a link to a fake YouTube site. I double checked and it was NOT a fake YouTube site. Obviously someone has virus issues with his computer and I somehow got blamed for that.
I was watching the youtube link and then when I came back to the thread it was caput.
Some guy named phalynx apparently had computer issues and blamed it on the link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.