A lengthy report released by the Department of Justice inspector general’s office this afternoon cites serious failures in management related to the Fast and Furious scandal, singling out 14 employees for sanction review but ultimately finding that Attorney General Eric Holder had no knowledge of the operation prior to early 2011. The Wall Street Journal reports:
A Justice Department watchdog recommended that 14 employees be reviewed for possible sanctions in light of a “pattern of serious failures” at the department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in overseeing the botched Fast and Furious operation against gun traffickers.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released the more than 400-page report Wednesday, the most extensive review of the actions by federal officials in Arizona and Washington that led to the scandal.
Among his findings, he said that Attorney General Eric Holder wasn’t aware of the tactics being used in the operation until early 2011, an issue that has become a point of contention with Republican lawmakers who have accused Mr. Holder of authorizing the flawed probe.
The Daily Caller’s Matt Boyle reports that former ATF head Kenneth Melson and Jason Weinstein, a deputy assistant attorney general, have already stepped down as a result of the report.
Holder also came out swinging against Republican critics this afternoon, claiming the report “debunks” allegations made against him by members of the House GOP, particularly the charge that he knew about the operation earlier than he acknowledged. But this is far from a victory for him. The fact that the report found “a pattern of serious failures” and singled out 14 of his employees for penalties — including the two top-level officials who already resigned — is a pretty clear repudiation of Holder’s leadership.
If this report had come out six months ago, House Republicans might have been able to get their scalp. But the election is a month and a half away. Even if Obama is reelected, I can’t imagine Holder would stick around for a second term. This report slapped some wrists and held the DOJ accountable for some “serious failures,” while giving Holder enough cover to hold onto his job for the time being — which is probably enough to get him through to the end of his term.
Forget scalps and the rest, what is Ms. Goodman's objective opinion of the report qua report? nNot of the implications of it, political and otherwise, but of the report itself and either its apparent objectivity or its apparent lack thereof? Is it a "whitewash" or is it a legitimate investigation"? n nIn the past, you raised issues about emails indicating when Holder knew stuff and possibly even what he knew when — does this report address that well enough for you to believe the report? Or does it not answer those questions? Likewise, is this the report written by the Dem Obama appointee? (If so, does he present any indication of having done anything so as to ensure both objectivity and the appearance thereof, or does he make any thanks to individuals who are clearly Republican so as to indicate the same — e.g. "I wish to thank Judge Bork for his willingness to participate as a member of the investigatory team and his unique perspective on the evidence we descovered. n nNow, there is NO WAY they ever would invite Judge Bork to part of this, and I hear his health isn't the best either. But you see my point — is there any evidence that the folks doing this investigation were not just a bunch of Obama cheerleaders? n nAnd what about Issa's lawsuit? Where has that gone and what will this do to that?/
One more thing — a while back an AK-47 was fired at the White House, the Secret Service recovered one bullet out of the "bulletproof" glass of a bedroom window and another out of the siding (heaven only knows where the other 28 in the clip went) and arrested someone with a Mexican surname at the "Occupy DC" encampmenrt. They've got the perp, the gun, and the bullets — and we haven't heard a *thing* since…. n nWas this one of the guns that was "walked" over the border? n nIf so, was it just chance that it wound up being shot at the White House or is this even more sinister than that? Some speculate that F&F was an intentional strategy to create popular support for gun control legislation, and what would be a better reason than being able to show that an AK-47 "legally" sold in Arizona then wound up in the hands of a Mexican criminal who proceeded to shoot it at the White House. A great propaganda coup except for the "legally sold" part coming unraveled. n nFact 1: The First Family was not in the White House at the time. nFact 2: The building *did* stop both rounds — they were there for the Secret Service to recover. n nLook, a competent government is going to armor that building against at least the standard "hunting rifle" bullet — e.g. the .30-06 which can go up to 220 grains in weight. The AK fires a bullet about the same diameter, but it weighs only 123 grains. It (hopefully) is highly classified, but there are people who know what protections the building has and hence what isn't going to be a threat to it, and if I really want to be cynical, I might wonder if folk who thought it acceptable to let guns "walk" into Mexico where they killed a whole lot of folk including Mexican authorities might also let/enable another such gun be shot at the White House, particularly knowing that (a) no harm would come of it and (b) the First Family wasn't home anyway. n nLet us not forget Iran Contra and some of the things that were being done then. Lord Byron was quite right — "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" — and power veiled in secrecy is quite close to absolute power. People do stupid things… n nI really don't want to believe that anyone associated with this administration would stoop so low as to conspire to have enabled someone to shoot at the White House, but at this point I am honestly not sure what not to expect of this Boy President and the schmucks and schmuckettes surrounding him.