Eric holder what is fast and furious

The problems dated back to but current senior officials were criticised for failing to question the tactics used during Fast and Furious. The strategy known as "gun-walking", allowing suspected straw purchasers to leave gun stores with weapons with the intent of tracking them, was barred under a long-standing departmental policy.

The inspector general also concluded that poor internal information-gathering and communication at the justice department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ATF caused them to misinform Congress about the operation. Two other top justice officials named in the report, Kenneth Melson, the former head of ATF, will retire after its publication. Jason Weinstein, a senior criminal division official, will resign.

In June Mr Holder became the first sitting attorney general to be held in contempt of Congress. He faced proceedings after the House Oversight Committee led its own investigation into the operation. The roots of that investigation began on 4 February when the justice department sent lawmakers a letter denying it had sanctioned or otherwise knew about guns illegally ending up in Mexico.

The department withdrew the letter 10 months later, acknowledging the operation had allowed guns across the border. The justice department sent the committee more than 7, documents relating to Fast and Furious, and to a similar operation that took place during the George W Bush administration.

The Department of Justice said it had denied access to the rest of the files because they contained information that could affect ongoing criminal investigations. On the Hill, the questions were aggressive, often partisan and, in my view, sometimes even deeply mean-spirited and unfair to the many intelligence professionals who were putting their lives and careers on the line in a very successful effort to protect America from further attack.

The agency dealt with the committees as best a nonpolitical organization could, fully recognizing that, although congressional oversight was a necessary instrument, it could sometimes be a difficult one.

But any personal instinct toward some common "executive branch" empathy for Holder is muted not only by the dubious character of Fast and Furious, but by some of the attorney general's other actions, as well.

While out of office, for example, he famously called for a "reckoning" for CIA officers and other officials who authorized and conducted operations that were edgy and risky and intended to deal with difficult circumstances.

Once in office, he launched a "reckoning" of CIA renditions, detentions and interrogations of terrorists by directing the Justice Department to reopen investigations closed years before by career prosecutors. This decision was opposed by then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and seven of his predecessors , and Holder reportedly made the decision without reading detailed memos prepared by those career prosecutors declining to pursue further proceedings.

The CIA officers affected by this may be forgiven some feelings of irony when they now hear the attorney general repudiating some of the charges made against his officers by stating: "Those who serve in the ranks of law enforcement are our nation's heroes and deserve our nation's thanks, not the disrespect that is being heaped on them by those who see political advantage.

Of course, it was also Holder who decided in to release what had been secret DOJ memos outlining the details and providing the legal justification for the Bush administration's interrogation program. The release was defended by the administration as part of a broad commitment to "transparency. Holder may have had even more in mind though as, according to a contemporary Newsweek account of the decision , the leadership of the Department of Justice calculated that "if the public knew the details, Later that summer, Holder also released a previously classified CIA inspector general report on the interrogation program as the administration seemed to be actively shaping this story to put its predecessor's actions in the worst possible light.

Reports following that murder revealed that the guns had been part of a tracking operation. Not really. In early , the Justice Department wrote in a letter to Congress that no guns had been intentionally allowed to "walk," which it says was based on statements from ATF officials. That letter was retracted when it became clear that it was wrong. There's now a consensus that the operation was botched, but two questions remain. Second, has there been an attempt to mislead Congress about the operation through a cover-up?

On the first question, the department insists that only the ATF's Phoenix office approved the sting. At some point, however, the U. Attorney in Phoenix became aware, as did the acting director of the ATF. Both were forced to resign in August after Issa uncovered emails showing they'd been briefed.

Justice says it's not trying to cover anything up, noting that it has turned over 7, documents and that Holder has testified before Congress nine times about Fast and Furious. Darrell Issa, a California Republican who heads the House Oversight and Government Committee, has been demanding further documents and threatening to try to hold the attorney general in contempt of Congress if he didn't turn them over more on that later.

So Wednesday morning, acting on Holder's request, Obama asserted executive privilege in response to a request from Holder. In a letter to Obama , Holder argues that the documents Issa is requesting aren't really related to Fast and Furious, since they post-date it, and that releasing them would compromise confidentiality within the executive branch.

The letter came after negotiations late Tuesday -- in which Holder offered to release some documents in return for dropping the contempt proceedings -- failed. Issa, however, was unswayed by Obama's assertion and went forward with a vote in the Oversight Committee. The committee voted in favor of holding Holder in contempt by a margin, along party lines. The phrase refers to a president's right to a certain degree of confidentiality in his decision-making, but what it means in practice is sort of hazy.

It has long been an accepted concept, but since it's not spelled out anywhere in the Constitution or elsewhere, it's not clear how sweeping that right is, and who it covers: only the president? Communications between the president and advisers?

Cabinet members?