Former AG Eric Holder Arrested.

so ... Holder was an incompetent and corrupt AG. thanks for clearing that up. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

You're welcome. However, extra risks that the field agents running "Fast & Furious" took were NOT authorized by Holder or anyone that reported directly to Holder. The field agents running operation "Fast & Furious" decided on their own to 1. Remove the tracking devices from the guns. 2. Stop communication with the Mexican Government. You just want Holder to look bad because he worked for Obama.

Both "Gun Running" programs had the same objective. The agents running "Fast & Furious" were more aggressive and took extra risks.

Of course operation "Wide Receiver" was different than operation "Fast & Furious". They were both "Gun Running" programs designed to run a sting on the Mexican Drug Cartels. The biggest difference was that in operation "Wide Receiver" the tracking devices stayed on the guns that were allowed to walk. In operation "Fast & Furious" the tracking devices for the guns were removed from the guns that were allowed to walk. Which explains how the guns could get lost. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Yeah both Operations were flawed and illegal. If our Government really wanted to thwart the Cartels and their Criminal empire all they would really have to do is work with the Mexican Government on totally annihilating these Cartels Militarily. But since both Governments are corrupt that won't happen.

I don't know. It's not the purpose of this thread. You're free to do further research and post your findings. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Yeah. We know what people mean when they say to do their own research when called out on their source.

Even the Great Communicator knew the value of a non-biased press.

I would figure the "purpose" of a thread is to present a fair and balanced opportunity to discuss a subject in the open. Using the old computer data processing idea of GIGO, I replied in kind.

Yeah. We know what people mean when they say to do their own research when called out on their source.

Even the Great Communicator knew the value of a non-biased press.

I would figure the "purpose" of a thread is to present a fair and balanced opportunity to discuss a subject in the open. Using the old computer data processing idea of GIGO, I replied in kind. Originally Posted by Precious_b

Your links have nothing to do with the Thread.

Your links have nothing to do with the Thread. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Originally Posted by Precious_b

So if by some remote chance you were trying to to prove a point, I don't want to hear it. Eric Holder is a Criminal and he was arrested that's all there is to it. That was the basis of the thread. If you can't handle it just move on.

Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, Fake News, Hate Speech
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHTFactual Reporting: VERY LOW
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, Fake News, Hate Speech
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHTFactual Reporting: VERY LOW
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

And?

Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, Fake News, Hate Speech
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHTFactual Reporting: VERY LOW
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY Originally Posted by 69in2it69

The difference is that you had to ask someone else what you were supposed to think. I figured it out after looking at the source article, by myself, in Post #2 of this here thread in a couple seconds.

Yah... not buying it. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

It's not to say I wished it was true or that it shouldn't happen

The difference is that you had to ask someone else what you were supposed to think. I figured it out after looking at the source article, by myself, in Post #2 of this here thread in a couple seconds.It's not to say I wished it was true or that it shouldn't happen Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

What's entertaining is the Woke Fenukes in here are jumping through hoops to debunk it and they can't. It doesn't matter if it's true or not it's still a great story, lol.

I thought “Wide Receiver” was Michelle’s pet name for Barack.

You're welcome. However, extra risks that the field agents running "Fast & Furious" took were NOT authorized by Holder or anyone that reported directly to Holder. The field agents running operation "Fast & Furious" decided on their own to 1. Remove the tracking devices from the guns. 2. Stop communication with the Mexican Government. You just want Holder to look bad because he worked for Obama.

Both "Gun Running" programs had the same objective. The agents running "Fast & Furious" were more aggressive and took extra risks. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Holder could have ended the program as not worth the risks and where it was an embarrassment before now Holder looks incompetent for having a group of agents go rogue on him. fast & furious ran for 3 years 2009-11 all on Holder's watch.

Everything that is done at that level is not always going to work the way you want it to. Look at the Iran-Contra Affair under President Reagan.

So if by some remote chance you were trying to to prove a point, I don't want to hear it. Eric Holder is a Criminal and he was arrested that's all there is to it. That was the basis of the thread. If you can't handle it just move on. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Staff Edit - Image Removed - Biomed1

Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy, Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, Fake News, Hate Speech
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHTFactual Reporting: VERY LOW
Country: United Kingdom
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

And? Originally Posted by Levianon17

The difference is that you had to ask someone else what you were supposed to think. I figured it out after looking at the source article, by myself, in Post #2 of this here thread in a couple seconds.It's not to say I wished it was true or that it shouldn't happen Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

It's a tool to see if something is worth the salt to expend time on.

I broke down an clicked the link. 19 seconds into it appeared what I initially stated in that the link doesn't pass the sniff test.

"...Are not liable nor responsible for the information being presented. ..."

If it doesn't want to be challenged, it doesn't qualify as information.

Staff Edit - Image Removed - Biomed1

It's a tool to see if something is worth the salt to expend time on.

I broke down an clicked the link. 19 seconds into it appeared what I initially stated in that the link doesn't pass the sniff test.

"...Are not liable nor responsible for the information being presented. ..."

If it doesn't want to be challenged, it doesn't qualify as information. Originally Posted by Precious_b

It's Predictive Programming. The Simpson's have been pretty good at it. Maybe it hasn't happened yet but it will, lol.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh_1sxpdl9g