Politico: House Oversight Committee & Fast and Furious whistleblower demand 'Fortune' retract story

[TPaine7]

John Dodson, the Special Agent who blew the whistle on the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal, is calling on Fortune Magazine to retract its landmark article asserting that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives "never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels."

In a letter addressed to Fortune managing editor Andrew Serwer yesterday, obtained by POLITICO, Dodson's lawyer called reporter Katherine Eban's article "demonstrably false in many respects" when compared to a report from the Justice Department Inspector General released earlier this month, and said "a retraction is in order to correct the record."

"At a minimum, Fortune was on notice that this conclusion was dubious at the time the article was published, as this conclusion had already been publicly contradicted not only by the whistleblowers who had first-hand knowledge of Fast and Furious, but also by the White House, Attorney General Eric Holder, ATF Director Kenneth Melson, and the majority and minorit y staff reports of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform," Robert N. Driscoll, a lawyer at Alston & Bird LLP, wrote in the letter, sent to Serwer via email. By contrast, he went on to argue, Eban's "tale" was "based largely on one source" that failed to persuade the Inspector General.

The letter comes one week after the House Oversight Committee also demanded Fortune retract its story. "The DOJ report "firmly rejects Eban's conclusions," Committee spokesman Frederick Hill told POLITICO at the time.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/exclusive-fast-and-furious-whistleblower-demands-fortune-136926.html

Hmmmm. The bolded part sounds familiar, like a point yours truly made back when the Rhodes Scholar's report first came up on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=47366

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117249117

It will be interesting to see whether Fortune issues a retraction and throws the Rhodes Scholar under the bus or whether they stand by her and leave their credibility under the bus.

[Dawson Leery]

1. Intimidation is standard operating procedure for Republicans.

[TPaine7]

2. ???!

The report disagreed with the IG's report.

Is Holder's IG a Republican intimidator too? If I were a whistleblower, I might ask for a retraction on a discredited article that made me look like a liar. Wouldn't you?

If I felt my reputation were unfairly impugned, I might get a lawyer and "intimidate" through perfectly legal and acceptable means. YMMV.

[DanTex]

3. The Republicans (both in the house and in the Gungeon) are having trouble letting go their beloved

Fast and Furious conspiracy theories. The author of the Fortune article already issued a response to this.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/09/20/the-fast-and-furious-gun-walking-scandal/

A preliminary reading of the Inspector General's report appears to corroborate a number of Fortune's findings: that there was no conspiracy to walk guns, no higher-up plan to do so and that walking guns was not the goal of the investigation, but rather a response to "legal and tactical" circumstances on the ground, as the report states.

The report differs from Fortune's findings in its conclusion as to why relatively few guns were seized. While the report details and disparages the restrictive standards used by Arizona federal prosecutors in straw purchasing cases, it concludes that those standards were not a principal impediment to gun seizures, as ATF supervisors in Phoenix contend.

The facts presented by Fortune do not appear to be in dispute, but on this point the Inspector General has drawn a different conclusion from them.

[Dawson Leery]

4. Correct. This is why NO RETRACTION should be issued.

[TPaine7]

5. That is obvious and pathetic spin.

There are substantive disparities of fact, as I showed using video testimony. And for all your bluster about Rhodes scholarship and reasoning under uncertainty (or whatever it was you said) you failed to rationally address the factual disparities.

The facts presented by Fortune are not in dispute, the falsehoods presented by Fortune are a different story.

As for calling fellow DUers Republicans, that's the high standard of civility and rational thought I have come to expect from you. I challenge you to find anywhere this "Republican" (and registered Democrat) said anything about a conspiracy theory—except for shredding your fanciful conspiracy theory, of course:

Let me itemize the issues, since you obviously missed them earlier. For your conspiracy theory to work, we would have to believe the following:

1) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie under oath

2) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie against their own interests

3) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie under oath, against the interests of their department

4) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to systematically lie under oath, against the interests of the President--their boss

5) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to sabotage themselves, their department, their subordinates, and the President on a election year

6) Holder and other senior Justice Department officials agreed to subject themselves, at least theoretically to criminal charges and prison time

7)The best reasons you can give are "Maybe...", "Maybe..." and "Maybe..."


This is the mother of all Conspiracy Theories! Conspiracy against self, against department, against subordinates, against President and boss and imperiling one's freedom, all for... what, exactly? And the idea that a Fortune reporter got further investigating this than the Attorney General of the United States, while not impossible, is far from a slam dunk.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=47366

[DanTex]

7. I know this must be hard for you to accept, but the Fast and Furious "scandal" is over.

Like the Fortune author pointed out, there really aren't any major factual disparities, and the Fortune article and IG report agree on the most essential conclusions, for example, that there was no conspiracy to let guns walk. This contradicts what the right-wingers (in the House and also in the Gungeon) have been insisting for months, which is that this couldn't possibly be a "botched sting" and there must have been some ulterior motive. We even had a few morons doing things like comparing F&F to Watergate (some of those trolls have since been banned, but others have not).

Of course, to those of us in the reality-based community, it was obvious all along that this was basically a witch-hunt, based on conspiracy theories that were born on loony gun blogs and got mainstreamed by FOX News. After all, as pretty much everyone outside the NRA bubble knows, the real reason that so many guns flow across the border to Mexico is not some ATF conspiracy, but rather the absurdly lax gun laws in border states that might as well have been written by the drug cartels and gun smugglers. And now the IG report has come out and put the conspiracy theories to rest once and for all.

Since I started posting in the gungeon, I have seen very few instances where pro-gun ideologues adjust their views based on factual and empirical evidence. That trend continues...

[TPaine7]

8. In other words, you can't refute a word I said, so you'll stick to innuendo. Boring, but smart. n/t

[DanTex]

9. LOL. After being proved wrong, the gun fanatic will typically just repeat the false statement

while ignoring the response.

[TPaine7]

10. So you "prove" a discredited author right by citing the discredited author?!

And you love to talk about "science" and "education" and the like?

Impressive!

Edited to add:

Oh, I forgot. This is "scientifically" legitimate if the author is a Rhodes Scholar. My bad.

[DanTex]

11. So you call an author "discredited" because she upset some Republicans by

debunking their conspiracy theories? Darrell Issa would be so proud!

[TPaine7]

13. She was discredited long before the IG's report came out by those who care about reality as opposed

to wild conspiracy theories.

Here's the Attorney General of the United states of America, a DEMOCRAT:

Pay special attention to the testimony at 3:20 to 3:50. He’s not talking about rogue agents. Listen to 5:14 to 5:47, where he talked about the "tactics" of Fast and Furious. He is not talking about a few isolated incidents.

Here are Congressional DEMOCRATS:

Operation Fast and Furious (2009-2010)

In Operation Fast and Furious, ATF agents in Phoenix utilized gunwalking tactics that were similar to previous operations. In October 2009, ATF agents had identified a sizable network of straw purchasers they believed were trafficking military-grade assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels. By December, they had identified more than 20 suspected straw purchasers who “had purchased in excess of 650 firearms.”

Despite this evidence, ,the ATF agents and the lead prosecutor, in the case believed they did not have probable cause to arrest any of the straw purchasers. As the lead prosecutor wrote: “We have reviewed the available evidence thus far and agree that we do not have any chargeable offenses against any of the players.”

In January 2010, ATF agents and the U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed on a strategy to build a bigger case and to forgo taking down individual members of the straw purchaser network. The lead prosecutor presented this broader approach in a memo that was sent to U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke. The memo noted that “there may be pressure from ATF headquarters to immediately contact identifiable straw purchasers just to see if this develops any indictable cases and to stem the flow of guns.” In the absence of probable cause, however, the U.S. Attorney agreed that they should “[h]old out for bigger.” Over the next six months, agents tried to build a bigger case with wiretaps while making no arrests and few interdictions.

After receiving a briefing on Operation Fast and Furious in March 2010, ATF Deputy Director William Hoover became concerned about the number of firearms involved in the case. Although he told Committee staff that he was not aware of gunwalking, he ordered an “exit strategy” to take down the case and ready it for indictment within 90 days. ATF field agents chafed against this directive, however, and continued to facilitate suspect purchases for months in an effort to salvage the broader goal of the investigation. The case was not indicted until January 2011, ten months after Deputy Director Hoover directed that it be shut down.

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/minority_report_13112.pdf

ATF-Phoenix agents watched guns walk

Documents obtained by the Committee indicate that while ATF-Phoenix and the U.S. Attorney’s Office pursued their strategy of building a bigger case against higher-ups in the firearms trafficking conspiracy, ATF-Phoenix field agents continued daily surveillance of the straw purchaser network. With advance or real- time notice of many purchases by the cooperating gun dealers, the agents watched as the network purchased hundreds of firearms. One ATF-Phoenix agent assigned to surveillance described a common scenario:

{A} situation would arise where a known individual, a suspected straw purchaser, purchased firearms and immediately transferred them or shortly after, not immediately, shortly after they had transferred them to an unknown male. And at that point I asked the case agent to, if we can intervene and seize those firearms, and I was told no. 142

When asked about the number of firearms trafficked in a given week, one agent answered:

Probably 30 or 50. It wasn’t five. There were five at a time. These guys didn’t go to the FFLs unless it was five or more. And the only exceptions to that are sometimes the Draco, which were the AK-variant pistols, or the FN Five-seveN pistols, because a lot of FFLs just didn’t have ... 10 or 20 of those on hand.143

Agents told the Committee that they became increasingly alarmed as this practice continued, which they viewed as a departure from both protocol and their expectations as law enforcement officials. One agent stated:

We were walking guns. It was our decision. We had the information. We had the duty and the responsibility to act, and we didn’t do so.

So it was us walking those guns. We didn’t watch them walk, we walked.144

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/images/stories/minority_report_13112.pdf

Agents defied their boss, ATF Deputy Director William Hoover. They chafed against his directive, and “continued to facilitate suspect purchases for months.”

And here's the Rhodes Scholar Reporter for Fortune

Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

Someone is lying or incompetent. Either these guys are covering their behinds or Holder cannot select and supervise investigative talent and needs to resign. Or he lied. And who knows how congressional Democrats were bamboozled into telling that whopper about agents defying their own Deputy Director and continuing to facilitate suspect purchases for months after being told to stop?

I haven't taken the time to read the IG's report, but I already knew the Rhodes Scholar contradicted the best evidence. And unlike you, I am not impressed that she is willing to support her own writing.

Citing a person to support themselves and then making personal attacks and arguing against points not made are what I would expect from Sarah Palin or Glen Beck.

[DanTex]

15. IOW, she was "discredited" by Republicans and gun bloggers.

When the Fortune report came out, I don't recall any non-right-wingers reacting with the kind outrage and disbelief that you saw among the gun fanatics. So apparently, to you, "those who care about reality" means right-wing crazies. Not too surprising.

Anyway, look, we get it. Gun nuts hate Eric Holder. They really wish they could pin a big conspiracy theory on him. That is why, whenever there is any ambiguity or contradictory testimony, you resolve it in the way that is most favorable to the Darrell Issa witch hunt. But, as the Fortune article (and the IG) pointed out, the facts of the case, and the totality of the evidence is not on your side. And by now pretty much everyone except for the lunatic fringe has accepted this and moved on. I mean, just the fact that the gun nuts have retreated from "Eric Holder intentionally armed the Mexican drug cartels" to "Fortune should issue a correction" shows how far we've come.

As I pointed out last time we discussed this, your clinging to conspiracy theories has much more to do with your inability to reason in the presence of uncertainty -- a trait that is very common among people with right-wing political views -- than with any facts. Your reasoning is not actually fact-based, it is based on a bunch of tenuous leaps of logic. You see conspiracies in places where a rational person without a political agenda would simply see uncertainty.

[TPaine7]

17. Of course. Holder and Cngressional Democrats = Republicans and gun bloggers.

Why do you continually confront me with other people's alleged misdeeds?

So what if what you say is actually true?:

gun nuts have retreated from "Eric Holder intentionally armed the Mexican drug cartels" to "Fortune should issue a correction" shows how far we've come."

What makes you think I care to discuss that? Talk to them about it. Only if you find ME saying "Eric Holder intentionally armed the Mexican drug cartels" is the alleged retreat to "Fortune should issue a correction" relevant.

Why, when confronted with the highest level of evidence--congressional Democrats and the Democratic Attorney General of the United States of America--do you want to talk about "gun nuts" and "gun bloggers"?

And your complaining about conspiracy theories while you pedal an outlandish one yourself is as staggering as a lecture from Tony Soprano on civility and the rule of law.

You may be fooling one person. Exactly one.

[DanTex]

18. Nope. Holder didn't actually say "the Fortune article is wrong." That would be you and the

right-wing gun bloggers. Also, unlike the Fortune reporter, Holder didn't personally conduct an investigation of F&F. This is where the capacity for elementary logic would come in handy...

ETA: It is a nice change of pace to see you citing a Democrat for once. This is the first time I've ever seen it!

[TPaine7]

21. LOL! If only your humor were intentional.

Holder didn't actually say "the Fortune article is wrong."

Sigh.

Nevertheless, he discredits it, as do Democratic Congress members.

I once showed you, in detail, that the first time the Supreme Court spoke to the Second Amendment, it stated the (unremarkable and uncontroversial) fact that the right of the people was personal and showed clearly that it was not understood to be limited in any way by militia service. I also showed you by direct quotation and the clearest historical facts that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment set out intentionally to protect a personal right to carry guns that does not depend on militia service, and to protect it specifically against the entities that controlled the militias--the states.

The Court and the Framers discredited your silly argument that the right as currently understood and protected was the product of Scalia and a right wing Court.

You see the Court and Framers showed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you either didn't know what you were talking about or you were lying. The fact that they weren't called from their graves to pronounce solemnly...

DanTex has no clue what he is talking about on the Second and Fourteenth Amendments or he is lying

...does not mean that their words don't discredit your "Scalia Theory."

Also, unlike the Fortune reporter, Holder didn't personally conduct an investigation of F&F.

So? What has that to do with the melt rate of the glaciers?

Holder had a team of professional investigators at his disposal, people who, like their boss, would have been loathe to falsely admit to wrongdoing in his department. People who could be authorized with COMPLETE access to the entire department(s). People who ALL agents could be compelled to talk to.

This is where the capacity for elementary logic would come in handy...

True, but I've just about given up hope for you.

ETA: It is a nice change of pace to see you citing a Democrat for once. This is the first time I've ever seen it!

Hmmmm...

Here's you answering my citation of Democrats in July:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=47388

Here I am citing a "wacko" who certainly sounds like a Democrat to me, but I'm sure you think she's a drooling, right-wing, gun blogging lunatic:

TPaine7 (3,827 posts)
74. "some wacko"

View profile
Suzanne Novak, Senior Staff Attorney

Suzanne Novak is a Senior Staff Attorney in the U.S. Legal Program, and previously served as both a Staff Attorney and Blackmun Fellow at the Center. She has defended the rights of teenagers in Alaska to make their own reproductive health decisions, challenged an abortion ban in Virginia, and successfully sued to shut down a fake abortion referral service. Prior to returning to the Center, Ms. Novak served as a Deputy Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center, where she coordinated the Center's Campaign Finance Reform and Government Accountability Projects. She was also an Associate at Arnold & Porter and a clerk for the honorable Stephen M. McNamee of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. She graduated with honors from New York University School of Law.

http://reproductiverights.org/en/profile/suzanne-novak


Obviously a right wing wacko of the first order, right? Probably a tea party activist and gun blogger, too.

Whatever it takes.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117266245#post74

[DanTex]

23. Wow. That was an, umm, interesting useless tangent!

I guess when you're in a corner, just bring up some loony right-wing interpretations of the second amendment!

It's funny, you claim that "those who care about reality" were opposed to the Fortune article all along, and yet the only people I can find saying anything of the sort are right-wingers at the National Review or Breitbart, etc. Every progressive or Democratic source I've seen (the Nation, Mother Jones, etc.) reacted favorably. Not counting, of course, your twisted tunnel of logic in which you put words in people's mouths. In other words, this is no different than the rest of the absurd arguments that you end up having to defend in order to uphold your fringe-right beliefs on guns.

So, evidently, in addition to being a big fan of Scalia's judicial wisdom, and the American Enterprise Institute's econometric studies, you also believe that the National Review and TownHall "care about reality", whereas virtually all progressives and Democrats do not.

And then you guys complain when I suggest that maybe not all gungeoneers are Democrats...

[TPaine7]

24. Sigh. "Those who care about reality" are Holder and congressional Democrats. And I put words in

their mouths by quoting them at length, or in Holder's case by producing video of him speaking personally.

Devious, I know.

But you're boring me now...

Bye.

[DanTex]

26. Well, it's easy to prove yourself right if you just make things up.

However, like I said, other than people who didn't actually say what you claimed they said, it's you and the right-wing press versus every single progressive or Democrat that I'm aware of.

For example, people who thought the Fortune article was junk, and who according to you "care about reality":
--You
--Bretibart
--National Review
People who received the Fortune article favorably, so according to you don't care about reality:
--The Nation
--Mother Jones
--Rachel Maddow

I gotta say, you pro-Scalia, pro-right-wing-think-tank Democrats run with an interesting crowd...

[gejohnston]

27. since when was supporting whistle blower retaliation

a progressive value? Oh yeah, when it fits your ideology. Although I am a liberal, I'm skeptical if not cynical about all ideologies and their ability to be completely intellectually honest. Fuck reality an truth. Here is a question, is Univision right or left? Here is Univision's version:

[gejohnston]

25. that is an inane pant load

Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)

It's funny, you claim that "those who care about reality" were opposed to the Fortune article all along, and yet the only people I can find saying anything of the sort are right-wingers at the National Review or Breitbart, etc. Every progressive or Democratic source I've seen (the Nation, Mother Jones, etc.) reacted favorably.

Who fucking cares? Progressive blogs can't even bother to correctly describe current gun laws or even accurately mention that Illinois was the first state to pass SYG and not Florida. It only shows that neither actually read it with any level of objectivity. It was a half baked attempt at whistle blower retaliation, no more no less. Eban accused Dodson whining about working on weekends to perjury before Congress while painting Voth as Gunny Highway. One thing I noticed, the right loves the DEA. If DEA agents commit crimes, fuck up, violates people's rights, the right is cool with it. The left is the same way with the ATF. Has nothing to do with Holder. He is ultimately responsible for what his subordinates do, just like former Secretary of Treasury were responsible for ATF fuck ups before 2004.

OK, so you give a couple examples of groupthink, the ersatz intellectuals in the Starbucks Roundtable might be impressed, but I'm not.

[DanTex]

28. Again, it's you and the right-wing press versus the reality-based community.

Here's the thing. I know all the NRA talking points. I know that you and the rest of the pro-gunners have an uncanny ability to fabricate facts and convince yourselves of arguments that most household pets would immediately recognize as contradictory.

My point here is that TPaine7 is going beyond just repeating nonsense that he read on a gun blog, he is actually claiming that the people who agree with him "care about reality" and the people who disagree do not. Even though, as usual, the people on his side are exclusively right-wingers like Breitbart and TownHall and Darrell Issa, whereas virtually all progressives and Democrats, and even centrists are not.

And meanwhile, I'm getting grief for implying that not all gungeoneers are actually Democrats...

[gejohnston]

29. you don't know NRA talking points

you don't know jack. Nothing he got was from a gun blog, he got from CSPAN.

You are among people who can think for themselves, not Rush ditto head left. Just because the Nation says it does not make it 100 percent true. The real world does not work that way. Someone who only depends on a specific ideological slant are uninformed. BTW, the centrist publications, other than the Eban piece does not agree with you. Reality based slogan is nice slogan, I can't remember who coined it, but no ideology has a monopoly.

[TPaine7]

32. DanTex is clueless about my sources and where I get my ideas.

I hadn't read much about the subject until I saw his illogic in the thread I linked to in the OP (the first link).

Then I went out looking for CREDIBLE sources on the matter that would be respected on a Democratic site. I think i did ok—AG Holder and congressional Democrats.

Till now, I have not read one word written by the sources I relied on according to Dan's fevered imagination. Not. One. Word.

But apparently there's some orthodoxy that requires me to discount the DEMOCRATIC AG and the House DEMOCRATS to show the proper reverence for a Fortune article. It reminds me, vaguely, of the lunatic fundamentalism of religious bigots.

Many Christians are too holy to obey Jesus' command to love everyone, even gays and abortionists. Many Muslims are too holy to respect Mohammed's words against coercion in religion or for equality between the sexes.

I guess some Democratic fundamentalists are too politically pure to take the words of congressional Democrats and the Democratic AG of the US seriously.

[TPaine7]

33. The people who agree with me—or whom I agree with—are AG Holder and congressional Democrats.

Last edited Tue Oct 2, 2012, 01:56 AM - Edit history (1)

As I've demonstrated.

And this is a bald-faced lie:

My point here is that TPaine7 is going beyond just repeating nonsense that he read on a gun blog, he is actually claiming that the people who agree with him "care about reality"

I haven't read one word on a gun blog about F&F. Not. One. Word.

But you're using your "educated" "scientific" methodology here, aren't you? Blind prejudice, wild speculation and fabrication, combined with a total lack of integrity.

Your standard investigative arsenal.

[gejohnston]

14. Actually there was,

the first saying that Dodson, one of the whistleblowers, was the ones letting them walk.

After all, as pretty much everyone outside the NRA bubble knows, the real reason that so many guns flow across the border to Mexico is not some ATF conspiracy, but rather the absurdly lax gun laws in border states that might as well have been written by the drug cartels and gun smugglers. And now the IG report has come out and put the conspiracy theories to rest once and for all.

it is about federal agents enforcing federal laws, and a disgraced AUSA who was too busy looking looking for "voter fraud" to bother doing his job even when ATF gave him easy straw purchase convictions on tape. Arizona law is not relevant.

After all, as pretty much everyone outside the NRA bubble knows

I'm guessing the Starbucks rountable are the enlightened ones outside of the bubble. Problem is, none of them actually know current laws any more they can Palau on a map.

[Berserker]

16. Please point out who is a

Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2012, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)

republican in here. What a smarmy ass remark.

Discussion Forum Rules
This is a website for Democrats and other progressives.

Do not personally attack any individual DU member in any way. Do not post broad-brush attacks, rude nicknames, or crude insults toward a group of DU members.

Do not post disrespectful nicknames, crude insults, or right-wing smears against Democrats.

Do not post anything which is disruptive and likely to derail an otherwise thoughtful discussion.

Do not post harassment or threats. Do not advocate harm or violence.

We on the RKBA side are called republicans, we are looking for someone to murder because we carry and many other lines of bullshit. It is time this stopped. This is not accepted anywhere else on DU and it should not be accepted here.

[DanTex]

19. Sounds like a good story to tell a jury.

If you don't think that there are right-wing trolls posting in the gungeon, you are living in a fantasy world.

Perhaps if pro-gunners don't like being likened to right-wingers they should, umm, refrain from posting absurd conspiratorial allegations about the Obama administration that, outside of the DU Guns forum, only appear on right-wing gun blogs.

[Berserker]

22. Do you mean

shit like this?

"The Republicans (both in the house and in the Gungeon) are having trouble letting go their beloved"

Not one person that posts in here posts against the Obama administration although you may think they do because of what you posted above. I for one would call them out on it. I think maybe your hatred for those of us that believe in the Bill of Rights makes you think that way.
You and the gun control crowd are not ever going to change our minds on the 2A no matter how much name calling, google dumping and accusations are spewed.

[Oneka]

6. I can't say that i'm shocked

In the opening sentence, you were called a republican, and your stance was utterly misrepresented. Facts are stubborn things though, especially if they don't line up with a chosen ideology.

[TPaine7]

12. To paraphrase an attorneys' rule of thumb,

if the facts, history and logic are against you and you lack the character to admit you are wrong, your strategy is clear. Make personal attacks, misrepresent your opponent's position and hope no one will notice.

[Oneka]

20. +1, N/T

[Callisto32]

30. Actually...

"If the facts are on your side, pound the facts, if the law is on your side, pound the law, if neither are on your side, pound the table."

[Reasonable_Argument]

31. Um...

As much as I like reading the back and forth about conspiracies, my question is do we not fire people for gross incompetence anymore?