The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

BillCA · September 20, 2012, 01:10 AM

I have not yet read the report, but the main question to ask is, Did the IG interview Attorney General Holder about his knowledge and involvement? If not, why not? If so, I'll have to go read that section.

My point is that the AG is like the CEO of a large organization. When a new CEO enters his new office, his early tasks are to meet with his direct reports and determine the general direction of the organization and what major initiatives are being pursued. In Holder's case, no doubt "terrorism" was a major interest. Regardless, any case that reaches the status of "ATF’s most significant firearms trafficking investigation on the Southwest Border" should have been "on the radar" of Holder, Melson and all the lower-echelon managers.

What is interesting is all these senior-level personnel getting slapped with charges of a lack of oversight, lack of proper management, deficient management, failures to notify superiors, et al, there is no chastising of A.G. Holder for failing to supervise his own staff, or failing to understand what major investigations or projects were underway or to even (apparently) ask those questions.

His ineptitude is evident and it should have been at least a footnote in the report, however I always doubted the DOJ's IG would find fault with the political appointee in charge.

Despite the cabinet-level position being one of "extreme responsibility", Holder has shown none and will take none... unless it is to announce some prosecution or arrest that will be a nice addition to his resume.

And.... at the last... it appears the IG's investigation has failed to answer the fundamental question. Who was it that initiated the operation and who authorized it?

September 20, 2012, 01:10 AM	#2595
BillCA Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2004 Location: Silicon Valley, Ca Posts: 7,117	I have not yet read the report, but the main question to ask is, Did the IG interview Attorney General Holder about his knowledge and involvement? If not, why not? If so, I'll have to go read that section. My point is that the AG is like the CEO of a large organization. When a new CEO enters his new office, his early tasks are to meet with his direct reports and determine the general direction of the organization and what major initiatives are being pursued. In Holder's case, no doubt "terrorism" was a major interest. Regardless, any case that reaches the status of "ATF’s most significant firearms trafficking investigation on the Southwest Border" should have been "on the radar" of Holder, Melson and all the lower-echelon managers. What is interesting is all these senior-level personnel getting slapped with charges of a lack of oversight, lack of proper management, deficient management, failures to notify superiors, et al, there is no chastising of A.G. Holder for failing to supervise his own staff, or failing to understand what major investigations or projects were underway or to even (apparently) ask those questions. His ineptitude is evident and it should have been at least a footnote in the report, however I always doubted the DOJ's IG would find fault with the political appointee in charge. Despite the cabinet-level position being one of "extreme responsibility", Holder has shown none and will take none... unless it is to announce some prosecution or arrest that will be a nice addition to his resume. And.... at the last... it appears the IG's investigation has failed to answer the fundamental question. Who was it that initiated the operation and who authorized it? __________________ BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) Last edited by BillCA; September 20, 2012 at 01:18 AM.