2 Fast 2 Furious 2003 Full Movie
Kayleen Dauteuil
The state-of-the-art ride system is being uniquely designed to immerse guests within the high-speed Fast & Furious universe. Highlights will include groundbreaking 360-degree rotation of the individual ride vehicles as they rocket along an elaborate track meticulously constructed with sound reduction technology for a breathtaking, superior experience. These attributions will create a seamless sensation of drifting cars as guests spin in motion at furiously fast speeds.
For more information about Universal Studios Hollywood, visit www.UniversalStudiosHollywood.com; like Universal Studios Hollywood on Facebook and follow @UniStudios on Instagram and X (formerly known as Twitter).
Operation Fast and Furious began as an ill-conceived law enforcement initiative. Now the program and its aftermath have become a serious scandal involving hundreds of deaths and, possibly, lying to Congress and obstruction of a congressional investigation.
On June 28, 2012, following an assertion of executive privilege by President Barack Obama to shield further information from disclosure, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to provide key documents in response to subpoenas issued in connection with its investigation into Operation Fast and Furious. Holder is the first Attorney General in United States history to be held in contempt. How did a Department of Justice (DOJ) firearms trafficking investigation culminate in the Attorney General being held in contempt of Congress, and what does it all mean?
That same month, senior Department of Justice officials in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General[2] (ODAG) met to discuss the mounting violence in Mexico and decided to try a new strategy aimed at eliminating gun-trafficking pipelines: directing federal law enforcement officers along the Southwest border to shift their focus away from seizing firearms from criminals as soon as possible and focus instead on identifying members of trafficking networks. ODAG shared this strategy with the heads of many DOJ components, including ATF.[3]
In the ensuing months, Melson met secretly with Grassley and Issa and told them that, rather than getting to the bottom of what went wrong, the priority at DOJ seemed to be protecting senior officials from political fallout.[16] Other whistleblowers described facing a hostile climate at work since their decisions to speak up and suffering reprisals including transfers (which some, including Melson, who was among the transferees, considered demotions) and discovering that deeply personal information unrelated to their jobs had been dug up and provided to reporters.[17]
According to Chairman Issa, DOJ has identified approximately 140,000 pages of responsive documents but has turned over only 7,600 pages,[29] a small fraction of what it produced in connection with prior investigations. Some of the documents that DOJ has produced have been so heavily redacted as to be unintelligible or unhelpful.
Documents for Which No Claim of Executive Privilege Has Been Asserted. The House resolution finding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress cited his refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents, which would include those that were not the subject of any claim of privilege and those that Congress believes were being withheld pursuant to an improper claim of privilege. Thus, there can be no reasonable claim that the House has abandoned its request for any of the estimated 132,000 pages of outstanding documents.
The general principle that flows from the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution is that each branch owes a duty of comity to the legitimate needs of the other branches. Neither the executive branch nor the legislative branch should automatically prevail in disputes over information requests, but certain corollaries flow from the general principle. For example, Congress should accept different types of information than was requested if such information reasonably satisfies its legitimate legislative functions, especially if the executive has a good reason to withhold the remaining documents or witnesses. On the other hand, when a congressional committee has established its legitimate legislative purpose, a purposeful delay by the executive to respond or a blanket refusal to comply without sufficient accommodations or other information is generally not justified.
As between Congress and the executive branch, various other factors suggest the presence or absence of good-faith negotiations or accommodations. The relative importance or needs of each branch must be taken into account. For instance, a minor concern from the executive branch should yield to a substantial legislative need, and vice versa. Moreover, a simple desire to prevent embarrassment or shield wrongdoing is never a sufficient justification to withhold information when Congress has a legitimate legislative need, and blanket refusals to comply with information requests without adequate detail to evaluate the reason for the refusal suggest bad faith.
Documents for Which a Claim of Executive Privilege Has Been Asserted. Although the President has now asserted executive privilege with respect to documents created after February 4, DOJ has not produced a privilege log delineating with particularity why the allegedly privileged documents are being withheld. Such a document could serve as a basis for negotiation and compromise with the committee and, failing that, would provide the committee with sufficient information to test the validity of the privilege claim in a court of law.
Historically, challenges to executive privilege rarely reach the courts. The vast majority of disputes over access to information have been resolved through political negotiations. While reviewing courts have expressed reluctance to balance claims of executive privilege against a congressional demand for information, they have acknowledged that they will do so if the political branches have tried in good faith but have failed to reach an accommodation. The President has denied having personally authorized Operation Fast and Furious, but that does not mean that his invocation of executive privilege with respect to the documents that are being withheld is necessarily improper, because there are several species of executive privilege.
[C]ourts must balance the public interests at stake in determining whether the privilege should yield in a particular case, and must specifically consider the need of the party seeking privileged evidence. But this balancing is more ad hoc in the context of the deliberative process privilege, and includes consideration of additional factors such as whether the government is a party to the litigation. Moreover, the privilege disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred. On the other hand, a party seeking to overcome the presidential privilege seemingly must always provide a focused demonstration of need, even when there are allegations of misconduct by high-level officials.[36]
[12]Deroy Murdock, Mexican Victims of Fast and Furious, Wash. Post, July 10, 2012, available at -victims-of-fast-and-furious/; Memorandum from Darrell Issa to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, supra note 8.
[15]Letter from Ronald Weich, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, to Charles Grassley, Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (February 4, 2011), available at -ATF-02-04-11-letter-from-DOJ-deny-allegations.pdf.
[18]Ray Stern, Dennis Burke, Former Arizona U.S. Attorney, Accused of Retaliating Against ATF Agent Who Blew Whistle on Fast and Furious Scandal, Phoenix New Times Blog (Nov. 10, 2011), _burke_former_arizona_us.php.
[40]Agreement Concerning Accommodation Between the House Judiciary Committee and the Bush Administration, available at It was also agreed that Ms. Miers and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove would be interviewed about the matter but that counsel would direct them not to respond when the questions related to communications to or from the President.
Over the course of our formative college years, Maggie became like family to me. Our bond, like any great friendship, was built on shared interests ranging from our penchant for niche Nora Ephron references to a near-encyclopedic knowledge of "Real World/Road Rules Challenge" and, above all else, a diehard fondness for the "Fast & Furious" movie franchise.
Though we each began our foray into the world of fictional street racing on our own, we cemented our friendship (and obsession with the movies) in 2009 with the fourth installment, "Fast & Furious," which we saw together at the Cinemark Movies 12 in Ames, Iowa.
We were gripped with excitement as we followed the characters Brian and Dom as they raced through Mexico, avenging Letty's "death." Then, we gasped aloud at the big reveal. As film fanatics, we knew to stay through the end credits (always). It was great to have a viewing comrade who was still there when the lights finally flicked back on.
"Fast Five" had us reuniting in Iowa three years later for an evening of popcorn and squealing tires. When "Fast & Furious 6" came out in 2013, it was just the excuse we needed for a romp around Minneapolis, where I was living at the time.
The highly anticipated and emotional "Furious 7" allowed me to visit Maggie in her new home in Texas. It was a long-awaited reunion that felt especially poignant as we held hands and audibly mourned during Wiz Khalifa's "See You Again."
After the life-changing experience of the pandemic, "F9: The Fast Saga" felt like a blessing, bringing Maggie back to North Carolina to meet my new daughter. It gave us some much-needed solace after too much time apart.
When I saw "The Fast and the Furious" for the first time back in 2001, I had no idea this adrenaline-inducing franchise would also bring a friend into my life forever. Since we started our tradition of seeing every one of the films together, Maggie has become "Mi Familia." She even officiated my wedding.
c80f0f1006