Jump to content

Obama's Mexican Gunrunning Operation


Recommended Posts

this report.

 

 

 

Looks the Cartels just got advised about an FBI informant in their operation.

 

 

Yes, this operation was incredibly stupid and dangerous for a number of reasons, and that is certainly one of them. Ironic that we were paying the informant to buy guns and paying the ATF agents to look the other way.

 

It certainly furthers the argument, on which the New York Time and I seem to actually agree, that the ATF needs to cease to exist as an agency and its functions assumed by the FBI.

 

I see comments on gun forums to the effect that having a weak, embattled ATF is good for gun owners because our laws will not be properly enforced. My response was that this is the only thing more irresponsible than the actions of our government in this whole affair.

 

We do not need a rogue agency that causes this kind of havoc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's Judge Jackson or Judge Berman Jackson. It isn't Judge Berman unless you're watching reality court TV at the laundromat. Actually, I did mean only those documents. Again, the Kenyan’s EP was

Maybe he'll be nicer now that his period is over.

People who have time to read things like the relevant Inspector General's report instead of just spewing insults and talking points know that the reality is that the stupid program was shut down under

Posted Images

"ATF Director Ken Melson secretly testified Monday before the House Oversight Committee concerning Project Gunwalker. He directly refuted the official "party line" coming from Washington regarding "Operation Fast and Furious":

 

• Contrary to denials by the DOJ, Melson said agents had witnessed transfers of weapons from straw purchasers to third parties without following the guns further

 

• The team executing Operation Fast and Furious had been placed under the direction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney's office to have intentionally withheld documents from Congress that Melson has now provided to the Committee"

http://oversight.hou...i%20to%20ag.pdf

 

Looks like Melson is refusing to be thrown under the bus. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/

http://grassley.senate.gov/judiciary/upload/ATF-07-05-11-CEG-Issa-letter-to-Holder-Melson-interview.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

"ATF Director Ken Melson secretly testified Monday before the House Oversight Committee concerning Project Gunwalker. He directly refuted the official "party line" coming from Washington regarding "Operation Fast and Furious":

 

• Contrary to denials by the DOJ, Melson said agents had witnessed transfers of weapons from straw purchasers to third parties without following the guns further

 

• The team executing Operation Fast and Furious had been placed under the direction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney's office to have intentionally withheld documents from Congress that Melson has now provided to the Committee"

http://oversight.hou...i%20to%20ag.pdf

 

Looks like Melson is refusing to be thrown under the bus. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/

http://grassley.senate.gov/judiciary/upload/ATF-07-05-11-CEG-Issa-letter-to-Holder-Melson-interview.pdf

 

I'd be a lot more interested in Melson's actual testimony than Grassley/Issa's masticated version thereof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"ATF Director Ken Melson secretly testified Monday before the House Oversight Committee concerning Project Gunwalker. He directly refuted the official "party line" coming from Washington regarding "Operation Fast and Furious":

 

• Contrary to denials by the DOJ, Melson said agents had witnessed transfers of weapons from straw purchasers to third parties without following the guns further

 

• The team executing Operation Fast and Furious had been placed under the direction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney's office to have intentionally withheld documents from Congress that Melson has now provided to the Committee"

http://oversight.hou...i%20to%20ag.pdf

 

Looks like Melson is refusing to be thrown under the bus. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/

http://grassley.senate.gov/judiciary/upload/ATF-07-05-11-CEG-Issa-letter-to-Holder-Melson-interview.pdf

 

I'd be a lot more interested in Melson's actual testimony than Grassley/Issa's masticated version thereof.

Well, there seems to be a transcript referenced and transmitted to DOJ. If you are really interested, ask for it under a FOIA request and see how the Justice Dept tries to justify classifying it.

 

If the cover letter isn't backed up by the transcript, it should be leaked any day now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"ATF Director Ken Melson secretly testified Monday before the House Oversight Committee concerning Project Gunwalker. He directly refuted the official "party line" coming from Washington regarding "Operation Fast and Furious":

 

• Contrary to denials by the DOJ, Melson said agents had witnessed transfers of weapons from straw purchasers to third parties without following the guns further

 

• The team executing Operation Fast and Furious had been placed under the direction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney's office to have intentionally withheld documents from Congress that Melson has now provided to the Committee"

http://oversight.hou...i%20to%20ag.pdf

 

Looks like Melson is refusing to be thrown under the bus. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/

http://grassley.senate.gov/judiciary/upload/ATF-07-05-11-CEG-Issa-letter-to-Holder-Melson-interview.pdf

 

I'd be a lot more interested in Melson's actual testimony than Grassley/Issa's masticated version thereof.

 

 

Yeah, but that was damn funny just the way it is. Grassley is now actually defending Melson, the guy who was in charge of the ATF while this operation went down. Declaring calls that he resign as unfair!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"ATF Director Ken Melson secretly testified Monday before the House Oversight Committee concerning Project Gunwalker. He directly refuted the official "party line" coming from Washington regarding "Operation Fast and Furious":

 

• Contrary to denials by the DOJ, Melson said agents had witnessed transfers of weapons from straw purchasers to third parties without following the guns further

 

• The team executing Operation Fast and Furious had been placed under the direction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney's office to have intentionally withheld documents from Congress that Melson has now provided to the Committee"

http://oversight.hou...i%20to%20ag.pdf

 

Looks like Melson is refusing to be thrown under the bus. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/

http://grassley.senate.gov/judiciary/upload/ATF-07-05-11-CEG-Issa-letter-to-Holder-Melson-interview.pdf

 

I'd be a lot more interested in Melson's actual testimony than Grassley/Issa's masticated version thereof.

 

 

Yeah, but that was damn funny just the way it is. Grassley is now actually defending Melson, the guy who was in charge of the ATF while this operation went down. Declaring calls that he resign as unfair!

 

I got that. And if Melson claims that he didn't know what was going on within his own department, how the heck were the people at DOJ supposed to know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look up "obvious caricature" wabbit. Or, go ahead and attack the source (while completely ignoring the substance, of course) of this report.

 

Looks like the intended scapegoat here, Melson, really does not want to be a scapegoat.

 

The Justice Department is obstructing the congressional investigation of a U.S. law enforcement operation intended to crack down on major weapons traffickers on the Southwest border, according to the embattled leader of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

 

Uh oh. Accusing his bosses of obstructing justice is pretty heavy. This could go one of two ways:

 

1. It could get even uglier

2. We could all wake up from this ugly nightmare, open the Washington Post, and learn the real truth instead of those crazy things they say on Fox.

 

I'm going to speculate that it will be number 1.

 

The capper:

 

The alleged coverup involves three law enforcement agencies: the ATF, FBI and the DEA, or Drug Enforcement Administration.

 

According to sources, unbeknown to the ATF, the target of their operation was a FBI confidential informant, a fact that only became known to them in April of this year after an 18-month investigation that cost millions of dollars of tax dollars.

 

"They were going after someone they could never have," a source in Washington told Fox News. "The Mr. Big they wanted was using government money to buy guns that went to the cartels. The FBI knew it and didn't tell them."

 

Our government was chasing its own tail?

 

Messenger attack and request for my proof that the government has a tail in 3.... 2.... 1.... :lol:

Classic Keep up the fight If points were issued for facts vs messenger attacks and weak deflections it would be Tom Ray 1000 the Wabbitt 0

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd be a lot more interested in Melson's actual testimony than Grassley/Issa's masticated version thereof.

 

A sudden desire to know more of the facts emerges. Try the Washington Post! :lol:

 

 

Yeah, but that was damn funny just the way it is. Grassley is now actually defending Melson, the guy who was in charge of the ATF while this operation went down. Declaring calls that he resign as unfair!

 

They did not call those rumors unfair, unless you can cite where they did.

 

Prosecutors protect their witnesses, and in light of the threats and retaliations that have already been documented against whistleblowers, I'd say that warning the DOJ not to fuck with him is merely prudent. Prosecutors who protect cooperating witnesses are not, as a general rule, defending whatever behavior got them in the "cooperating" seat, and I saw none of that in this case either.

 

Some taxpayers do not think this whole thing is funny:

 

It is one thing to argue that the ends justify the means in an attempt to defend a

policy that puts building a big case ahead of stopping known criminals from getting

guns. Yet it is a much more serious matter to conceal from Congress the possible

involvement of other agencies in identifying and maybe even working with the same

criminals that Operation Fast and Furious was trying to identify. If this information is

accurate, then the whole misguided operation might have been cut short if not for

catastrophic failures to share key information. If agencies within the same Department,

co-located at the same facilities, had simply communicated with one another, then ATF

might have known that gun trafficking "higher-ups" had been already identified. This

raises new and serious questions about the role of DEA, FBI, the United States

Attorney's Office in Arizona, and Main Justice in coordinating this effort. Nearly a

decade after the September 11th attacks, the stovepipes of information within our

government may still be causing tragic mistakes long after they should have been broken

down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you guys even commenting on what Issa and Grassley say?

 

Don't you expect to learn more when Rep. Cummings releases his version of Melson's testimony? :lol: The penetrating revelations about what happened in his first report whitewash were quite eye opening, were they not?

 

This is the only time the minority "report" on gunwalking mentions the actual gunwalking:

 

On March 16, 2011, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa launched an

investigation into allegations that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), as part of an effort known as Operation Fast and Furious, failed to properly monitor hundreds of firearms acquired by suspected straw purchasers and destined for drug cartels in Mexico.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"ATF Director Ken Melson secretly testified Monday before the House Oversight Committee concerning Project Gunwalker. He directly refuted the official "party line" coming from Washington regarding "Operation Fast and Furious":

 

• Contrary to denials by the DOJ, Melson said agents had witnessed transfers of weapons from straw purchasers to third parties without following the guns further

 

• The team executing Operation Fast and Furious had been placed under the direction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney's office to have intentionally withheld documents from Congress that Melson has now provided to the Committee"

http://oversight.hou...i%20to%20ag.pdf

 

Looks like Melson is refusing to be thrown under the bus. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/

http://grassley.senate.gov/judiciary/upload/ATF-07-05-11-CEG-Issa-letter-to-Holder-Melson-interview.pdf

 

I'd be a lot more interested in Melson's actual testimony than Grassley/Issa's masticated version thereof.

 

 

Yeah, but that was damn funny just the way it is. Grassley is now actually defending Melson, the guy who was in charge of the ATF while this operation went down. Declaring calls that he resign as unfair!

Well, the time for him to resign would have been when Justice gave him the order, if that was the case. Since he didn't, he's clearly part of the problem but, the Justice coverup is kinda suspect, dontcha think?

 

Looks like Holder is the one who should be provided the opportunity to improve the state of US justice by resigning or at least testifying under oath.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy. If the guys who originally broke this story, sort of the Woodward and Bernstein of this scandal, are right again, the Phoenix field office was not alone. Right here in Florida, the ATF was walking guns to Honduras, they say. I wonder if they will be proven right again?

 

I wonder if it will once again turn out that the "criminals" in Honduras who are buying these guns are actually informants using our tax dollars?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huge news! The Washington Post has finally printed what the government did, or at least part of it, so readers of that publication will not be utterly ignorant of what happened any longer.

 

Fast and Furious allowed the suspected illegal purchase of hundreds of semiautomatic firearms in Arizona gun shops so ATF agents could watch where the guns ended up, with the hope of bringing down a Mexican cartel.

 

The bolded part is the first appearance of that fact in the Post. About friggin' time. I think this leaves only our friend wabbit in the "won't admit it in public" club. ;)

 

The bad news is the part in red, which is misleading at best, and notably incomplete. It is misleading because the word "watch" implies they were keeping an eye on the guns, something they were ordered not to do. "Learn" would have been a more accurate term, since they allowed the straw sales and just waited to find the guns at crime scenes. It is notably incomplete because it does not mention how happy supervisors were, nor how chagrined agents were, when that outcome (goal?) was achieved.

 

The order not to track the guns, coupled with the giddiness at finding them at crime scenes, are the two things that are giving rise to conspiracy theories about padding statistics for more gun control. The complete failure to address those two issues in the mainstream media, and the complete absence of a plausible explanation, are not helping that situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can be fairly certain that the President reads media sources other than the Washington Post, because

thing in "the press."

 

What they

he read those press reports.

 

Another question that has been bugging me is: The President is learning shit like this in the press???? Do his underlings treat him like a mushroom or something, keeping him in the dark and feeding him shit?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can be fairly certain that the President reads media sources other than the Washington Post, because

thing in "the press."

 

What they

he read those press reports.

 

Another question that has been bugging me is: The President is learning shit like this in the press???? Do his underlings treat him like a mushroom or something, keeping him in the dark and feeding him shit?

 

Well, since your new hero, Melson, claims that he didn't know what his own department was doing, how would the president know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Melson is trying to save his ass, which hardly makes him my hero, but it does make him useful in learning what our government was doing. I think his request for a video feed is going to bite him in the butt.

 

There are now allegations from sources that have proven credible in the past that we were walking guns to Honduras as well as Mexico. My opinion regarding how something like this should be handled has not really changed.

 

If covert operations that circumvent that policy are needed, those are matters of international relations that should be approved at the highest levels. If I were President, I would not want some loose cannon out there pissing off other countries. That is why I find it hard to believe that Obama and/or Holder did not know about the gunwalking. Who else thinks they have the authority to screw with another country and violate our policies?

 

 

I don't think a federal prosecutor should be making our foreign policy. I think the AG should go to the President with a decision like that. I'm guessing he did.

 

I need to update my question:

 

Who else thinks they have the authority to screw with another country at least two other countries and violate our policies? Maybe someone will answer it this time, though I seriously doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, looky here! Project Gunrunner got its own ten million dollar earmark in the Stimulus Bill!

 

For an additional amount for ‘State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance’, $90,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 20140,000,000, for competitive grants to provide assistance and equipment to local law enforcement along the Southern border and in High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to combat criminal narcotics activity stemming from the Southern border, of which $10,000,000 shall be transferred to ‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Salaries and Expenses’ for the ATF Project Gunrunner.

 

Now we know how much it costs to order agents not to enforce the law. Doesn't sound all that expensive, but ten million here, ten million there, pretty soon you're talking about real money! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

The New York Times is on the case with a short summary type of article, just the sort of coverage you would expect when there is a bit of shuffling of office chairs in a bureaucracy...

 

The lawmakers have been investigating an A.T.F. program called Operation Fast and Furious in which federal agents knowingly let weapons slip across the Mexican border in the with no hope of tracing them to drug cartels. Two of the guns later turned up in Arizona, where an American Border Patrol agent was killed in a shootout.

 

fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Melson is trying to save his ass, which hardly makes him my hero, but it does make him useful in learning what our government was doing. I think his request for a video feed is going to bite him in the butt.

 

There are now allegations from sources that have proven credible in the past that we were walking guns to Honduras as well as Mexico. My opinion regarding how something like this should be handled has not really changed.

 

If covert operations that circumvent that policy are needed, those are matters of international relations that should be approved at the highest levels. If I were President, I would not want some loose cannon out there pissing off other countries. That is why I find it hard to believe that Obama and/or Holder did not know about the gunwalking. Who else thinks they have the authority to screw with another country and violate our policies?

 

 

I don't think a federal prosecutor should be making our foreign policy. I think the AG should go to the President with a decision like that. I'm guessing he did.

I need to update my question:

 

Who else thinks they have the authority to screw with another country at least two other countries and violate our policies? Maybe someone will answer it this time, though I seriously doubt it.

One two three NOT me! This is a serious fuck up on someone very high up in the Obama administration. Either Holder knew about it and needs to go for being in the loop on this colossal Fuck up or he didn't react once he learned about it in which case he has to go for obstruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One two three NOT me! This is a serious fuck up on someone very high up in the Obama administration. Either Holder knew about it and needs to go for being in the loop on this colossal Fuck up or he didn't react once he learned about it in which case he has to go for obstruction.

 

How would Holder know about it if Melson didn't?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, Hillary is going to be really pissed when she finds out there was another country involved besides Mexico. I wonder if she reads the Examiner? Seems like it should be required reading for the whole administration to me. None of them are ever going to find out anything any other way! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

One two three NOT me! This is a serious fuck up on someone very high up in the Obama administration. Either Holder knew about it and needs to go for being in the loop on this colossal Fuck up or he didn't react once he learned about it in which case he has to go for obstruction.

 

How would Holder know about it if Melson didn't?

 

Going with the old, reliable "he watched his video feed blindfolded" thing, or what is going to be his explanation that proves he did not know? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One two three NOT me! This is a serious fuck up on someone very high up in the Obama administration. Either Holder knew about it and needs to go for being in the loop on this colossal Fuck up or he didn't react once he learned about it in which case he has to go for obstruction.

 

How would Holder know about it if Melson didn't?

See part 2 of my post - Doesn't matter he knew about it back in January and has been blocking requests from congress ever since.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One two three NOT me! This is a serious fuck up on someone very high up in the Obama administration. Either Holder knew about it and needs to go for being in the loop on this colossal Fuck up or he didn't react once he learned about it in which case he has to go for obstruction.

 

How would Holder know about it if Melson didn't?

 

Going with the old, reliable "he watched his video feed blindfolded" thing, or what is going to be his explanation that proves he did not know? :lol:

 

Hey, don't bitch at me about it. That was in the Issa/Grassley letter that you posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One two three NOT me! This is a serious fuck up on someone very high up in the Obama administration. Either Holder knew about it and needs to go for being in the loop on this colossal Fuck up or he didn't react once he learned about it in which case he has to go for obstruction.

 

How would Holder know about it if Melson didn't?

When there is no appointed chief, a good bureaucrat knows that it is important to have visibility beyond the acting chief. In fact, it is always important to have visibility to those above your boss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One two three NOT me! This is a serious fuck up on someone very high up in the Obama administration. Either Holder knew about it and needs to go for being in the loop on this colossal Fuck up or he didn't react once he learned about it in which case he has to go for obstruction.

 

How would Holder know about it if Melson didn't?

 

Going with the old, reliable "he watched his video feed blindfolded" thing, or what is going to be his explanation that proves he did not know? :lol:

 

Hey, don't bitch at me about it. That was in the Issa/Grassley letter that you posted.

 

He said that he was uninvolved until the story became public, and Issa, Grassley, you and I all received that message. I'm pretty sure you were the only one who believed him. :P

 

It's tough to find anyone credible anywhere near this thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd be a lot more interested in Melson's actual testimony than Grassley/Issa's masticated version thereof.

 

A sudden desire to know more of the facts emerges. Try the Washington Post! :lol:

 

 

Yeah, but that was damn funny just the way it is. Grassley is now actually defending Melson, the guy who was in charge of the ATF while this operation went down. Declaring calls that he resign as unfair!

 

They did not call those rumors unfair, unless you can cite where they did.

 

Prosecutors protect their witnesses, and in light of the threats and retaliations that have already been documented against whistleblowers, I'd say that warning the DOJ not to fuck with him is merely prudent. Prosecutors who protect cooperating witnesses are not, as a general rule, defending whatever behavior got them in the "cooperating" seat, and I saw none of that in this case either.

 

 

 

Yes, he is warning the DOJ not to call for Melson's resignation. Seems to think the idea of Melson keeping his job after this makes sense, in some way.

 

Hilarious. He's not the whistle-blower, he's the boss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the last few weeks, unnamed administration officials have indicated to the

press that Acting Director Melson would be forced to resign. According to Mr. Melson,

those initial reports were untrue. Regardless of what we might have thought before

about how he should handle a request to resign, we now know he has not been asked to

resign. We also now have the benefit of hearing his side of the story and will have a

chance to examine what he said and compare it to the other evidence we are gathering.

However, that will take some time.

 

Hearing his side may indeed make some sense and have benefits. He's going to want some sort of deal to tell his side, now that he knows the administration's deal for him is: be the scapegoat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the last few weeks, unnamed administration officials have indicated to the

press that Acting Director Melson would be forced to resign. According to Mr. Melson,

those initial reports were untrue. Regardless of what we might have thought before

about how he should handle a request to resign, we now know he has not been asked to

resign. We also now have the benefit of hearing his side of the story and will have a

chance to examine what he said and compare it to the other evidence we are gathering.

However, that will take some time.

 

Hearing his side may indeed make some sense and have benefits. He's going to want some sort of deal to tell his side, now that he knows the administration's deal for him is: be the scapegoat.

 

So Grassley is offering him the possibility of keeping his job? Finger Holder or Obama and you can stay acting chief of the ATF??

 

OTOH, Melson just might be that stupid, I guess. Worth a try.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he has any hope of keeping his current job, but it's not the job he wanted anyway.

 

He took it as a stepping stone to a forensics position that he really wants, reports say.

 

He's in kind of a bind, having given up a regular government job for an appointed position. This scandal is career-ending, and he's desperately trying to salvage whatever he can. That means cooperating with Congress at the moment. I doubt he has forgotten that he is cooperating with people who recently called for his resignation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here comes a slow-pitch for the coveted triple messenger attack...

 

Congressman Issa on Hannity on Fox!

 

Part 1, in which he accuses the Attorney General of lying under oath to Congress.

 

Part 2, in which he talks more about Melson's testimony and says whistleblowers told Congress far more than the DOJ did. Wraps up with another accusation that Holder lied about when (and how) he learned of this program, then points out that even if it is true, he should have known.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A follow up report on the new allegations of gunwalking to Honduras out of Tampa.

 

At one point the case was ready to be wrapped up with arrests and remain relatively efficient but O'Brien and McCampbell decided on their own to keep it going to "get more" against the advise of thier field employees and the walked guns numbers got out of control.

 

OB is terrified that her intentional concealing of her walked guns is going to do her in since she disregarded orders to report to DOJ and Congress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was chuckling at a funny forum post last night, and my wife asked me what was so funny.

 

"A post about gunwalking."

 

"About what?"

 

She had not heard of this scandal before I told her about it last night. That's a damn effective stonewalling job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he has any hope of keeping his current job, but it's not the job he wanted anyway.

 

He took it as a stepping stone to a forensics position that he really wants, reports say.

 

He's in kind of a bind, having given up a regular government job for an appointed position. This scandal is career-ending, and he's desperately trying to salvage whatever he can. That means cooperating with Congress at the moment. I doubt he has forgotten that he is cooperating with people who recently called for his resignation.

 

Want a job in forensics, the best path is by being named acting head of the ATF.

 

Damn right he's in a bind. Why is Grassley trying to say that the calls for his resignation are unwarranted?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he has any hope of keeping his current job, but it's not the job he wanted anyway.

 

He took it as a stepping stone to a forensics position that he really wants, reports say.

 

He's in kind of a bind, having given up a regular government job for an appointed position. This scandal is career-ending, and he's desperately trying to salvage whatever he can. That means cooperating with Congress at the moment. I doubt he has forgotten that he is cooperating with people who recently called for his resignation.

 

Want a job in forensics, the best path is by being named acting head of the ATF.

 

Damn right he's in a bind. Why is Grassley trying to say that the calls for his resignation are unwarranted?

Perhaps he was following instructions from his superiors? Now who would that be ................. :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he has any hope of keeping his current job, but it's not the job he wanted anyway.

 

He took it as a stepping stone to a forensics position that he really wants, reports say.

 

He's in kind of a bind, having given up a regular government job for an appointed position. This scandal is career-ending, and he's desperately trying to salvage whatever he can. That means cooperating with Congress at the moment. I doubt he has forgotten that he is cooperating with people who recently called for his resignation.

 

Want a job in forensics, the best path is by being named acting head of the ATF.

 

Damn right he's in a bind. Why is Grassley trying to say that the calls for his resignation are unwarranted?

Perhaps he was following instructions from his superiors? Now who would that be ................. :o

 

Why would that make calls for his resignation unwarranted?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Grassley trying to say that the calls for his resignation are unwarranted?

 

Unwarranted? I do not believe they are trying to say that in the letter. Quote the part you believe says that.

 

I dunno. Maybe the part where they speculate about DOJ trying to "make Mr. Melson the fall guy."

 

If Melson screwed up, why shouldn't he be fired?

 

Why, just a few days ago, you were sure that Melson "was in on this."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Grassley trying to say that the calls for his resignation are unwarranted?

 

Unwarranted? I do not believe they are trying to say that in the letter. Quote the part you believe says that.

 

I dunno. Maybe the part where they speculate about DOJ trying to "make Mr. Melson the fall guy."

 

If Melson screwed up, why shouldn't he be fired?

 

Why, just a few days ago, you were sure that Melson "was in on this."

Try reading the actual text instead of writing your own opinion. From the letter:

 

 

Technically, Mr. Melson no longer enjoys the due process protections afforded to

career officials. Given his testimony, unless a permanent director is confirmed, it would

be inappropriate for the Justice Department to take action against him that could have

the effect of intimidating others who might want to provide additional information to

the Committees.

 

Makes sense to me - not supporting him only reminding them to not take actions that would be seen as intimidating future witnesses. Considering the crap Holder's department has already pulled it seems like a justifiable reminder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Grassley trying to say that the calls for his resignation are unwarranted?

 

Unwarranted? I do not believe they are trying to say that in the letter. Quote the part you believe says that.

 

The whole section of "Efforts to oust Melson" implies the only reason such an effort would be to shut him up.

 

So a call for his resignation is unwarranted, unless you wanted him shut up. Not that Grassley is making any sense, or anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Grassley trying to say that the calls for his resignation are unwarranted?

 

Unwarranted? I do not believe they are trying to say that in the letter. Quote the part you believe says that.

 

I dunno. Maybe the part where they speculate about DOJ trying to "make Mr. Melson the fall guy."

 

If Melson screwed up, why shouldn't he be fired?

 

Why, just a few days ago, you were sure that Melson "was in on this."

 

The fact that the administration would like to see him claim all responsibility and then quietly disappear does not mean that his departure is unwarranted.

 

He should go, and will.

 

I think it's funny that you guys are suddenly in a huge hurry for him to go away ever since he officially left the reservation on the 4th of July. There was no urgency before that happened for some reason, yet now there is.

 

Now that Congressional investigators want to talk to him a bit longer with him under the protections of law he enjoys as a result of office.... Hmmm...

 

I want to hear what he has to say, and that is best accomplished with him in office because of whistleblower protections and because he still has incentive to cooperate. Why the hurry to get rid of those protections and incentives all of a sudden? The only reason that makes sense to me is the one that is obviously on the mind of the administration: he has left the reservation and is talking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Grassley trying to say that the calls for his resignation are unwarranted?

 

Unwarranted? I do not believe they are trying to say that in the letter. Quote the part you believe says that.

 

The whole section of "Efforts to oust Melson" implies the only reason such an effort would be to shut him up.

 

 

I believe that is the only reason. Can you name another reason why it is suddenly urgent that he go? We have known about his involvement for some time, and when he was not cooperating, there were calls for his resignation from one side.

 

Now that he is cooperating, there are suddenly calls for his resignation from the other side.

 

That does not mean his resignation is unwarranted. It is clearly still warranted. I just do not see the harm of trying to get a bit more of the truth out of him before he goes. That means he needs protection and incentives to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Grassley trying to say that the calls for his resignation are unwarranted?

 

Unwarranted? I do not believe they are trying to say that in the letter. Quote the part you believe says that.

 

The whole section of "Efforts to oust Melson" implies the only reason such an effort would be to shut him up.

 

 

I believe that is the only reason. Can you name another reason why it is suddenly urgent that he go? We have known about his involvement for some time, and when he was not cooperating, there were calls for his resignation from one side.

 

Now that he is cooperating, there are suddenly calls for his resignation from the other side.

 

That does not mean his resignation is unwarranted. It is clearly still warranted. I just do not see the harm of trying to get a bit more of the truth out of him before he goes. That means he needs protection and incentives to speak.

 

What is making you and Grassley think he would be any less able to tell his story after he has resigned?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grassley wrote to Holder, and in the letter cites whistleblower protection laws. I also mentioned incentive to cooperate. I do not know what they may have to offer him, but they seem to think it important and so far they seem to me to have run a responsible investigation.

 

I know their report mentioned the actual gunwalking, making it less responsible than Elijah's whitewash, but I still find it responsible.

 

Hey, speaking of letters to Holder, are you at all curious about the one Grassley wrote to him last January 31st? I still wonder whether he received and opened it. He told Congress under oath that he learned of the gunwalking fiasco "a few weeks ago" and that was in May, a few months after Grassley's letter. Seems suspicious to me. How does it strike you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grassley wrote to Holder, and in the letter cites whistleblower protection laws. I also mentioned incentive to cooperate. I do not know what they may have to offer him, but they seem to think it important and so far they seem to me to have run a responsible investigation.

 

 

 

 

The only incentive Grassley is offering by decrying the calls for his ouster is that he be allowed to keep his job. The boss gets "whistle blower protection"? No. The boss is who the whistle is blown on. He was the boss of the ATF, so no matter how high up it goes, he's on the hook.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Grassley/Issa letter:

 

According to Mr. Melson, it was not until after the public controversy that he personally reviewed hundreds of documents relating to the case, including wiretap applications and Reports of Investigation (ROIs). By his

account, he was sick to his stomach when he obtained those documents and learned the full story.

 

Is Melson lying or is he not lying?

 

Which is it Tom?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Grassley trying to say that the calls for his resignation are unwarranted?

 

Unwarranted? I do not believe they are trying to say that in the letter. Quote the part you believe says that.

 

The whole section of "Efforts to oust Melson" implies the only reason such an effort would be to shut him up.

 

 

I believe that is the only reason. Can you name another reason why it is suddenly urgent that he go? We have known about his involvement for some time, and when he was not cooperating, there were calls for his resignation from one side.

 

Now that he is cooperating, there are suddenly calls for his resignation from the other side.

 

That does not mean his resignation is unwarranted. It is clearly still warranted. I just do not see the harm of trying to get a bit more of the truth out of him before he goes. That means he needs protection and incentives to speak.

 

What is making you and Grassley think he would be any less able to tell his story after he has resigned?

Lawyer bills defending himself as a private citizen for actions taken when a part of the government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawyer bills defending himself as a private citizen for actions taken when a part of the government.

Yep same reason people are not leaving the CIA for fear of footing their own lawyer bills with the Obama/Holder vendetta against their actions with enhanced interrogation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lawyer bills defending himself as a private citizen for actions taken when a part of the government.

 

That is wrong. If he needs a lawyer to defend himself from criminal charges, the government isn't going to buy him one, not even while still employed. Nor is he immune to lawsuits or criminal charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can be fairly certain that the President reads media sources other than the Washington Post, because

thing in "the press."

 

What they

he read those press reports.

 

Another question that has been bugging me is: The President is learning shit like this in the press???? Do his underlings treat him like a mushroom or something, keeping him in the dark and feeding him shit?

 

Well, since your new hero, Melson, claims that he didn't know what his own department was doing, how would the president know?

 

He may not have known, but Holder did know about "gun runner". Check the date of the speech.

http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090402.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can be fairly certain that the President reads media sources other than the Washington Post, because

thing in "the press."

 

What they

he read those press reports.

 

Another question that has been bugging me is: The President is learning shit like this in the press???? Do his underlings treat him like a mushroom or something, keeping him in the dark and feeding him shit?

 

Well, since your new hero, Melson, claims that he didn't know what his own department was doing, how would the president know?

 

He may not have known, but Holder did know about "gun runner". Check the date of the speech.

http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090402.html

 

Project Gunrunner predated Fast & Furious. It started in 2005. I should hope that Holder was aware of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can be fairly certain that the President reads media sources other than the Washington Post, because

thing in "the press."

 

What they

he read those press reports.

 

Another question that has been bugging me is: The President is learning shit like this in the press???? Do his underlings treat him like a mushroom or something, keeping him in the dark and feeding him shit?

 

Well, since your new hero, Melson, claims that he didn't know what his own department was doing, how would the president know?

 

He may not have known, but Holder did know about "gun runner". Check the date of the speech.

http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090402.html

 

Project Gunrunner predated Fast & Furious. It started in 2005. I should hope that Holder was aware of it.

Mission creep? I believe that F&F used the same personnel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Grassley/Issa letter:

 

According to Mr. Melson, it was not until after the public controversy that he personally reviewed hundreds of documents relating to the case, including wiretap applications and Reports of Investigation (ROIs). By his

account, he was sick to his stomach when he obtained those documents and learned the full story.

 

Is Melson lying or is he not lying?

 

Which is it Tom?

 

Lying. Or possibly watching his video feed blindfolded. But I'm going to guess lying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Grassley/Issa letter:

 

According to Mr. Melson, it was not until after the public controversy that he personally reviewed hundreds of documents relating to the case, including wiretap applications and Reports of Investigation (ROIs). By his

account, he was sick to his stomach when he obtained those documents and learned the full story.

 

Is Melson lying or is he not lying?

 

Which is it Tom?

 

Lying. Or possibly watching his video feed blindfolded. But I'm going to guess lying.

 

If you think he's lying about that, then why do you think he's telling the truth about anything else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Grassley/Issa letter:

 

According to Mr. Melson, it was not until after the public controversy that he personally reviewed hundreds of documents relating to the case, including wiretap applications and Reports of Investigation (ROIs). By his

account, he was sick to his stomach when he obtained those documents and learned the full story.

 

Is Melson lying or is he not lying?

 

Which is it Tom?

 

Lying. Or possibly watching his video feed blindfolded. But I'm going to guess lying.

 

If you think he's lying about that, then why do you think he's telling the truth about anything else?

 

Because that does not seem credible based on other evidence, but other things are supported by evidence.

 

Who knows anything about this scandal and has not been proven to be lying about it? I can't think of anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Grassley/Issa letter:

 

According to Mr. Melson, it was not until after the public controversy that he personally reviewed hundreds of documents relating to the case, including wiretap applications and Reports of Investigation (ROIs). By his

account, he was sick to his stomach when he obtained those documents and learned the full story.

 

Is Melson lying or is he not lying?

 

Which is it Tom?

 

Lying. Or possibly watching his video feed blindfolded. But I'm going to guess lying.

 

If you think he's lying about that, then why do you think he's telling the truth about anything else?

 

Because that does not seem credible based on other evidence, but other things are supported by evidence.

 

Who knows anything about this scandal and has not been proven to be lying about it? I can't think of anyone.

 

Did Dobson and Focelli lie?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who knows anything about this scandal and has not been proven to be lying about it? I can't think of anyone.

 

My question does not ask what I intended, resulting in Mark's question. I should have asked:

 

Who knows anything about who authorized this scandal and has not been proven to be lying about it? I can't think of anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would our government walk guns to Honduras?

 

First, and this is important to understand: the Tampa operation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that "Project Gunwalker" was a national strategy, not a Phoenix aberration. The "major media" has been slow to understand this. They have ignored the fact that the Houston Field Division had to have played a supervisory role in known straw buying incidents in Dallas and Columbus NM as they are in their area of operations, not Phoenix's. Original reporting on this subject from Texas has been pitiful.

 

Second, Honduras is where the action is.

 

Hillary.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Dobson and Focelli lie?

 

Who?

 

Why are you dodging that question?

 

Why don't you learn their names? Or read my rewrite of the question? Or both?

 

Engaging in pedantry is a dodge.

 

There really is no reason to be so defensive. You said you didn't know of anybody who was being honest. Well, so far, nobody that I am aware of had even so much as insinuated that they told nothing but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth during their testimony. I had merely thought you might have simply overlooked them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows anything about who authorized this scandal and has not been proven to be lying about it? I can't think of anyone.

 

Dodson and Forcelli are whistleblowers, not authorizers. :rolleyes:

 

The revised statement is more accurate than the original.

 

Well, the people in the Phoenix DOJ office haven't lied, AFAIK, but then again, AFAIK, they completely clammed up right at the get-go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows anything about who authorized this scandal and has not been proven to be lying about it? I can't think of anyone.

 

Dodson and Forcelli are whistleblowers, not authorizers. :rolleyes:

 

The revised statement is more accurate than the original.

 

Well, the people in the Phoenix DOJ office haven't lied, AFAIK, but then again, AFAIK, they completely clammed up right at the get-go.

 

The revised question has been up there since 7:30 this morning, and pretending to ignore it is pretty childish.

 

I'll grant you that people who have said nothing have not been proven liars. The selective targeting of Melson as the only one who has lost all credibility seems suspicious to me.

 

If telling a lie in this matter destroys all credibility and should mean instant resignation, why does Weich still have a job? Newell? Shall I go on?

 

All of a sudden we must destroy and dispose of Melson, huh? Why? He's just starting to talk to investigators, and they want him to keep talking. I do too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows anything about who authorized this scandal and has not been proven to be lying about it? I can't think of anyone.

 

Dodson and Forcelli are whistleblowers, not authorizers. :rolleyes:

 

The revised statement is more accurate than the original.

 

Well, the people in the Phoenix DOJ office haven't lied, AFAIK, but then again, AFAIK, they completely clammed up right at the get-go.

 

The revised question has been up there since 7:30 this morning, and pretending to ignore it is pretty childish.

 

I'll grant you that people who have said nothing have not been proven liars. The selective targeting of Melson as the only one who has lost all credibility seems suspicious to me.

 

If telling a lie in this matter destroys all credibility and should mean instant resignation, why does Weich still have a job? Newell? Shall I go on?

 

All of a sudden we must destroy and dispose of Melson, huh? Why? He's just starting to talk to investigators, and they want him to keep talking. I do too.

 

 

Your "revised question" is not addressed to me and has nothing to do with the post I made, yet somehow it's existence makes me childish...

 

Why are you attempting to insult me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your "revised question" is not addressed to me and has nothing to do with the post I made,

 

Who knows anything about this scandal and has not been proven to be lying about it? I can't think of anyone.

 

My question does not ask what I intended, resulting in Mark's question. I should have asked:

 

Who knows anything about who authorized this scandal and has not been proven to be lying about it? I can't think of anyone.

 

The original question was in response to wabbit, yet you answered it. I revised the question because of the post you made, as I indicated. The revision was caused by you and was therefore addressed to you, which I thought was obvious.

 

If you want to continue playing childish word games, go answer my question over here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your "revised question" is not addressed to me and has nothing to do with the post I made,

 

Who knows anything about this scandal and has not been proven to be lying about it? I can't think of anyone.

 

My question does not ask what I intended, resulting in Mark's question. I should have asked:

 

Who knows anything about who authorized this scandal and has not been proven to be lying about it? I can't think of anyone.

 

The original question was in response to wabbit, yet you answered it. I revised the question because of the post you made, as I indicated. The revision was caused by you and was therefore addressed to you, which I thought was obvious.

 

If you want to continue playing childish word games, go answer my question over here.

 

That wasn't the question you linked to when you decided to call me childish for ignoring it. You specifically addressed me and linked to a specific question that I was being childish for ignoring, but now, I see am being childish for not addressing another question to Wabbit, which was not mentioned.

 

Pathetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your "revised question" is not addressed to me and has nothing to do with the post I made,

 

Who knows anything about this scandal and has not been proven to be lying about it? I can't think of anyone.

 

My question does not ask what I intended, resulting in Mark's question. I should have asked:

 

Who knows anything about who authorized this scandal and has not been proven to be lying about it? I can't think of anyone.

 

The original question was in response to wabbit, yet you answered it. I revised the question because of the post you made, as I indicated. The revision was caused by you and was therefore addressed to you, which I thought was obvious.

 

If you want to continue playing childish word games, go answer my question over here.

 

That wasn't the question you linked to when you decided to call me childish for ignoring it. You specifically addressed me and linked to a specific question that I was being childish for ignoring, but now, I see am being childish for not addressing another question to Wabbit, which was not mentioned.

 

Pathetic.

 

You answered my question to wabbit with your own "gotcha" question, once again misspelling the names of the agents that I tried to teach you a while back. It reminded me of the awkwardness when your buddy Elijah Cummings did not seem to know Brian Terry's name, and shows about the same level of respect for those agents.

 

I was "defensive" for reminding you of that lesson? I thought I was being helpful. Don't blame me if you do not learn and I remind. :P

 

What was childish was continuing to cling to the question I asked wabbit, even after I asked you to have a look at the revision that I did in your honor. It is still childish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You answered my question to wabbit with your own "gotcha" question, once again misspelling the names of the agents that I tried to teach you a while back. It reminded me of the awkwardness when your buddy Elijah Cummings did not seem to know Brian Terry's name, and shows about the same level of respect for those agents.

 

I was "defensive" for reminding you of that lesson? I thought I was being helpful. Don't blame me if you do not learn and I remind. :P

 

What was childish was continuing to cling to the question I asked wabbit, even after I asked you to have a look at the revision that I did in your honor. It is still childish.

 

No, I commented on your statement that nobody who is involved in this can be believed. I really wasn't intending that as a "gotcha" question. You made me think about if there was indeed anyone who was telling a story that I was giving full trust in, and they came up.

 

We have needled each other in the past, so I'm not assigning all the blame, but if there is to be communication now, you have to be less reflexively defensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the thread and try to keep up, Mark.

 

Pointing out what happened is not being defensive.

 

I already revised the question because of the one you asked, and continuing to ignore that revision and demand that I answer the previous question was just childish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the thread and try to keep up, Mark.

 

Pointing out what happened is not being defensive.

 

I already revised the question because of the one you asked, and continuing to ignore that revision and demand that I answer the previous question was just childish.

 

Where did I demand you answer a question?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Dobson and Focelli lie?

 

Who?

 

Why are you dodging that question?

 

Why don't you learn their names? Or read my rewrite of the question? Or both?

 

Was the accusation of dodging the (already revised, as you well knew) question not some kind of a demand that I go back to answering the pre-revision question? It sure seemed like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Dobson and Focelli lie?

 

Who?

 

Why are you dodging that question?

 

Why don't you learn their names? Or read my rewrite of the question? Or both?

 

Was the accusation of dodging the (already revised, as you well knew) question not some kind of a demand that I go back to answering the pre-revision question? It sure seemed like it.

 

I see what you are referring to now. The reason for my question is that this is the one area where we might have had some agreement on somebody telling the truth in this story. Some epistemological agreement.

 

It was met with pedantic sarcasm. Like I said, we have needled each other in the past, but if there can be nothing but needling, then there can be no further discussion on the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pedantic sarcasm?

 

I was not being sarcastic in my suggestion that you learn the agents' names, nor was I being pedantic by asking you to read the question I rewrote just for you instead of continuing to pursue the pre-rewrite version.

 

Seriously, the first time you got their names wrong, I gently corrected you. I thought linking back to that post was a pretty gentle way of pointing out the second occurrence of the mistake, at least by PA standards. It was not meant as sarcasm. You should learn their names.

 

If you're truly done playing word games, prove it by answering this simple, yes or no question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pedantic sarcasm?

 

I was not being sarcastic in my suggestion that you learn the agents' names, nor was I being pedantic by asking you to read the question I rewrote just for you instead of continuing to pursue the pre-rewrite version.

 

Seriously, the first time you got their names wrong, I gently corrected you. I thought linking back to that post was a pretty gentle way of pointing out the second occurrence of the mistake, at least by PA standards. It was not meant as sarcasm. You should learn their names.

 

If you're truly done playing word games, prove it by answering this simple, yes or no question.

 

The making of a big deal over transposing the spelling Dodson to Dobson is pedantic, but also very childish.

Link to post
Share on other sites