Jump to content

Obama's Mexican Gunrunning Operation


Recommended Posts

Was the the FBI aware of F and F? and if so it would seem Justice was coordinating…

 

“In the latest chapter of the gunrunning scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, federal officials are refusing to explain how two suspects obtained more than 360 weapons despite criminal records that should have prevented them from buying even one gun.

Under current federal law, people with felony convictions are not permitted to buy weapons, and those with felony arrests are typically flagged while the FBI conducts a thorough background check.”

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/25/feds-refuse-to-explain-why-proper-background-checks-werent-conducted-on-fast/

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

Dem Oversight: Holder Should Not Resign

 

How CNS News and most people see Operation Fast and Furious:

 

That operation was run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), under the Justice Department, and deliberately allowed guns to be sold and "to walk" into the hands of Mexican criminals and drug cartels. Many of those guns were then used in crimes and two of the guns were found at the scene where U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered in December 2010.

 

How Rep. Carolyn Maloney sees Operation Fast and Furious:

 

Do you think he should resign over 'Operation Fast and Furious'?

 

Rep. Maloney said, "No, I do not. Operation Fast and Furious is under investigation and we've had one hearing on it. We intend to have more and more investigations, more interviews and we will go where it takes us."

 

"Right now, we heard about these loopholes in the law – law enforcement asked for greater tools so that they could get convictions and try to stop the flow of illegal guns and that's where we are now," she said. "So we will continue our investigation."

 

As noted way upthread, there have been two hearings, the first one having been about the constitutional powers of the oversight committee to force cooperation from a stonewalling Justice Department. That kind of thing, like the real subject of the Fast and Furious investigation, is just not polite to mention in some quarters.

 

I think "going where it takes us" should lead to things like, you know, the gunwalking authorized by our government in violation of various laws and treaties. Seems an appropriate subject for oversight to me.

 

Maloney wanted more gun control before the investigation showed her that more gun control was needed (but apparently did not yet show her that our government was being "felony stupid" in this operation). What a keen investigator.

 

I'm glad we have real oversight from the opposition party. Further evidence that our government only functions when power is divided between the duopoly parties.

 

I'm a little confused Tom.

 

Why do you think that Holder should resign but not Melson?

 

If Melson didn't know what was going on (testimony you cited) then how would Holder (even farther up the chain) know?

 

And why should anyone give a crap how CNS News sees anything? It's not like it's a legitimate news source, or anything.

 

You're more than a little confused, you're deliberately ignoring things I have repeated many times.

 

I never said Melson should resign, but I'll say it now. He should, once he ceases to be useful to investigators, and not before.

 

I already said several times that I do not believe all of Melson's denials. Specifically, I referenced his request for a video feed of these straw purchases several times. That seems more than a bit suspicious to me, coming from someone who did not know they were happening. As I have said many times, he is cooperating now in an effort to save his ass. That does not make him a saint, but it does make him useful.

 

Do you agree more with CNS's take on Fast and Furious, or Maloney's? Just curious.

 

Why are you focused on Melson's resignation, but not things like the allegations against Holder? It seems like you want a successful coverup, since Melson is now cooperating and your interest in getting rid of him dates pretty precisely to the beginning of that cooperation.

 

I have said repeatedly that Holder's testimony in May that he learned of this scandal "a few weeks" earlier was either a lie or an admission of incompetence in light of Grassley's letter of January 31, numerous media reports, and even a soon-to-be-mega thread on Political Anarchy. We knew about it before he did? Give me a break. He lied, or is the biggest boob on the planet. I think either one means he needs to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you really arguing that interdicting is the same as tracking?

 

By his own testimony, as butchered as it has been by Issa (speaking of creative editing), Casa was ordered to "surveil."

 

Do you know what "surveil" means, Tom?

 

No, the agents wanted to put an end to the tracking (or surveillance, if you prefer) by interdicting. They were ordered not to do that, so they continued to surveil...

 

And then what happened? Are they still watching those guys, did they interdict them, or did they get away when they realized they were being followed and the agents were ordered not to interdict? Has to be one of the three...

 

So what happened to the guns that were being surveiled or tracked or whatever anyway?

 

Since you won't answer, I'll help you out...

 

The agents were ordered to let them walk, and walk they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you focused on Melson's resignation, but not things like the allegations against Holder?

 

I dunno. Maybe because all your "allegations" against Holder are coming from crackpot news sources like WND and CNS News?

 

Are you denying that he testified before Congress in May that he learned of this a few weeks before, denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists and should have merited action on Holder's part, denying that many media sources, notably CBS News and Political Anarchy (hey, ask Clean) reported on this scandal before Holder said he learned of it?

 

I want to know which part to prove without reference to crackpots, but I have to know how deep your denial runs. Do you buy Mark's theory that this whole investigation is just an NRA smear job trying to increase dealer sales?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ATF sent warning letters to witnesses called to the latest hearings

 

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, California Republican, said at least two scheduled witnesses expected to be asked about a controversial weapons investigation known as “Fast and Furious”received warning letters from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to limit their testimony.

 

...

 

But after receiving subpoenas, at least two of the agents got letters from ATF Associate Chief Counsel Barry S. Orlow warning them to keep certain areas off-limits, including those still under investigation.

 

Mr. Issa said at least one witness wanted to back out of testifying to his committee after receiving the letter, but the chairman declined that request. Instead he fired a letter back to William J. Hoover, deputy director of ATF, saying the “timing and content of this letter strongly suggest that ATF is obstructing and interfering with the congressional investigation.”

 

ATF, in a statement, said letters sent to agents subpoenaed to testify before Congress are “essentially the same as the standard document provided to ATF witnesses subpoenaed to testify in court.” It said the witnesses are “encouraged to answer fully and candidly all questions concerning matters within his personal knowledge,” but provide “guidance” about revealing statutorily prohibited information.

 

Essentially the same is not the same. I wonder what is different and why? In any case, the explanation does not wash. Congress writes the statutes, and they give themselves wide latitude in investigating how they are being followed (or not) by the executive branch.

 

With respect to the various DOJ officials mentioned in post 602, the ones who the Oversight Committee is certain had knowledge of the gunwalking, Issa had this to say:

 

Mr. Issa also said he is certain the Fast and Furious operation was known by most top officials at the Justice Department and that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. either knew and misled Congress, or was so out of the loop that he’s guilty of mismanagement.

 

“How is it that the No. 2, 3, 4 at Justice all knew about this program, but the No. 1 didn’t?,” Mr. Issa said. “Is it because he said ‘don’t tell me’? Is it because they knew what they were doing is wrong, and they were protecting their boss? Or is it that Eric Holder is just so disconnected…?

 

CBS News knew about the gunwalking in February, Political Anarchy in March, and the guy in charge in April. Yeah, that's believable. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you focused on Melson's resignation, but not things like the allegations against Holder?

 

I dunno. Maybe because all your "allegations" against Holder are coming from crackpot news sources like WND and CNS News?

 

Are you denying that he testified before Congress in May that he learned of this a few weeks before, denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists and should have merited action on Holder's part, denying that many media sources, notably CBS News and Political Anarchy (hey, ask Clean) reported on this scandal before Holder said he learned of it?

 

I want to know which part to prove without reference to crackpots, but I have to know how deep your denial runs. Do you buy Mark's theory that this whole investigation is just an NRA smear job trying to increase dealer sales?

 

Holder denied the existence of the Grassley letter? Really? Can you show us where he did that?

 

Or are you going to resort to the "obvious caricature" defense again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you focused on Melson's resignation, but not things like the allegations against Holder?

 

I dunno. Maybe because all your "allegations" against Holder are coming from crackpot news sources like WND and CNS News?

 

Are you denying that he testified before Congress in May that he learned of this a few weeks before, denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists and should have merited action on Holder's part, denying that many media sources, notably CBS News and Political Anarchy (hey, ask Clean) reported on this scandal before Holder said he learned of it?

 

I want to know which part to prove without reference to crackpots, but I have to know how deep your denial runs. Do you buy Mark's theory that this whole investigation is just an NRA smear job trying to increase dealer sales?

 

Holder denied the existence of the Grassley letter? Really? Can you show us where he did that?

 

Or are you going to resort to the "obvious caricature" defense again?

Well, if he said in May that he had only heard about it a few weeks before, that would be April. Being generous, we could say March. But, he got the letter requesting information by congress in January. I would figure that means hearing about it. Certainly a congressional inquiry constitutes hearing about it and any mystification would be, hmmmmm, suspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you focused on Melson's resignation, but not things like the allegations against Holder?

 

I dunno. Maybe because all your "allegations" against Holder are coming from crackpot news sources like WND and CNS News?

 

Are you denying that he testified before Congress in May that he learned of this a few weeks before, denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists and should have merited action on Holder's part, denying that many media sources, notably CBS News and Political Anarchy (hey, ask Clean) reported on this scandal before Holder said he learned of it?

 

I want to know which part to prove without reference to crackpots, but I have to know how deep your denial runs. Do you buy Mark's theory that this whole investigation is just an NRA smear job trying to increase dealer sales?

 

Holder denied the existence of the Grassley letter? Really? Can you show us where he did that?

 

Or are you going to resort to the "obvious caricature" defense again?

 

Good grief. Trouble with compound sentences again? Let me break it down for you again.

 

Are you denying that he testified before Congress in May that he learned of this a few weeks before?

 

Are you denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists and should have merited action on Holder's part?

 

Are you denying that many media sources, notably CBS News and Political Anarchy (hey, ask Clean) reported on this scandal before Holder said he learned of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wabbitt should be along anytime telling us not to believe those crackpot media sources. Oh wait that was in the LA Times, never mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you denying that he testified before Congress in May that he learned of this a few weeks before, denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists and should have merited action on Holder's part, denying that many media sources, notably CBS News and Political Anarchy (hey, ask Clean) reported on this scandal before Holder said he learned of it?

 

I want to know which part to prove without reference to crackpots, but I have to know how deep your denial runs. Do you buy Mark's theory that this whole investigation is just an NRA smear job trying to increase dealer sales?

 

Holder denied the existence of the Grassley letter? Really? Can you show us where he did that?

 

Or are you going to resort to the "obvious caricature" defense again?

 

Good grief. Trouble with compound sentences again? Let me break it down for you again.

 

Are you denying that he testified before Congress in May that he learned of this a few weeks before?

 

Are you denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists and should have merited action on Holder's part?

 

Are you denying that many media sources, notably CBS News and Political Anarchy (hey, ask Clean) reported on this scandal before Holder said he learned of it?

 

I don't have any trouble at all. Saying that Holder is "denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists" is bullshit. Holder isn't denying that a letter that wasn't even addressed to him doesn't exist.

 

If Grassley wanted Holder to take some "action," then why didn't he address the letter to Holder? Do you think that the Attorney General personally reads every piece of correspondence that arrives at his office? What do you think an assistant does with a letter that isn't even addressed to him? Have you ever worked in a big organization? How do you think a "CC" is used?

 

The first letter that was sent to Holder was actually on March 3. The Committee hearing that I assume you are talking about was on May 3. Are you really arguing that the Attorney General of the US should resign because you think that it was inaccurate to characterize the time between March 4 and May 3 as "probably the last few weeks?"

 

You are being ridiculous.

 

Sure, if Holder knew that the ATF was letting straw buyers purchase guns and they weren't tracking those guns to the final buyers, he should resign. Hell, he should be fired. But that's not what happened. Even Grassley/Issa's new darling, Melson, claims that he was shocked when he found out. So how the hell would the Attorney General know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wabbitt should be along anytime telling us not to believe those crackpot media sources. Oh wait that was in the LA Times, never mind.

 

Yeah, we'll we know about the Wabbit.

 

Here's more:

 

It's the first time anyone has publicly stated that a White House official had any familiarity with ATF's operation Fast and Furious, which allowed thousands of weapons to fall into the hands of suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels in an attempt to gain intelligence. It's unknown as to whether O'Reilly shared information with anybody else at the White House.

 

 

Congressional investigators obtained an email from Newell to O'Reilly in September of last year in which Newell began with the words: "you didn't get this from me."

 

 

"What does that mean," one member of Congress asked Newell, " 'you didn't get this from me?' "

 

"Obviously he was a friend of mine," Newell replied, "and I shouldn't have been sending that to him."

 

 

Newell told Congress that O'Reilly had asked him for information.

 

 

"Why do you think he asked for that information," Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) asked Newell.

 

"He was asking about the impact of Project Gunrunner to brief people in preparation for a trip to Mexico... what we were doing to combat firearms trafficking and other issues."

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you denying that he testified before Congress in May that he learned of this a few weeks before, denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists and should have merited action on Holder's part, denying that many media sources, notably CBS News and Political Anarchy (hey, ask Clean) reported on this scandal before Holder said he learned of it?

 

I want to know which part to prove without reference to crackpots, but I have to know how deep your denial runs. Do you buy Mark's theory that this whole investigation is just an NRA smear job trying to increase dealer sales?

 

Holder denied the existence of the Grassley letter? Really? Can you show us where he did that?

 

Or are you going to resort to the "obvious caricature" defense again?

 

Good grief. Trouble with compound sentences again? Let me break it down for you again.

 

Are you denying that he testified before Congress in May that he learned of this a few weeks before?

 

Are you denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists and should have merited action on Holder's part?

 

Are you denying that many media sources, notably CBS News and Political Anarchy (hey, ask Clean) reported on this scandal before Holder said he learned of it?

 

I don't have any trouble at all. Saying that Holder is "denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists" is bullshit. Holder isn't denying that a letter that wasn't even addressed to him doesn't exist.

 

If Grassley wanted Holder to take some "action," then why didn't he address the letter to Holder? Do you think that the Attorney General personally reads every piece of correspondence that arrives at his office? What do you think an assistant does with a letter that isn't even addressed to him? Have you ever worked in a big organization? How do you think a "CC" is used?

 

The first letter that was sent to Holder was actually on March 3. The Committee hearing that I assume you are talking about was on May 3. Are you really arguing that the Attorney General of the US should resign because you think that it was inaccurate to characterize the time between March 4 and May 3 as "probably the last few weeks?"

 

You are being ridiculous.

 

Sure, if Holder knew that the ATF was letting straw buyers purchase guns and they weren't tracking those guns to the final buyers, he should resign. Hell, he should be fired. But that's not what happened. Even Grassley/Issa's new darling, Melson, claims that he was shocked when he found out. So how the hell would the Attorney General know?

Believe me. Any time a department gets a congressional inquiry it goes to the legislative affairs branch and gets tracked and reported from the day it arrives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you denying that he testified before Congress in May that he learned of this a few weeks before, denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists and should have merited action on Holder's part, denying that many media sources, notably CBS News and Political Anarchy (hey, ask Clean) reported on this scandal before Holder said he learned of it?

 

I want to know which part to prove without reference to crackpots, but I have to know how deep your denial runs. Do you buy Mark's theory that this whole investigation is just an NRA smear job trying to increase dealer sales?

 

Holder denied the existence of the Grassley letter? Really? Can you show us where he did that?

 

Or are you going to resort to the "obvious caricature" defense again?

 

Good grief. Trouble with compound sentences again? Let me break it down for you again.

 

Are you denying that he testified before Congress in May that he learned of this a few weeks before?

 

Are you denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists and should have merited action on Holder's part?

 

Are you denying that many media sources, notably CBS News and Political Anarchy (hey, ask Clean) reported on this scandal before Holder said he learned of it?

 

I don't have any trouble at all. Saying that Holder is "denying Grassley's letter of January 31st exists" is bullshit. Holder isn't denying that a letter that wasn't even addressed to him doesn't exist.

 

If Grassley wanted Holder to take some "action," then why didn't he address the letter to Holder? Do you think that the Attorney General personally reads every piece of correspondence that arrives at his office? What do you think an assistant does with a letter that isn't even addressed to him? Have you ever worked in a big organization? How do you think a "CC" is used?

 

The first letter that was sent to Holder was actually on March 3. The Committee hearing that I assume you are talking about was on May 3. Are you really arguing that the Attorney General of the US should resign because you think that it was inaccurate to characterize the time between March 4 and May 3 as "probably the last few weeks?"

 

You are being ridiculous.

 

Sure, if Holder knew that the ATF was letting straw buyers purchase guns and they weren't tracking those guns to the final buyers, he should resign. Hell, he should be fired. But that's not what happened. Even Grassley/Issa's new darling, Melson, claims that he was shocked when he found out. So how the hell would the Attorney General know?

 

I never said Holder was denying Grassley's letter exists. I was asking whether you were denying it exists, as I thought breaking up the compound sentence would make clear. It did not, so you're clearly still having trouble.

 

Grassley wanted to bring the matter to Holder's attention, so he Cc'ed him. That should have brought it to his attention. As I said a while back:

 

Imagine you are an ATF Director who has been watching illegal straw purchases on his office video feed, and you get a letter that says this from a US Senator:

 

Members of the Judiciary Committee have received numerous allegations that the ATF sanctioned the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to suspected straw purchasers, who then allegedly transported these weapons throughout the southwestern border area and into Mexico. According to the allegations, one of these individuals purchased three assault rifles with cash in Glendale, Arizona on January 16, 2010. Two of the weapons were then allegedly used in a firefight on December 14, 2010 against Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, killing CBP Agent Brian Terry.

 

That's what Grassley wrote to Melson on January 27th.

 

Do you take a letter like that to your boss, and maybe tell him that he might want to have his boss there? Apparently not. Instead, the ATF took other action, resulting in Grassley's letter of January 31st, which copied Holder and said the following:

 

As you know, I wrote you on Thursday, January 27, regarding serious allegations associated with Project Gunrunner and the death of Customs and Protection Agent Brian Terry. Although the staff briefing I requested has not been scheduled, it appears that the ATF is reacting in less productive ways to my request. I understand that Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) George Gillette of the ATF's Phoenix office questioned one of the individual agents who answered my staff's questions about Project Gunrunner.

 

None of which is hard to find out, if you have the slightest interest in learning it. It seems that the New York Times' reaction to a Congressman accusing the Attorney General of lying to Congress is not to take any interest in whether the accusation is true.

 

Seems to me that a competent news organization would have discovered the letters and asked Holder whether he ever got his copy.

 

An assistant in a reasonably competent Justice Department would realize that this is a serious matter, there were violations of law by the government that resulted in deaths, and a Senator was on the edge of alleging obstruction of a Congressional investigation. That kind of thing does not just get marked "read" by an assistant in a competent department. It goes to the boss directly.

 

I still do not believe Melson's denials that he knew, any more than I believe Holder's. We do not have an email from Holder requesting the IP information so that he could watch the straw purchases live from his office, so it is not quite as clear to me that he is lying, but it's still clear enough. He knew, or should have known, what was going on in his department long before it appeared on Political Anarchy, and he says he did not. Incompetent or lying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The news coverage? No, it has been this bad all along.

 

The goal of the Fast and Furious operation, run by the Phoenix office of the ATF, was to allow straw purchasers to illegally buy weapons in the U.S. so agents could learn the traffickers' routes into Mexico. The agents were then supposed to intervene before the guns were sold to drug cartels. But agents lost track of roughly 1,700 weapons, and hundreds soon began showing up at homicide scenes in Mexico.

 

Funny, I listened to the agents, and they did not really say that they were supposed to interdict the weapons, but that they somehow lost track of them. To hear the agents involved tell it, it sounds a lot more like they were ordered NOT to interdict the weapons, and they told their bosses that the program was insanely stupid for that very reason.

 

The LA Times somehow sees incompetent agents as the problem here, but the real problem was incompetent politicians. We were spared from having the stupidity and deaths continue only by competent agents and extremist gun bloggers blowing the whistle on the idiotic political types.

 

Oddly, the very same article goes on to say:

 

When the two guns were found at the scene of Terry's death nearTucson, it sparked anger among rank-and-file agents — who resented orders to let weapons "walk" — and a concerted effort by their superiors to contain the damage.

 

Were the agents ordered to let weapons walk, or were they ordered to intervene before the guns were sold to cartels? It can't be both, and we all know now which one is the truth.

 

This was almost too much for me:

 

But Newell defended the operation. "I don't like the perception that we allowed guns to 'walk,'" he wrote.

 

Yeah, I would not like it either, especially if it is an accurate perception, as the whistleblowing agents have all said. I would be really unhappy with the perception if I was one of the early ones out in front of cameras repeating the lie that gunwalking did not happen. It did, and the fact that it did is what is creating the perception that it did. I would not want to be perceived as a lying idiot either, but if I did idiotic stuff and lied about it, that is what would happen when the truth came out. Too bad. As a taxpayer, I don't like the fact that he still has a job. Some facts are just tough to deal with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not helping, is it?

 

http://forums.sailin...pic=120246&st=0

 

Seems to be working better than handling it on the QT was. When that approach produced only threats of retaliation from above, concerned and sane agents went this route. It really has not been a big NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales, and the main conclusion to be drawn really is not that we need more gun control laws. It was a big government operation, and the main conclusion to be drawn is that it would be best if our government abides by our laws and treaties we have signed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a Special Agent in Charge emails info about gunwalking to his friend at the White House and prefaces it by saying You didn't get this from me, what does that mean?

 

The answers given shed little light...

 

GOWDY: Let me ask you this. When you begin a sentence, "You didn't get this from me..." what does that mean to you?

 

NEWELL: Just means that didn't get it from me.

 

GOWDY: Well, but that's kind of a pleonasm, isn't it, because you are getting it from them? So it's a ‑‑ what do you mean by that, "You didn't get this from me..."? I'm referring to your e‑mail to Mr. O'Reilly (ph).

 

NEWELL: Well, obviously Mr. O'Reilly (ph) was a friend of mine and it's ‑‑ it's ‑‑ I shouldn't have been sending him that, obviously, I recognize that, it being a friend.

 

GOWDY: But what do you mean, "You didn't get this from me..."? Does that mean you should not have been talking to him about it?

 

NEWELL: Not that I shouldn't have been talking about. He's a friend of mine. He asked for information and I provided it to him.

 

GOWDY: Well, then, why wasn't it appropriate for you to give it to him? Why would you preface it by saying, "You didn't get this from me..."? Was it an improper communication?

 

NEWELL: No, it wasn't an improper communication.

 

GOWDY: Well, then, why would you preface it by that?

 

NEWELL: It's ‑‑ he's been a friend of mine for a long time and he asked me for information. So I gave him information that ‑‑ it's probably an improper use of the term or phrase.

 

 

Oh. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Newell did get one thing right:

 

After Newell’s outright denial of “walking” guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, the committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, asked Newell to define “walking” guns.

 

“My definition of walking, and I believe it’s a common law enforcement term, is when a law enforcement agency, whether it be DEA or a state or local agency, actually puts some sort of evidence into the hands of a suspect in an undercover operation or an investigation and, for instance, with the ATF it could be one of our prop guns, and then don’t follow up where that is going,” Newell said, adding that he believed his definition of “walking” guns did not happen in Operation Fast and Furious.

 

 

 

That's true. They were walking real guns, not props. I agree with Issa:

 

“You’re entitled to your own opinions, not to your own facts,” Issa responded. “But, there comes a point when I go, ‘Wait a second: 730 weapons bought by a man who had no money. Every penny he bought with he had to get from somebody.’ You knew that at some point. You knew who was buying them and you allowed it to continue.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the July 26 Congressional Oversight Committee Report:

 

Several individuals, such as Ray Rowley and those in OSII, had already expressed their

concerns, only to have them fall on deaf ears. Others, however, remained silent, despite the

ominous consequences:

 

Q. Was there any concern ever expressed about the guns being . . .

essentially just bee lined right to the drug trafficking organizations

about what the DTOs might actually do with the guns?

 

A. I think it was common knowledge that they were going down

there to be crime guns to use in the battle against the DTOs to

shoot each other.

 

Q. So these guns, in a way, are murder weapons?

 

A. Potentially.89

 

The only person that did speak up during the March 5, 2010 presentation was Robert Champion,

SAC for the Dallas Field Division participating by videoconference, who asked “What are we

doing about this?”90 According to Lorren Leadmon, in response, Joe Cooley from Main Justice

simply said that the movement of so many guns to Mexico was “an acceptable practice.”91

(Emphasis in original)

 

This after senior officials had discussed the movement of over 1,000 guns into Mexico and the fact that many of them quickly ended up in the hands of cartels.

 

 

The Phoenix Field Division and ATF headquarters extolled the virtues of the

investigation to ATF personnel in Mexico. For example, during Acting ATF Director Kenneth

Melson’s 2010 spring visit, Gil’s staff asked about the Phoenix case. Gil detailed Acting

Director Melson’s response:

 

Q. And do you recall what Mr. Melson said?

 

A. Generally his response was, he’s aware of it, it’s an ongoing

investigation, it’s providing some good intelligence . . . [A]ll

positive as far as the investigation, it looks good. And I remember,

I think Deputy Director Hoover was there. I think he turned to the

deputy director and said, yeah, we’ll check on it when we get back

but I think it's providing some good results and we’ll check on

when it’s going to be closed down, but my understanding it should

be closed down fairly soon.

 

"Fairly soon" turned out to be the end of the year, when Agent Terry was killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not helping, is it?

 

http://forums.sailin...pic=120246&st=0

 

Seems to be working better than handling it on the QT was. When that approach produced only threats of retaliation from above, concerned and sane agents went this route. It really has not been a big NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales, and the main conclusion to be drawn really is not that we need more gun control laws. It was a big government operation, and the main conclusion to be drawn is that it would be best if our government abides by our laws and treaties we have signed.

 

So you are still clinging to the notion that this was all a plot from Obama too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not helping, is it?

 

http://forums.sailin...pic=120246&st=0

 

Seems to be working better than handling it on the QT was. When that approach produced only threats of retaliation from above, concerned and sane agents went this route. It really has not been a big NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales, and the main conclusion to be drawn really is not that we need more gun control laws. It was a big government operation, and the main conclusion to be drawn is that it would be best if our government abides by our laws and treaties we have signed.

 

So you are still clinging to the notion that this was all a plot from Obama too?

Are you admitting Holders involvement then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not helping, is it?

 

http://forums.sailin...pic=120246&st=0

 

Seems to be working better than handling it on the QT was. When that approach produced only threats of retaliation from above, concerned and sane agents went this route. It really has not been a big NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales, and the main conclusion to be drawn really is not that we need more gun control laws. It was a big government operation, and the main conclusion to be drawn is that it would be best if our government abides by our laws and treaties we have signed.

 

So you are still clinging to the notion that this was all a plot from Obama too?

 

I have never said that.

 

You, on the other hand, have said that having a Congressional investigation into this is all just a big NRA ploy to increase gun sales. Any proof of that one yet, or is it still the biggest lie in this thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Turns out that the grand plan here was to keep the Mexicans (and ATF officials working in Mexico) in the dark about guns being walked to Mexico until they magically homed in on drug kingpins, at which time the Mexican government would be informed of who those kingpins were. Presumably, they would be thankful that we allowed all these guns into the hands of criminals in their country and not at all irritated at not being included.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not helping, is it?

 

http://forums.sailin...pic=120246&st=0

 

Seems to be working better than handling it on the QT was. When that approach produced only threats of retaliation from above, concerned and sane agents went this route. It really has not been a big NRA operation to increase gun dealer sales, and the main conclusion to be drawn really is not that we need more gun control laws. It was a big government operation, and the main conclusion to be drawn is that it would be best if our government abides by our laws and treaties we have signed.

 

So you are still clinging to the notion that this was all a plot from Obama too?

 

I have never said that.

 

You, on the other hand, have said that having a Congressional investigation into this is all just a big NRA ploy to increase gun sales. Any proof of that one yet, or is it still the biggest lie in this thread?

 

That was nanny's comment I was talking about, which you said was more true than what I has once said, so the question is not out of line. Especially now, after this comment indicates you think there are bigger lies, you have admitted you still see truth in it. Not that you are correct on your example of what I have stated, or anything. I think the NRA is seeking to diminish the ATF in every way they can to increase gun sales, and are hence maximizing their throw-weight on this investigation. That is a bit different than how you have characterized it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That was nanny's comment I was talking about, which you said was more true than what I has once said, so the question is not out of line. Especially now, after this comment indicates you think there are bigger lies, you have admitted you still see truth in it. Not that you are correct on your example of what I have stated, or anything. I think the NRA is seeking to diminish the ATF in every way they can to increase gun sales, and are hence maximizing their throw-weight on this investigation. That is a bit different than how you have characterized it.

 

What comment of his, and where did I comment on it?

 

I figured these comments about the NRA's role meant you thought they were behind this investigation:

 

 

Contrast that letter with Melson's testimony last year. http://www.atf.gov/p...opriations.html

 

He is quite proud of what Gunrunner accomplished in 2009, expanded it with Stim money, and is asking for more.

Lists alot of busts and arrests too.

 

They are attacking the field agents. They must want to stop them from running stings. NRA false flag operation? Pretend to be a crusader against gun smugglers to cover up the attack on ATF's stings that hurt sales?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm thinking the NRA (a front for the gun manufacturers) wanted to tip their dealers that the ATF is running these stings big-time, and concocted a pile of nonsense about Obama wanting to arm drug lords in order to do that. Issa and Grassley are providing political cover for the NRA's blowing of a LE sting operation.

 

A real concern about ATF incompetence in an on-going covert operation in a foreign country has to be handled on the QT. They are instead deliberately seeking to make it as public as possible. Cui bono?

 

We all benefit when what you called some of the stupidest law enforcement you have ever seen is ended, and the only way it was going to end was for the agents to blow the whistle in public, so they did. That resulted in this investigation, not some desire by the NRA to tip dealers (who were already cooperating in the "investigation") about the "stings" that were actually helping sales, but making the selling dealers very nervous because they were so obviously illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Led To Project Gunwalker?

 

Other than buying into the discredited 90% myth, this is a very complete look at gunwalking.

 

The focus was a group of individuals alleged to have bought more than 1,500 weapons in 15 months from Phoenix-area gun dealers on behalf of the cartels.

 

Some days, dozens of AK-47 variants would be purchased at once. The same buyer might return to the same store days later to buy 20, 30, 40 more weapons.

 

Dodson and the Group VII team often observed these buys from inside unmarked cars in the parking lots of the shops. But from the very beginning, he and other agents realized their mission in Phoenix wasn't to stop the guns at all.

 

"Stand down," the investigators were told whenever they sought permission to make a stop and attempt to retrieve the weapons. "Just surveil."

 

At times, agents followed buyers to their homes or drop points, but they would eventually be instructed to leave. They saw guns being transferred from one car into another, but then watched as that car drove away with the weapons.

 

In law enforcement parlance, the practice was known as "walking" guns.

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

 

Soon, the ATF issued its own reworked policy, calling for a more "creative" approach to gun probes and suggesting that straw purchasers be viewed as a stepping stone to identifying other members of a gun trafficking operation. The document noted that such a strategy was already being used in several ATF field divisions. Places like Phoenix, where ATF supervisors acknowledged in a memo summarizing Fast and Furious back in January 2010 that their strategy was to "allow the transfer of firearms" to take place in order to identify co-conspirators.

 

All of this led to a dramatic shift in tactics: ATF agents could let guns go in order to make a more substantial case. The ATF memo called it "limited or delayed interdiction," and seemed to anticipate what this would mean in terms of weighing risks vs. benefits. It warned that "practical considerations" may require bringing investigations to a quick close. Those included probes in which "numerous diverted firearms ... are being used in violent crimes and recovered by law enforcement."

 

It's an approach that some longtime ATF agents found astonishing.

 

"I can tell you in every case I was involved in, the bureau would've been afraid to let the guns go," said William Vizzard, who worked almost 30 years doing gun investigations for ATF and later taught criminal justice at California State University. "There was always the obsessive fear that if a gun goes out there ... it may be misused and traced back to you, and the political implications are terrible."

 

 

 

 

Or, the political implications should be terrible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Led To Project Gunwalker?

 

Other than buying into the discredited 90% myth, this is a very complete look at gunwalking.

 

 

Funny, I didn't think that you would like that story very much, since it fails to mention how Holder and Obama masterminded the operation.

 

We do not know who thought up or authorized this program, but there are a couple of possibilities:

 

1. US foreign policy with respect to Mexico was really being made in Phoenix by middle management types.

 

2. Foreign policy decisions that violate our laws and treaties we have signed go through the very top level of our government, and Holder and Obama have lied about this operation.

 

Really, I'm not sure which one reflects more poorly on the administration. I commented before on the "I didn't know" excuse...

 

Issa Looking at Field Agent Holder

 

Issa reaffirmed his certainty that the decision to allow guns to "walk" into Mexico was one made in Washington, not in border cities or local ATF offices as DOJ officials have contended.

 

"We're not done but what we do know is that the decision for this was not made in Tucson or El Paso or anywhere else," he said. "It was made in Washington."

 

"Looks like Iran Contra"? Now that is interesting. As I recall, Reagan knew nothing about that.

...

 

The head of the ATF and somebody in justice signed off on this plan, that is fairly assumable, but it's a leap to assume they conceived it, especially the lawyers in Justice.

 

Reagan knew, or should have known, how his minions were implementing foreign policy, and the same can be said of Obama.

...

 

This mysterious "somebody in Justice" sure is hard to find, isn't he? Perhaps because, once found, people will want to start asking that person why he was implementing his own foreign policy. I do not think anyone besides the President himself should be authorizing a program like this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Funny, I didn't think that you would like that story very much, since it fails to mention how Holder and Obama masterminded the operation.

 

We do not know who thought up or authorized this program, but there are a couple of possibilities:

 

1. US foreign policy with respect to Mexico was really being made in Phoenix by middle management types.

 

2. Foreign policy decisions that violate our laws and treaties we have signed go through the very top level of our government, and Holder and Obama have lied about this operation.

 

Really, I'm not sure which one reflects more poorly on the administration. I commented before on the "I didn't know" excuse...

 

Issa Looking at Field Agent Holder

 

Issa reaffirmed his certainty that the decision to allow guns to "walk" into Mexico was one made in Washington, not in border cities or local ATF offices as DOJ officials have contended.

 

"We're not done but what we do know is that the decision for this was not made in Tucson or El Paso or anywhere else," he said. "It was made in Washington."

 

"Looks like Iran Contra"? Now that is interesting. As I recall, Reagan knew nothing about that.

...

 

The head of the ATF and somebody in justice signed off on this plan, that is fairly assumable, but it's a leap to assume they conceived it, especially the lawyers in Justice.

 

Reagan knew, or should have known, how his minions were implementing foreign policy, and the same can be said of Obama.

...

 

This mysterious "somebody in Justice" sure is hard to find, isn't he? Perhaps because, once found, people will want to start asking that person why he was implementing his own foreign policy. I do not think anyone besides the President himself should be authorizing a program like this one.

 

Get's harder and harder to find witches these days. Especially when you have hearings like the one that went down this week and last month.

 

Don't stop looking Tom. There ARE witches. Just look for the "D".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those responsible are still hiding, it's true, but I thought the hearing was useful. If nothing else, the apology Mr. Gil issued to the Mexican people for the Fast and Furious program was appropriate. It's something like 10-15 minutes in...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By his own testimony, as butchered as it has been by Issa (speaking of creative editing), Casa was ordered to "surveil."

 

Do you know what "surveil" means, Tom?

 

 

Yes, I do. Do you know what "instructed to leave" means? How about "watched as that car drove away with the weapons"? Or are you going to again mistake an AP piece for a Fox piece and call it a fabrication?

 

 

What Led To Project Gunwalker?

 

Other than buying into the discredited 90% myth, this is a very complete look at gunwalking.

 

"Stand down," the investigators were told whenever they sought permission to make a stop and attempt to retrieve the weapons. "Just surveil."

 

At times, agents followed buyers to their homes or drop points, but they would eventually be instructed to leave. They saw guns being transferred from one car into another, but then watched as that car drove away with the weapons.

 

In law enforcement parlance, the practice was known as "walking" guns.

 

 

 

 

 

Funny, I didn't think that you would like that story very much, since it fails to mention how Holder and Obama masterminded the operation.

 

If you don't like the AP any more, how about the Philly Enquirer? Seems they are making up the same kinds of fabrications...

 

Fast and Furious was supposed to help make that happen. The plan was to allow straw purchasers to make their deliveries, and then the ATF would trace the flow of the weapons.

 

But one huge detail was left unaddressed: The ATF made no provisions to actually trace the guns once they crossed the border.

 

The agency wasn't attaching electronic-tracking devices to the guns, and agents were not pursuing them into Mexico. They were forced to stop and watch the weapons "walk." Maybe Mexican authorities could have picked up the trail - but the ATF never told its counterparts across the border about the operation.

 

So, essentially, the U.S. government was now arming the very drug cartels that it was supposed to be helping Mexican officials fight.

 

Agents themselves were appalled. "It goes against everything we've been taught," Special Agent Carlos Canino said last week at the latest in a series of hearings on Fast and Furious by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll interpret it myself: he meant that he was ordered not to track the guns, but to track the straw purchaser.

 

So you admit that you were wrong when you repeatedly asserted that they were ordered NOT to track the guns, right?

 

 

No, I'm still pretty sure that is correct, but I'm waiting to see how you interpret what agent Dodson said. Cue crickets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excerpt from the latest committee report:

 

As more information came to light, however, Gil and Canino concluded that hundreds and

hundreds of guns had been walked. These guns ended up in at crime scenes in Mexico, about

which Gil and Canino received extensive briefings. Gil and Canino became incensed when they

finally began to learn about the full scope of Operation Fast and Furious and the investigative

techniques involved:

 

Q. When you first got the impression that this was part of a strategy to

let guns walk into Mexico, what was your reaction to that strategy?

 

A. I wasn’t convinced that this happened until this past April after all

the allegations were made, and I talked to different people. I was

beyond shocked. Embarrassed. I was angry. I'm still angry.

Because this is not what we do.

 

* * *

 

That is, I mean, this is the perfect storm of idiocy. That is the

only way I could put it. This is, I mean, this is inconceivable to

me. This is group think gone awry. You know what General

George Patton says, if we are all thinking alike, then nobody is

thinking. Right? Nobody was thinking here. How could anybody

think, hey, let's follow, I mean there is a guy in this case that

bought over 600 guns. At what point do you think you might want

to pull him aside and say, hey, come here for a second.137

 

When Canino himself uncovered hard evidence that ATF had allowed the guns to disappear from

their surveillance he understood the whistleblower allegations were true:

 

Q. Okay, and take us through what happened in April.

 

A. I was here on a visit to headquarters.

 

Q. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms headquarters?

 

A. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms headquarters, and I was, I was

looking at a, the management log on this case. And the first two

pages, if I'm not mistaken, there are entries there that

chronicle us walking away on three separate occasions from

stash houses.

 

Q. And did that sound to you incredible?

 

A. I stopped reading.

 

Q. So you only got through two pages of this management log?

 

A. Yeah.

 

Q. And then you couldn't read it any longer?

 

A. Didn't want to.

 

Q. Because you were so upset?

 

A. Yes.

 

Q. And you were upset because walking away from three stash houses

struck you as so outrageous?

 

A. Walking away from one, walking away from one gun when you

know that that gun is going to be used in a crime when you, I

mean, there is no, there was no gray area here guys. There was

no gray area here. We knew that these guys were trafficking

guns into Mexico. There is no gray area. They weren't

trafficking, [the] guys weren't going out and buying two Larson 22

pistols. These guys were buying 7.62, 223's, .50 caliber rifles,

okay, there was no mistake about this. This is no gray area.

 

Is walking away from stash houses tracking guns, or were the agents who were ordered to walk away from those houses being ordered not to track the guns any more, wabbit? OK, so I have a cricket addiction. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why waste your time? Are you expecting Mark or Wabbit to suddenly see the light?

 

Anyone not completely outraged by this operation should go spend some time in Mexico with those affected. Moreover, if you think that Obama, Clinton and Holder didn't know the details of this operation, then you know nothing about how our government works - need-to-know, plausible deniability, implied consent. You bet your ass they knew! Proving it is an entirely different matter, and, like Clinton with Monica, by the time it is proven, it's simply a witch hunt by a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Where is the outrage?

 

While it's true that you can have an opinion but not your own facts, what do we make of those that work to juice the 'facts' to bolster their position? For example, a 'Fact' is that fewer people are crossing our border because arrests are down. But the FACT is that the BP has been ordered to not arrest border crossers until (I believe the testimony was) their 8th apprehension. Now we have the ATF and other government agencies letting guns walk, knowing they are going to Mexico, and, in light of the previous misrepresentations that have been told about US guns siezed in Mexico, it isn't somewhat obvious that they are juicing the 'facts' to make a case for gun control? How may other reasons could their be for letting the guns walk?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why waste your time? Are you expecting Mark or Wabbit to suddenly see the light?

 

Anyone not completely outraged by this operation should go spend some time in Mexico with those affected. Moreover, if you think that Obama, Clinton and Holder didn't know the details of this operation, then you know nothing about how our government works - need-to-know, plausible deniability, implied consent. You bet your ass they knew! Proving it is an entirely different matter, and, like Clinton with Monica, by the time it is proven, it's simply a witch hunt by a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Where is the outrage?

 

While it's true that you can have an opinion but not your own facts, what do we make of those that work to juice the 'facts' to bolster their position? For example, a 'Fact' is that fewer people are crossing our border because arrests are down. But the FACT is that the BP has been ordered to not arrest border crossers until (I believe the testimony was) their 8th apprehension. Now we have the ATF and other government agencies letting guns walk, knowing they are going to Mexico, and, in light of the previous misrepresentations that have been told about US guns siezed in Mexico, it isn't somewhat obvious that they are juicing the 'facts' to make a case for gun control? How may other reasons could their be for letting the guns walk?

 

Wow, if you are lecturing people about the facts, then you must have seen the hearing on CSPAN last week. How do you square your statements with what the agents who admitted they cooked it up are saying? I am having a tough time with that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Get's harder and harder to find witches these days. Especially when you have hearings like the one that went down this week and last month.

 

Don't stop looking Tom. There ARE witches. Just look for the "D".

Actually I'd guess that it is the D after Obama's name that is the reason why this is not headline news across the nation.

 

I remember Iran Contra hearings being covered on every channel live

 

The breathless comentators reminded us every few minutes that "This probably went to the top"

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Get's harder and harder to find witches these days. Especially when you have hearings like the one that went down this week and last month.

 

Don't stop looking Tom. There ARE witches. Just look for the "D".

Actually I'd guess that it is the D after Obama's name that is the reason why this is not headline news across the nation.

 

I remember Iran Contra hearings being covered on every channel live

 

The breathless comentators reminded us every few minutes that "This probably went to the top"

 

What rebellion is being funded by the profits the ATF is making in this one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why waste your time? Are you expecting Mark or Wabbit to suddenly see the light?

 

Anyone not completely outraged by this operation should go spend some time in Mexico with those affected. Moreover, if you think that Obama, Clinton and Holder didn't know the details of this operation, then you know nothing about how our government works - need-to-know, plausible deniability, implied consent. You bet your ass they knew! Proving it is an entirely different matter, and, like Clinton with Monica, by the time it is proven, it's simply a witch hunt by a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Where is the outrage?

 

While it's true that you can have an opinion but not your own facts, what do we make of those that work to juice the 'facts' to bolster their position? For example, a 'Fact' is that fewer people are crossing our border because arrests are down. But the FACT is that the BP has been ordered to not arrest border crossers until (I believe the testimony was) their 8th apprehension. Now we have the ATF and other government agencies letting guns walk, knowing they are going to Mexico, and, in light of the previous misrepresentations that have been told about US guns siezed in Mexico, it isn't somewhat obvious that they are juicing the 'facts' to make a case for gun control? How may other reasons could their be for letting the guns walk?

 

Wow, if you are lecturing people about the facts, then you must have seen the hearing on CSPAN last week. How do you square your statements with what the agents who admitted they cooked it up are saying? I am having a tough time with that one.

 

Which agents admitted they cooked it up? And did anyone ever answer who authorized the gunwalking?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get's harder and harder to find witches these days. Especially when you have hearings like the one that went down this week and last month.

 

Don't stop looking Tom. There ARE witches. Just look for the "D".

Actually I'd guess that it is the D after Obama's name that is the reason why this is not headline news across the nation.

 

I remember Iran Contra hearings being covered on every channel live

 

The breathless comentators reminded us every few minutes that "This probably went to the top"

 

What rebellion is being funded by the profits the ATF is making in this one?

 

There are still questions about the Honduras gunwalking, but the more general answer is the one I gave before: Reagan knew, or should have known, how his minions were implementing foreign policy, and the same can be said of Obama.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll interpret it myself: he meant that he was ordered not to track the guns, but to track the straw purchaser.

 

So you admit that you were wrong when you repeatedly asserted that they were ordered NOT to track the guns, right?

 

 

No, I'm still pretty sure that is correct, but I'm waiting to see how you interpret what agent Dodson said. Cue crickets.

 

At this point, I can only presume that English is not your native language.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll interpret it myself: he meant that he was ordered not to track the guns, but to track the straw purchaser.

 

So you admit that you were wrong when you repeatedly asserted that they were ordered NOT to track the guns, right?

 

 

No, I'm still pretty sure that is correct, but I'm waiting to see how you interpret what agent Dodson said. Cue crickets.

 

At this point, I can only presume that English is not your native language.

At this point the rest of us presume that logic and comprehension are not your strong suits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get's harder and harder to find witches these days. Especially when you have hearings like the one that went down this week and last month.

 

Don't stop looking Tom. There ARE witches. Just look for the "D".

Actually I'd guess that it is the D after Obama's name that is the reason why this is not headline news across the nation.

 

I remember Iran Contra hearings being covered on every channel live

 

The breathless comentators reminded us every few minutes that "This probably went to the top"

 

What rebellion is being funded by the profits the ATF is making in this one?

 

There are still questions about the Honduras gunwalking, but the more general answer is the one I gave before: Reagan knew, or should have known, how his minions were implementing foreign policy, and the same can be said of Obama.

 

I get it. Since Reagan should have known about the arms sales to Iran, then Obama should have known about a gun sting op to Mexico. The logic is simply stunning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get's harder and harder to find witches these days. Especially when you have hearings like the one that went down this week and last month.

 

Don't stop looking Tom. There ARE witches. Just look for the "D".

Actually I'd guess that it is the D after Obama's name that is the reason why this is not headline news across the nation.

 

I remember Iran Contra hearings being covered on every channel live

 

The breathless comentators reminded us every few minutes that "This probably went to the top"

 

What rebellion is being funded by the profits the ATF is making in this one?

 

There are still questions about the Honduras gunwalking, but the more general answer is the one I gave before: Reagan knew, or should have known, how his minions were implementing foreign policy, and the same can be said of Obama.

 

I get it. Since Reagan should have known about the arms sales to Iran, then Obama should have known about a gun sting op to Mexico. The logic is simply stunning.

 

Tom's special brand of logic and comprehension are not our strong suits, apparently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Excerpted from "Enemy of the State": http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45214

 

"One of the worst remaining aspects of Gunrunner and Fast and Furious is that both appear to have been carried out with the intention of increasing border crime and chaos to levels sufficient to persuade Americans to embrace more gun control. If such a presumption seems like a stretch, then consider that to date, the Justice Department’s only response to the myriad Fast and Furious allegations has been to mandate a new law requiring gun stores in Arizona, California, Texas and New Mexico to make a special report to the ATF when an individual makes multiple long-gun purchases over a five-day period, the only caveat being that the guns have to be greater than .22-caliber and capable of using a detachable clip."

 

"Upon announcing these new gun control measures on July 11, 2011, Deputy Attorney General James Cole actually tried to justify them by pointing out that such weapons “are highly sought after by dangerous drug trafficking organizations and frequently recovered at violent crime scenes near the Southwest border.” (No mention was made of the fact that hundreds upon hundreds of these same weapons were sold to would-be criminals with ATF and Justice Department approval during Gunrunner, then smuggled across the border."

 

"Another reason it appears the passage of more gun control was the goal all along is found in e-mails between Mark Chait, ATF’s assistant director of field operations, and William Newell, special agent in charge in Phoenix during Fast and Furious. In one such e-mail, sent during July 2010, Chait asked Newell to pay special attention to multiple long-gun sales at gun stores because the ATF was, at that time, already “looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long-gun multiple sales.” (In other words, the requirement for a special form on multiple long-gun sales to law-abiding Americans was already in the works.)"

 

 

Read more: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45214

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get's harder and harder to find witches these days. Especially when you have hearings like the one that went down this week and last month.

 

Don't stop looking Tom. There ARE witches. Just look for the "D".

Actually I'd guess that it is the D after Obama's name that is the reason why this is not headline news across the nation.

 

I remember Iran Contra hearings being covered on every channel live

 

The breathless comentators reminded us every few minutes that "This probably went to the top"

 

What rebellion is being funded by the profits the ATF is making in this one?

 

There are still questions about the Honduras gunwalking, but the more general answer is the one I gave before: Reagan knew, or should have known, how his minions were implementing foreign policy, and the same can be said of Obama.

 

I get it. Since Reagan should have known about the arms sales to Iran, then Obama should have known about a gun sting op to Mexico. The logic is simply stunning.

 

Reagan was President, and responsible for foreign policy on his watch. Obama is President, and responsible for foreign policy on his watch. If that foreign policy was really being made in Phoenix, he is still responsible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll interpret it myself: he meant that he was ordered not to track the guns, but to track the straw purchaser.

 

So you admit that you were wrong when you repeatedly asserted that they were ordered NOT to track the guns, right?

 

 

No, I'm still pretty sure that is correct, but I'm waiting to see how you interpret what agent Dodson said. Cue crickets.

 

At this point, I can only presume that English is not your native language.

 

While you're making presumptions about me, how about answering my question:

 

Testimony of Agent Dodson:

 

dodsontestimony.gif

 

Hey wabbit, what do you suppose he meant by the words "keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk" in the hands of the "unknown third party"?

 

So, since I couldn't figure it out, enlighten me. What do you suppose he meant by the words "keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk" in the hands of the "unknown third party"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll interpret it myself: he meant that he was ordered not to track the guns, but to track the straw purchaser.

 

So you admit that you were wrong when you repeatedly asserted that they were ordered NOT to track the guns, right?

 

 

No, I'm still pretty sure that is correct, but I'm waiting to see how you interpret what agent Dodson said. Cue crickets.

 

At this point, I can only presume that English is not your native language.

 

While you're making presumptions about me, how about answering my question:

 

Testimony of Agent Dodson:

 

dodsontestimony.gif

 

Hey wabbit, what do you suppose he meant by the words "keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk" in the hands of the "unknown third party"?

 

So, since I couldn't figure it out, enlighten me. What do you suppose he meant by the words "keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk" in the hands of the "unknown third party"?

 

If Mommy orders Junior to eat his broccoli, is that the same as Mommy ordering Junior not to eat his chicken?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

OK, I'll interpret it myself: he meant that he was ordered not to track the guns, but to track the straw purchaser.

 

So you admit that you were wrong when you repeatedly asserted that they were ordered NOT to track the guns, right?

 

 

No, I'm still pretty sure that is correct, but I'm waiting to see how you interpret what agent Dodson said. Cue crickets.

 

At this point, I can only presume that English is not your native language.

 

While you're making presumptions about me, how about answering my question:

 

Testimony of Agent Dodson:

 

dodsontestimony.gif

 

Hey wabbit, what do you suppose he meant by the words "keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk" in the hands of the "unknown third party"?

 

So, since I couldn't figure it out, enlighten me. What do you suppose he meant by the words "keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk" in the hands of the "unknown third party"?

 

He had a bad day yesterday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why waste your time? Are you expecting Mark or Wabbit to suddenly see the light?

 

Anyone not completely outraged by this operation should go spend some time in Mexico with those affected. Moreover, if you think that Obama, Clinton and Holder didn't know the details of this operation, then you know nothing about how our government works - need-to-know, plausible deniability, implied consent. You bet your ass they knew! Proving it is an entirely different matter, and, like Clinton with Monica, by the time it is proven, it's simply a witch hunt by a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Where is the outrage?

 

While it's true that you can have an opinion but not your own facts, what do we make of those that work to juice the 'facts' to bolster their position? For example, a 'Fact' is that fewer people are crossing our border because arrests are down. But the FACT is that the BP has been ordered to not arrest border crossers until (I believe the testimony was) their 8th apprehension. Now we have the ATF and other government agencies letting guns walk, knowing they are going to Mexico, and, in light of the previous misrepresentations that have been told about US guns siezed in Mexico, it isn't somewhat obvious that they are juicing the 'facts' to make a case for gun control? How may other reasons could their be for letting the guns walk?

 

Wow, if you are lecturing people about the facts, then you must have seen the hearing on CSPAN last week. How do you square your statements with what the agents who admitted they cooked it up are saying? I am having a tough time with that one.

 

Which agents admitted they cooked it up? And did anyone ever answer who authorized the gunwalking?

 

Most of it is here.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-anti-gunrunning-effort-turns-fatally-wrong/2011/07/14/gIQAH5d6YI_story.html

 

I don't recall the guys name from the hearing. He was the guy they were raking over the coals for who thought this all up. If you had seen it, I'm sure you would have remembered it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why waste your time? Are you expecting Mark or Wabbit to suddenly see the light?

 

Anyone not completely outraged by this operation should go spend some time in Mexico with those affected. Moreover, if you think that Obama, Clinton and Holder didn't know the details of this operation, then you know nothing about how our government works - need-to-know, plausible deniability, implied consent. You bet your ass they knew! Proving it is an entirely different matter, and, like Clinton with Monica, by the time it is proven, it's simply a witch hunt by a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Where is the outrage?

 

While it's true that you can have an opinion but not your own facts, what do we make of those that work to juice the 'facts' to bolster their position? For example, a 'Fact' is that fewer people are crossing our border because arrests are down. But the FACT is that the BP has been ordered to not arrest border crossers until (I believe the testimony was) their 8th apprehension. Now we have the ATF and other government agencies letting guns walk, knowing they are going to Mexico, and, in light of the previous misrepresentations that have been told about US guns siezed in Mexico, it isn't somewhat obvious that they are juicing the 'facts' to make a case for gun control? How may other reasons could their be for letting the guns walk?

 

Wow, if you are lecturing people about the facts, then you must have seen the hearing on CSPAN last week. How do you square your statements with what the agents who admitted they cooked it up are saying? I am having a tough time with that one.

 

Which agents admitted they cooked it up? And did anyone ever answer who authorized the gunwalking?

 

Most of it is here.

 

http://www.washingto...d6YI_story.html

 

I don't recall the guys name from the hearing. He was the guy they were raking over the coals for who thought this all up. If you had seen it, I'm sure you would have remembered it.

 

You're talking about when Newell claimed this originated "at the street level"? That's about as credible as anything else that has come out of his mouth, given the reaction of all of the other street agents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll interpret it myself: he meant that he was ordered not to track the guns, but to track the straw purchaser.

 

 

At this point, I can only presume that English is not your native language.

 

While you're making presumptions about me, how about answering my question:

 

Testimony of Agent Dodson:

 

dodsontestimony.gif

 

Hey wabbit, what do you suppose he meant by the words "keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk" in the hands of the "unknown third party"?

 

So, since I couldn't figure it out, enlighten me. What do you suppose he meant by the words "keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk" in the hands of the "unknown third party"?

 

If Mommy orders Junior to eat his broccoli, is that the same as Mommy ordering Junior not to eat his chicken?

 

If the broccoli goes one way and the chicken goes another, it would seem to have that effect, but dinner usually stays on the plate. Unknown buyers who have just illegally purchased a load of guns are not nearly as docile as cooked chicken, and tend to move about, so your question is irrelevant to mine and does not answer it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why waste your time? Are you expecting Mark or Wabbit to suddenly see the light?

 

Anyone not completely outraged by this operation should go spend some time in Mexico with those affected. Moreover, if you think that Obama, Clinton and Holder didn't know the details of this operation, then you know nothing about how our government works - need-to-know, plausible deniability, implied consent. You bet your ass they knew! Proving it is an entirely different matter, and, like Clinton with Monica, by the time it is proven, it's simply a witch hunt by a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Where is the outrage?

 

While it's true that you can have an opinion but not your own facts, what do we make of those that work to juice the 'facts' to bolster their position? For example, a 'Fact' is that fewer people are crossing our border because arrests are down. But the FACT is that the BP has been ordered to not arrest border crossers until (I believe the testimony was) their 8th apprehension. Now we have the ATF and other government agencies letting guns walk, knowing they are going to Mexico, and, in light of the previous misrepresentations that have been told about US guns siezed in Mexico, it isn't somewhat obvious that they are juicing the 'facts' to make a case for gun control? How may other reasons could their be for letting the guns walk?

 

Wow, if you are lecturing people about the facts, then you must have seen the hearing on CSPAN last week. How do you square your statements with what the agents who admitted they cooked it up are saying? I am having a tough time with that one.

 

Which agents admitted they cooked it up? And did anyone ever answer who authorized the gunwalking?

 

Most of it is here.

 

http://www.washingto...d6YI_story.html

 

I don't recall the guys name from the hearing. He was the guy they were raking over the coals for who thought this all up. If you had seen it, I'm sure you would have remembered it.

 

That article was written before the hearing and did not contain Newell's quote, but as always with the Washington Post and guns, there were predictable inaccuracies and omissions.

 

Agents along the border had long been frustrated by what one ATF supervisor later called “toothless” laws that made it difficult to attack gun-trafficking networks. Straw buyers — people with no criminal record who purchase guns for criminals or illegal immigrants who can’t legally buy them — are subject to little more than paperwork violations.

 

Omission: the actual maximum penalty for that particular paperwork violation, which is ten years and a quarter million dollar fine.

 

To identify the networks, the agents would watch and document as the straw buyers transferred guns to middlemen. The agents would be instructed not to move in and question the men but to let the guns go and see where they eventually ended up.

 

Inaccuracy: that last part does not seem to line up with what Agent Dodson said when he said they were ordered to let the guns go and see where the straw purchaser ended up.

 

The plan they developed was permitted under ATF rules, had the legal backing of U.S. Attorney Dennis K. Burke in Phoenix, and had been approved and funded by a task force at the Justice Department, ATF’s parent agency.

 

If it was permitted under ATF rules, why did ATF instructor agent Canino say that they threw away the whole rule book? I'll believe Canino over the Post on that one.

 

But a mutiny was brewing in Group 7. Dodson, Casa and two other agents were furious about letting the guns walk. The chemistry in the office was bad. Many of the agents had been sent in from outside Phoenix and were working together for the first time under David Voth, a Marine Corps veteran and brand-new supervisor sent in from Minnesota. The agents’ outrage overrode any sense of loyalty to their bosses.

 

Those disloyal bastards! Letting their temper get in the way of something as important as loyalty is just plain wrong! :angry: Outraged people are just not rational. Wait, why were they outraged again?

 

A local reporter asked Newell about the rumors that ATF agents had purposely allowed firearms to enter Mexico.

 

“Hell, no!” he answered. Newell said that they could not follow everyone and that sometimes suspects would elude agents, which could result in guns getting into Mexico.

 

Peter Forcelli, an ATF group supervisor in the Phoenix office, watched the news conference on television. “I was appalled,” he later testified to Congress. “Because it was a blatant lie.”

 

I believe Forcelli over Newell on that one. In fact, I have not seen a straight and true answer come from Newell since he said that. It must be hard to cling to a "truth" that your colleagues call a "blatant lie" and I do admire his tenacity, if nothing else about him.

 

Two days later, Grassley wrote to the acting ATF director, Kenneth E. Melson, asking whether the gun-walking allegations were true. An answer came from Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Ronald Weich, who relied on ATF for his information: “The allegation — that ATF ‘sanctioned’ or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them into Mexico — is false.”

 

While technically correct — the straw purchasers transferred the weapons to middlemen and did not take them to Mexico themselves — those words would come back to haunt ATF and Justice at a congressional hearing.

 

Technically correct, if properly parsed to see what the meaning of is is. :rolleyes: I shipped my old F-27 to Sweden. I mean, I did not actually drive the trucks and boats involved, but I did hire people to do that job and expect that they would do it. Anyone looking at the situation would say that I shipped the boat, not the truck driver who I handed it off to, but suddenly it would be technically correct to say that any middleman along the way was the person responsible for the transport? Bullshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Agents along the border had long been frustrated by what one ATF supervisor later called “toothless” laws that made it difficult to attack gun-trafficking networks. Straw buyers — people with no criminal record who purchase guns for criminals or illegal immigrants who can’t legally buy them — are subject to little more than paperwork violations.

 

Omission: the actual maximum penalty for that particular paperwork violation, which is ten years and a quarter million dollar fine.

 

 

 

In theory. The fact in practice was that nobody could expect more than probation, so proffers were a waste of time. Probation or testify in court against the deadliest mobs on the planet? Let's see...what will I go for....

 

They are claiming that the gun laws are not letting them do an effective job of what they are tasked to do, stem the flow of arms into Mexico, and that was the nut that hatched this strange sting.

 

Are you flat out calling the agents liars, Tom?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Agents along the border had long been frustrated by what one ATF supervisor later called “toothless” laws that made it difficult to attack gun-trafficking networks. Straw buyers — people with no criminal record who purchase guns for criminals or illegal immigrants who can’t legally buy them — are subject to little more than paperwork violations.

 

Omission: the actual maximum penalty for that particular paperwork violation, which is ten years and a quarter million dollar fine.

 

 

 

In theory. The fact in practice was that nobody could expect more than probation, so proffers were a waste of time. Probation or testify in court against the deadliest mobs on the planet? Let's see...what will I go for....

 

They are claiming that the gun laws are not letting them do an effective job of what they are tasked to do, stem the flow of arms into Mexico, and that was the nut that hatched this strange sting.

 

Are you flat out calling the agents liars, Tom?

Bull shit that is what the author of the article is claiming NOT the agents. In fact it is attributed to an UNNAMED supervisor. I agree that someone thought this operation would lead to tighter gun laws - smearing kids with hamburger meat and letting them play with pit bulls would most likely lead to tighter enforcement against Pit Bulls. Whats a few lost fingers when the greater good is achieved - Or in the case of Fast and furious a few dead Mexicans and a US agent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Agents along the border had long been frustrated by what one ATF supervisor later called “toothless” laws that made it difficult to attack gun-trafficking networks. Straw buyers — people with no criminal record who purchase guns for criminals or illegal immigrants who can’t legally buy them — are subject to little more than paperwork violations.

 

Omission: the actual maximum penalty for that particular paperwork violation, which is ten years and a quarter million dollar fine.

 

 

 

In theory. The fact in practice was that nobody could expect more than probation, so proffers were a waste of time. Probation or testify in court against the deadliest mobs on the planet? Let's see...what will I go for....

 

They are claiming that the gun laws are not letting them do an effective job of what they are tasked to do, stem the flow of arms into Mexico, and that was the nut that hatched this strange sting.

 

Are you flat out calling the agents liars, Tom?

Bull shit that is what the author of the article is claiming NOT the agents. In fact it is attributed to an UNNAMED supervisor. I agree that someone thought this operation would lead to tighter gun laws - smearing kids with hamburger meat and letting them play with pit bulls would most likely lead to tighter enforcement against Pit Bulls. Whats a few lost fingers when the greater good is achieved - Or in the case of Fast and furious a few dead Mexicans and a US agent.

 

The agents stated that over and over again in the hearing, TM. You should listen to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agents along the border had long been frustrated by what one ATF supervisor later called "toothless" laws that made it difficult to attack gun-trafficking networks. Straw buyers — people with no criminal record who purchase guns for criminals or illegal immigrants who can't legally buy them — are subject to little more than paperwork violations.

 

Omission: the actual maximum penalty for that particular paperwork violation, which is ten years and a quarter million dollar fine.

 

 

 

In theory. The fact in practice was that nobody could expect more than probation, so proffers were a waste of time. Probation or testify in court against the deadliest mobs on the planet? Let's see...what will I go for....

 

They are claiming that the gun laws are not letting them do an effective job of what they are tasked to do, stem the flow of arms into Mexico, and that was the nut that hatched this strange sting.

 

Are you flat out calling the agents liars, Tom?

 

No, I have explained what I think about this issue several times. Here are a few from this thread.

 

By the way, no one has addressed the simple answer I gave to Rep. McCarthy's question at the hearings:

 

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) asked one of the agents if weak gun laws made their prosecutions difficult.

 

"One of you in your testimonies called these laws to prosecute 'toothless.' Could explain to me -- why are existing straw purchase laws 'toothless'?" Maloney asked.

 

Because straw buyers are under two threats if caught:

 

1. From the criminals, who can be really nasty if someone tells the police what they did.

 

2. From juries, who generally are not as nasty, especially when dealing with someone who has no serious criminal record.

 

The complaints about having to prove intent are just stupid, because intent defines the crime. One is a straw purchaser if he buys a gun intending to deliver it to someone else who is ineligible to buy. Yes, we are going to continue to insist that prosecutors prove crimes before putting people in jail. :rolleyes:

 

As for harsher penalties, I have pointed out that ten years in prison and a quarter million dollar fine is a bit more than a wrist-slap, and juries agree. They do not give those kinds of sentences to first offenders who commit non-violent crimes. Increasing that maximum will not change that fact.

 

Not buying all of this. 25 is not a kid, and while 18 kind of is, it's not legally. Still, it does illustrate the problem with the "solution" being proposed by Democratic lawmakers in response to this scandal.

 

Juries are not going to lock these "kids" up for a long prison term, no matter what the maximum allowable sentence may be. Making that maximum longer is "tough on guns" only to those who don't think very much about the realities.

 

 

Currently, say sponsors, violators can often only be charged with "paperwork violations" that carry light sentences, like lying on federal forms.

 

The proposed law carries a maximum sentence of 20 to 25 years in prison with stiffer penalties for so-called "kingpin" traffickers.

 

Yes, the "light sentence" never mentioned in these articles is: ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine, and not surprisingly, juries do not send first offenders to prison for that long, nor do they fine them that much. Straw buyers are small fry, like street drug dealers, but with no felony convictions, or they would not be eligible to buy. The idea that we are going to stop gun trafficking by increasing straw buyer penalties is slightly more ludicrous than the idea that we can stop the drug trade by putting a higher maximum sentence on selling dime bags.

 

If the max sentence goes up to 25 years, are juries suddenly going to start handing out a sentence that long to straw buyers? I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole weak gun laws is a straw man intending to change the Story line. It has zero to do with the issue on hand which is US officials openly allowing weapons to be delivered to cartels. That this foolish policy turned deadly with a us border agent gunned down should have been predictable to the person that authorized and any other senior official of this goveent involved

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the max sentence goes up to 25 years, are juries suddenly going to start handing out a sentence that long to straw buyers? I doubt it.

 

Mandatory sentencing guidelines fixes that.

 

Have you forgotten that I grew up with a prosecutor? Taking discretion away from courts in a hopeless fight against objects works the same way in the gun war as in the drug war.

 

High minimum mandatory sentences on crimes for which a jury will not send a person away for so long are not politically sustainable for the same reasons Nancy Reagan's zero tolerance did not work. Yeah, it sounds great in a political speech to say there should only be two penalties for anyone who has ever touched the dreaded killer, marihuana: death or at least 50 years.

 

Sounds great right up until you're locking up an 18 year old for 50 years because he had a joint, at which point people suddenly start comparing the average sentences given for violent crimes, which are much shorter, and realize this is fucked up.

 

So what do prosecutors do about this? Plea down to a lesser charge that is not covered by the mandatory sentence. Either way, our society is not going to lock up straw buyers for a very long time. Trying to make our justice system scarier than a Mexican drug cartel to a straw buyer is ridiculous. They are going to win the scary contest every time because they are quite willing to go a LOT further than our courts will ever go, mandatory minimums or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the max sentence goes up to 25 years, are juries suddenly going to start handing out a sentence that long to straw buyers? I doubt it.

 

Mandatory sentencing guidelines fixes that.

 

Have you forgotten that I grew up with a prosecutor? Taking discretion away from courts in a hopeless fight against objects works the same way in the gun war as in the drug war.

 

High minimum mandatory sentences on crimes for which a jury will not send a person away for so long are not politically sustainable for the same reasons Nancy Reagan's zero tolerance did not work. Yeah, it sounds great in a political speech to say there should only be two penalties for anyone who has ever touched the dreaded killer, marihuana: death or at least 50 years.

 

Sounds great right up until you're locking up an 18 year old for 50 years because he had a joint, at which point people suddenly start comparing the average sentences given for violent crimes, which are much shorter, and realize this is fucked up.

 

So what do prosecutors do about this? Plea down to a lesser charge that is not covered by the mandatory sentence. Either way, our society is not going to lock up straw buyers for a very long time. Trying to make our justice system scarier than a Mexican drug cartel to a straw buyer is ridiculous. They are going to win the scary contest every time because they are quite willing to go a LOT further than our courts will ever go, mandatory minimums or not.

 

We lock up people for selling small amounts of drugs for a very long time. Put some pictures in front of the jury of butchered Mexicans, and prove that the guy know he was working with the people that do that shit, and I wouldn't like to bet they wouldn't send me to the can for 25. Might just take an offer from the cops to turn on them rather than toss that coin with that hanging over my head.

 

It would be a lot smarter to end the drug war. It's grossly unfair to all this shit to people, I know. The thing we were talking about is how the ATF wound up trying a hare-brained scheme such as this, and I am attempting to explain to you what the agents are talking about, that's it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We lock up people for selling small amounts of drugs for a very long time. ...

 

The thing we were talking about is how the ATF wound up trying a hare-brained scheme such as this, and I am attempting to explain to you what the agents are talking about, that's it.

 

Locking people up for selling drugs just creates sought-after job openings without disrupting the drug trade, and locking up straw buyers would work the same way if we tried it, which we won't.

 

But regardless of whether or not that approach would work, it should not explain throwing out the ATF rule book, which is what Agent Canino said they did. If it does explain it, it does not explain why the program went on for so long. Elijah Cummings pointed out in his opening statement that it was supposed to end by summer of 2010, but suddenly ended in December when Agent Terry was killed.

 

A program that throws out the rule book, and one that is so vehemently opposed by the street agents tasked with implementing it that they blew the whistle to Congress, does not survive for that long without political support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We lock up people for selling small amounts of drugs for a very long time. ...

 

The thing we were talking about is how the ATF wound up trying a hare-brained scheme such as this, and I am attempting to explain to you what the agents are talking about, that's it.

 

Locking people up for selling drugs just creates sought-after job openings without disrupting the drug trade, and locking up straw buyers would work the same way if we tried it, which we won't.

 

But regardless of whether or not that approach would work, it should not explain throwing out the ATF rule book, which is what Agent Canino said they did. If it does explain it, it does not explain why the program went on for so long. Elijah Cummings pointed out in his opening statement that it was supposed to end by summer of 2010, but suddenly ended in December when Agent Terry was killed.

 

A program that throws out the rule book, and one that is so vehemently opposed by the street agents tasked with implementing it that they blew the whistle to Congress, does not survive for that long without political support.

 

Why not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We lock up people for selling small amounts of drugs for a very long time. ...

 

The thing we were talking about is how the ATF wound up trying a hare-brained scheme such as this, and I am attempting to explain to you what the agents are talking about, that's it.

 

Locking people up for selling drugs just creates sought-after job openings without disrupting the drug trade, and locking up straw buyers would work the same way if we tried it, which we won't.

 

But regardless of whether or not that approach would work, it should not explain throwing out the ATF rule book, which is what Agent Canino said they did. If it does explain it, it does not explain why the program went on for so long. Elijah Cummings pointed out in his opening statement that it was supposed to end by summer of 2010, but suddenly ended in December when Agent Terry was killed.

 

A program that throws out the rule book, and one that is so vehemently opposed by the street agents tasked with implementing it that they blew the whistle to Congress, does not survive for that long without political support.

 

Why not?

 

Because if you have thrown out the whole rule book and are making up your own, your ass is really on the line. If someone then starts making waves, you do not respond like this:

 

For those not inclined to clicking and reading, here is an email sent by Phoenix ATF group supervisor David Voth to his team:

 

vothletter.gif

 

GO TEAM! The not-so-subtle message: if you do not agree with the Gunwalking program, you do not deserve to be here.

 

Sounds like some were trying to handle this "through channels" over a year ago, but with the top level of the ATF and their bosses at the Justice Dept showing this attitude, what is someone who thinks he deserves his job, but who also thinks gunwalking is monumentally stupid, supposed to do? ...

 

That looks to me like a letter written by a guy who knows he has cover from above, but it could just be doubling down on stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We lock up people for selling small amounts of drugs for a very long time. ...

 

The thing we were talking about is how the ATF wound up trying a hare-brained scheme such as this, and I am attempting to explain to you what the agents are talking about, that's it.

 

Locking people up for selling drugs just creates sought-after job openings without disrupting the drug trade, and locking up straw buyers would work the same way if we tried it, which we won't.

 

But regardless of whether or not that approach would work, it should not explain throwing out the ATF rule book, which is what Agent Canino said they did. If it does explain it, it does not explain why the program went on for so long. Elijah Cummings pointed out in his opening statement that it was supposed to end by summer of 2010, but suddenly ended in December when Agent Terry was killed.

 

A program that throws out the rule book, and one that is so vehemently opposed by the street agents tasked with implementing it that they blew the whistle to Congress, does not survive for that long without political support.

 

Why not?

 

Because if you have thrown out the whole rule book and are making up your own, your ass is really on the line. If someone then starts making waves, you do not respond like this:

 

For those not inclined to clicking and reading, here is an email sent by Phoenix ATF group supervisor David Voth to his team:

 

vothletter.gif

 

GO TEAM! The not-so-subtle message: if you do not agree with the Gunwalking program, you do not deserve to be here.

 

Sounds like some were trying to handle this "through channels" over a year ago, but with the top level of the ATF and their bosses at the Justice Dept showing this attitude, what is someone who thinks he deserves his job, but who also thinks gunwalking is monumentally stupid, supposed to do? ...

 

That looks to me like a letter written by a guy who knows he has cover from above, but it could just be doubling down on stupid.

 

"Whether or not..." indicates stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Get's harder and harder to find witches these days. Especially when you have hearings like the one that went down this week and last month.

 

Don't stop looking Tom. There ARE witches. Just look for the "D".

 

If I were only interested in painting Dems as uninformed, anti-gun fools, I would probably have brought up what DC Rep Norton asked, wouldn't I? You know, when she asked why we don't just have a law making straw purchasing illegal? I left it alone, but if I'm going to be attacked as a partisan, might as well play the role. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like things are heating up in the Houston part of the gunwalking investigation.

 

Here is how the article characterized what has gone on so far:

 

A congressional report showed hundreds of the guns slipped through the cracks during the investigation.

 

Testimony of Agent Dodson:

 

dodsontestimony.gif

Yeah, somehow, when the agents were ordered to "keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk" in the hands of the "unknown third party" the guns managed to slip through the cracks. Very wily, those guns. You have to watch them closely. If mine start foaming at the barrel, I have them put down immediately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting speculation:

 

Operation Fast and Furious was created to funnel weapons from American gun stores to anti-Zeta cartel members on the border. In this it was successful.

 

...

 

In retrospect, it seems clear that the federally licensed firearms dealers who filled the straw purchasers’ trucks with weapons were supposed to be the fall guys, should Operation Fast and Furious come to light. That ploy has failed. The ATF has been left holding the bag, with a Congressional committee hard at their heels.

 

Operation Fast and Furious’ disintegration and the ATF’s attempt to sweep it under the rug in no way implies that the ATF set the wheels in motion. On the contrary, the Bureau never had a “Plan B” if Fast and Furious went off the rails. Can they really be that stupid? Unlikely.