Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif), chairman of the U.S. House of Representative’s Oversight and Government Reform Committee, got his hearing. Representative Issa has been trying to find out why the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) told gun-store owners to sell thousands of semi-automatic firearms to straw purchasers (those who buy guns for someone who can’t do so legally) — and then just watched as the guns went across the border, into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
As Representative Issa called his hearing into session yesterday, congressional staffers handed out e-mails showing that the ATF’s acting director, Kenneth Melson, and acting deputy director, Bill Hoover, were both involved in overseeing “Operation Fast and Furious.” One e-mail from George T. Gillett, the assistant special agent in charge of the ATF’s Phoenix office, to David Voth, an ATF supervisor, on March 10, 2010 — about nine months before the story broke — includes this sentence: “Not sure if you know, but Mr. Nelson and Mr. Hoover are being briefed weekly on this investigation.”
Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R., Iowa) testified that “the president said he didn’t authorize it and that the attorney general didn’t authorize [Fast and Furious]. They have both admitted that a ‘serious mistake’ may have been made. There are a lot of questions, and a lot of investigating to do. But one thing has become clear already: This was no mistake. It was a conscious decision by senior officials. It was written down. It was briefed up to Washington, D.C.”
Just how high up the chain the knowledge and approval of this now-defunct program goes, we don’t yet know, but we do know that Fast and Furious — an arm of the ATF’s five-year-old Gunrunner program — was started in 2009 and came to light in December 2010. That was when drug runners killed U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in a firefight in a remote canyon near Nogales, Ariz. Two of the rifles used in the battle had been “allowed” to be purchased through Fast and Furious.
ATF agents–turned–whistleblowers John Dodson and Olindo James Casa testified that they begged to seize the firearms, which included .50-caliber sniper rifles, once the straw purchasers handed them off. “My supervisors directed me and my colleagues not to make any stop or arrest, but rather to keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk,” he said.
Casa also said that “on several occasions, I personally requested to interdict or seize firearms, but I was always ordered to stand down and not to seize the firearms.”
So the guns were just allowed to slip across the border. All the ATF has is the firearms’ serial numbers. They weren’t even working with Mexican authorities. As a result, Agent Dodson said, “We knew the next time we’d see the guns would be at crime scenes. And not [the scene of] the first crime these guns were used in, but at the last.”
When asked how he thought sending guns into Mexico could lead to busts of drug cartels, Agent Dodson said, “I have never heard an explanation from anyone involved in Operation Fast and Furious that I believe would justify what we did.”
Supervisory Special Agent Peter J. Forcelli is another ATF whistleblower. He testified that “the gun-store owners were our friends. We told them to sell the guns to the straw purchasers. This has harmed our reputation with the gun-store owners.”
After the story went public last December, the U.S. Justice Department jumped for cover behind its own internal investigation. Because answers haven’t been forthcoming, 31 Democratic congressmen sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama asking him to cooperate. Meanwhile, Representative Issa is exploring what steps the committee could take to use its subpoena power to force high-ranking Obama-administration officials to testify before Congress.
During the hearing yesterday, Representative Issa and other members of the committee stressed that this isn’t a partisan political investigation. Representative Issa did, however, ask the ATF whistleblowers if they thought Fast and Furious was created for political reasons. None of the officers testifying were sure why it was started.
Late in the hearing, Josephine Terry — the mother of Brian Terry — was asked if there is anything she would like to say to whoever approved Operation Fast and Furious. After taking a moment to regain her composure, she said, “I don’t know what I would say to them, but I would like to know what they would say to me.”
— Frank Miniter’s next book, out June 28, is Saving the Bill of Rights.
I'm surprised that so man people are taking the stated reason for the ATF's gun-running operation (to eventually follow the guns to the higher levels of the organization and catch the "big fish") at face value. The ATF did none of the things that you would expect them to do if that was their real intent. It seems obvious that their stated "reason" is actually just an excuse. What is their real reason? Was it to make it seem like the guns used in the Mexican drug war were mostly coming from U.S. dealers in order to justify an expansion of their agencies power to regulate those dealers (or gunshows)? Given the ATF's actions (and lack thereof) that certainly seems more plausible than that they were running a huge sting operation to catch criminals. Yet news report after news report gives the lame excuse for the operation as if it were universally agreed. In fact, most NRA members I know believe it had nothing to do with catching Mexican criminals and everything to do with expanding the ATF's authority. I know why CNN only gives 1 side of the story, but why does FOX (and NR) play along with such an obviously flimsy excuse?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn 2009, this administration attempted to propose a variety of gun control laws in response to escalating violence in Mexico; crimes committed with weapons purchased in the U.S. The numbers they used in support of their claims quickly proved to be bogus.
I guess they tried to make those numbers a reality.
Just think of they number of lives on their hands in pursuit of their political agenda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSome years ago I worked for a Chicago lawyer who represented the owner of a small, but well respected, used car business in southern Illinois. His business got caught in the middle of a stolen car sting operation run by the Illinois state police that resulted in his unknowing purchase of stolen cars, which were subsequently sold to his customers. When his customers attempted to register the stolen vehicles, the vehicles were seized by the police as stolen property and the owner of the used car lot had to refund their money. He was out the money for the vehicles and his reputation in the community was severely damaged.
It was ultimately discovered that Illinois state police officers were selling stolen vehicles to unsuspecting buyers at auction as a way to identify the bad guys and, at the same time, finance the long-running sting operation. The lawsuit my boss filed on behalf of the business owner in federal court to recover actual and punitive damages was dismissed with this explanation: "This is the price the American people pay for good law enforcement."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fact that such a plan makes sense to those who run our government doesn't fill me with a lot of hope for the future.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI never knew that good law enforcement required the destruction of the law abiding?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd that is the price we paid for an abysmal judiciary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy first thought is that the Administration's thoughts were that it would be useful to gun control if they could say that our "lax" gun laws were providing weapons and ammunition to the Mexican drug cartels. It was my first thought because that's the attitude that the administration and media took when Mexico was making a big deal about it and it was in the news.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have read speculation that this gun thing was done to try and establish a case for increased gun control north of the border. Given the fanatic devotion given to leftist ideology by more than a few in this incredibly incompetent and destructive administration I must say that I would not be surprised if this were so. I will also not be surprised if no real consequences ensue against those who created this travesty. The rule of law is quickly becoming nothing more than a nice turn of phrase insofar as our rulers are concerned. The real rule is to cover for your friends and allies, keep the people as ill informed and confused as possible and ignore Constitutional checks and balances except when convenient or if they advance the agenda.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe One recently told Sarah Brady that he is "working behind the scenes" (or some such phrase) on gun control.
We can't help but wonder if this was part of the plan... let innocent Mexicans be murdered and then "discover" that these firearms came from American stores. This would be used as a reason to clamp down on gun sales in America. A while back the idea was floated that American guns going across the border to Mexico was a good reason to restrict American citizens' Second Amendment rights.
There could be some other reason this was done, but there are those who would think this was a great and clever way to create more 'evidence' supporting their position. So what if it was a lie and done intentionally by the government, not by priate citizens?
We are talking about "The Chicago Way," here, after all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou hit the proverbial nail smack, dead center on the head. This is all building the case for gutting the 2nd Amendment. These anti-Constitutionalists running the country will stop at nothing to "transform the United States of America." 53 millions dolts should have asked what exactly we are going to transform to? This is what happens when you dumb-down the electorate and slogan them to death.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Ben Murphy,
On the face of it, I would say you ruminations concerning Fast and Furious were over the top. But then again, I actually believed AWeiner for a day when he said his Twitter account was hacked. My reason being was that no elected official would be so foolish. In light of the numerous and recent scandals (Vitter, Spitzer, Arnold, Lee, Foley) no person would be so irresponsible. Again, part of me wants to believe that no federal bureaucrat would be so foolish as to think that an operation like this could be kept secret for long. And the chances for something to go very wrong are high.
One wonders are strong is the firewall between the ATF, Justice, and the WH really is?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou've got to stop thinking like that, JPK. I don't mean turn into a nutcase conspiracy theorist, but you have to stop thinking people in the federal government are, by default, immune to this sort of thing, that they use common sense, that they're better than the people they serve.
The state has no morals. It can't create them for some punk bureaucrat fresh out of college, or a 60-year-old senator, or a Marine sergeant, or the president. The only thing the state can do with morality is strip it away, unless the people running it have a strong moral order themselves. If they don't, the results will always be bad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, I was going to regale all of you with my epiphany that this was all a put-up job to drive for more gun control. It seems that *I* am the one late for that party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe fairest thing right now would be for Mexico to indict these murderously callous ATF officials and apply for their extradition.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEveryone knows "you have to break some eggs to make an omelet". The "omelet" they were trying to make is gun control. Unfortunately, the "eggs" they were willing to break happened to be Mexican citizens!
It isn't much consolation to his mother but Brian Terry is probably savings lives today through his death. If he hadn't been murdered with one of these guns the program would still be going on and even more untraced guns would be in Mexico creating harm!
The "good news" (if there is any) is the amount of people that have seen through this program and what it's true purpose was!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. I've got a ten-spot that says all this stuff is going to eventually lead directly to Eric Holder's office--he must have known about this operation in one way, shape, or form.
2. Eric Holder had better put on his padded underwear and supporter cup, because he's going to be tumbling under Obama's bus sooner rather than later.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Weiner has to resign over his nonsense, why aren't these "acting" ATF bosses forced to resign over approving this KILLING program? WHy isn't Obama out there demanding they resign or just plain firing them? Or Holder?
Have you NO shame, Mr. President? Have you NO SHAME?
Wait.
Don't answer.
We already know.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know that they haven't earned it, but I am going to give the ATF the benefit of the doubt here. If they had captured these guns moving across the borders, they could have just as easily said "See!? See!? We caught thousands of guns going over the borders! How many are we not catching? Give us more power!"
So that leaves me with a couple possibilities.
1) This really WAS a part of a sting operation. But if so, how did they expect to track these guns to bigger fish? Once they got across the border, it would be impossible to find where they went, as the ATF loses jurisdiction there. Did they think they had the cooperation of the Mexican Government? Was this being done in cooperation of the CIA?
2) Someone in the ATF was paid to get guns to the Cartel.
What other reasons could there be?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What other reasons could there be?"
Where we find a big 'huh?' hole in the official story look for the X factor, the element of the story that would tie it all together, but an element the ATF and DOJ can't release or admit.
One possiblity: The plan was to allow the mules to hump the weapons into Mexico where ATF undercover assets (moles within the narco gangs) would provide the info as to where they went. Then some sort of ATF/Mexican sting operation. But.... they were double-crossed by the moles. The embarrassment alone would be worth the coverup, plus the demonstrated ineptitude, of course.
That this was pushed by the higher ups at "HQ" suggests the set up was done at the highest levels, rather than lower level rogues within ATF. Who else would they be planning with other than Mexican law enforcement? The ATF HQ staff may have gotten bamboozled by Mexican official(s) in the pocket of the narcos.
Wait for/expect a leak to the Issa committee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFollow the money trail & see how high the water rises.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse