Why a ‘nominee with such eminent qualifications’ for the ATF needs the press to shield him from questions about his past is quite the mystery.
The Washington Post recently published an editorial imploring the Senate to get past the “gun obsessives’ delusional oversensitivity” and move forward with the confirmation of David Chipman, President Biden’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The Post cherry-picks some innocuous selections from Chipman’s repertoire, ignoring his most sneering and contemptuous barbs. The Post’s editors then try to outdo Chipman, claiming his critics have a “toxic obsession with firearms,” believe in “cockamamie conspiracy theories,” and harbor a “bizarre infatuation with the weapons of war.”
The Post then contends that Chipman, a “lifelong civil servant,” is a “nominee with such eminent qualifications” that he is perfect for the job. But a quick scan of the biographies of past directors shows us that Chipman, who hasn’t worked for the ATF in nearly a decade, is arguably the least qualified person to ever be put up for the position. The Post’s use of “eminent” relies heavily on the nominee’s work as an anti-gun zealot. If Chipman hadn’t spent years with Giffords and other similar gun-control organizations, Biden would never have nominated someone so temperamentally and professional unfit for the job.
The Post even argues, in essence, that since Democrats have been unable to pass new gun restrictions, Chipman has a chance to unilaterally do some “lifesaving” work from his perch at the ATF. Well, this is exactly why gun owners fear Chipman. And considering the contempt the Biden administration has already shown for courts and the Constitution, they should.
Let’s concede for the sake of argument, however, that Chipman’s nomination is based on his work as a civil servant. Why then hasn’t the Washington Post, or virtually any other establishment media outlet, reported on his record while in government? The Reload’s Stephen Gutowski seems to be the only journalist interested in digging into Chipman’s history. And he’s uncovered multiple ATF sources that corroborated the existence of a complaint alleging that Chipman made racist remarks to his coworkers – saying that African Americans needed to cheat to pass promotion assessments. Now, a former black ATF agent tells Gutowski that Chipman baselessly accused him personally of cheating, as well. Chipman has admitted that a complaint exists, though not what is in it.
It must be stressed, as well, that we don’t know if Chipman has done anything inappropriate. It could be that some disgruntled former coworkers or ideologically motivated agents are trying to sink his nomination. We don’t know, because Democrats refuse to let anyone ask him, or ask any witnesses, or ask for access to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint. What we do know is that if a Republican president’s nominee for a top law-enforcement position had been accused of racism, the Washington Post would be running front-page stories detailing the accusations.
As a political matter, it’s understandable why Chuck Schumer wouldn’t want Chipman back in front of a committee or a television camera. Last time, Democrats bundled his nomination to limit questioning to five minutes per senator, and Chipman still fumbled his way through the hearing; unable, for instance, to define the “assault weapons” he wanted to ban. Why a “nominee with such eminent qualifications” needs the press to shield him from any questions about his past, though, is quite the mystery.