PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues How F&F went down - it's not what you think.


Aries Walker
06-29-2012, 10:01 PM
So, Katherine Eban, an investigative reporter for Fortune magazine, poured through 2,000 pages of briefs and interviewed 39 people, including 7 LEO's with direct knowledge of the case, about Fast and Furious. It seems to be like it didn't go down the way everyone is saying it did, and it may in fact be a completely fabricated election-time scandal, spun from whole cloth. To wit:

Here, good readers, is Eban's article - from Fortune magazine, by the way, not the most leftist source. The first thing you should all do is to set aside a few minutes, get in your most comfy chair, gather together a light snack, maybe pour yourself a refreshing summer beverage, and read, from stem to stern. I'll wait.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/?iid=SF_F_River

So, background. We have a newly-formed ATF office of seven people, with all but one being from out of town. The leader, Voth from New Jersey, is by-the-book, as are 3 others. Dodson is what they call a Maverick, and the last two side with him. Hard-nosed strangers doing a hard-job in a distant city, there's some tensions. But they're pros, so carry on. Got it.

Then the whole team compiles a list of guys who straw-bought guns in Arizona for the Mexicans - which is technically illegal but with giant loopholes which no one has closed - and ATF turns it all over to the DOJ. The DOJ, hampered by those Arizona laws, does nothing. The guns march on, and one later kills Border Patrol Agent Terry. The semiauto rifle that killed Terry was, sure enough, bought in Phoenix by an F&F subject while the ATF watched. That looks like the ATF let them go on purpose, right on down to wartorn Mexico.

Except. ATF is subservient in this case to the DOJ; the prosecutors had been telling the ATF that they couldn't arrest the straw buyers. This is because the DOJ, in this case, is themselves subservient to the firearms laws in the state of Arizona. It's technically legal for an 18-year-old to buy - with no waiting time or background check - fifteen AK-47's, during which time he tells the man behind the counter that they are for him and he has no intention to resell them. The 18-year-old then heads out to a waiting panel truck, and distributes the 15 guns to 15 Mexican soldiers; the working concept is that the kid changed his mind once he left the shop, and decided to instead pass his armory along to the local jefes, who head back to Mexico. The ingenuity of the smuggler's plan is that it all dances just this side of illegal-in-Arizona, and because of that, the DOJ and ATF can't legally stop it.

Everybody argued. Dodson the Maverick especially didn't want the guns to go to Mexico, but he was told that they had to, the idea being that they would track the guns, and this would lead them to the Overlords.

ATF got an idea. Why not get wiretaps? We can record the Buyer and the Straw Kid planning their plan, and then arrest them both. Everyone liked it, but they had to get funding, approval, and set-up, and while that was happening, more guns walked out. One of those guns killed Agent Terry.

Fair enough. I would think both sides would agree on everything . . . until now. After the news breaks of Terry's death, Dodson, the ATF Maverick, blew the whistle to CBS News, who ran the story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQO1-O-EWmo

Notice how the release of the guns to Mexico is referred to as a 'tactic' or a 'strategy'. Up until this point, I think it was more of a 'consequence', specifically of not being able to stop them from going, but that's just me. From CBS, the story goes to Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and on up to Congress. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asked what I think was the best line so far: "Who authorized this program that was so felony stupid that it got people killed?"

If we find the answer to that, we know who to fire, and maybe arrest. One stonewall is that it's law enforcement, and many of who they ask can't comment because it's an ongoing law enforcement operation - that's apparently the reasoning behind AG Eric Holder and President Obama refusing to answer about it. The House is holding Holder (heh) in contempt, but I doubt that's going anywhere, as stories like this are presented, and turn out to be true; it's possible that House Speaker John Boehner knows this, which is why he scheduled it on a day where, as a news story, it would be eclipsed handily by the Supreme Court's Health Care decision. Which it was.

It seems to me like everybody else in this operation is doing their job. The culprit seems to be the Arizona firearm laws. Both sides of the gun control debate project loudly and frequently that the first thing we have to do is to close the loopholes, and make sure people (the Columbine kids, Soon Tek Oh, Jared Lee Loughner, and so on) who shouldn't get guns, don't get them. Both sides agree on this.

In the meantime, there's no scandal here, unless you count crooks being able to buy guns by the bushel in Arizona without any interference by the law, while several government organizations fall all over themselves trying desperately to be the one in whose face the Mexican drug runners can give the raspberry.

Arizona can turn off this spigot, with cross-party legislative support, relatively easily.

PS. Would it have hurt Obama all that much if he had made this a national platform after Gabrielle Gifford's shooting, coincidentally right there in Arizona? Perhaps this would have all come out before the Contempt of Congress hearings just before the Presidential Election. I'm just sayin'.

***

Okay, now your turns. This really looks to me like Fast and Furious didn't actually happen. ATF was not ordered to let the guns walk; they walked because we couldn't legally stop them, because it's a big fat loophole. If the death of Agent Terry should be taken out on anyone, I'd start with Jan Brewer.

Now, please refute me. I look forward to hearing reasonable and passionate rebuttals. (Which I'll read tomorrow, good night.)

Ace Gunner
06-29-2012, 11:57 PM
So, foresight is not an asset in matters involving giving away automatic weapons, I'm guessing.

"Better luck next time. Have a nice weekend"

Chiefshrink
06-30-2012, 12:23 AM
Nice try Ariel:thumb:

We'll soon get to the bottom of this scandal. Bottom line: Bush, ATF and Mexican govt worked together to actually track the guns to the criminals from 2005 to 07 then it was terminated because the cartel figured out the guns were rigged for GPS tracking. Obama gets elected and someone on his staff in the DOJ or wherever discovers this past program and gets this bright idea to reactivate the program but not actually track the guns or work with the Mexican govt but allow these guns to walk into the cartel's hands in hopes they commit crimes and then set up the Arizona gun dealers as the bad guys who supposedly sold them to the cartel( an excuse to go after and weaken the 2nd Amendment). Like I said we will soon find out for sure. EP was enough for me that they are hiding but now wiretaps as well?

Wiretaps May Prove Holder Knew About Fast & Furious
June 29, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Drudge has a story up. The headline has been his lead item all day. "Secret Wiretaps Rock Department of Justice." It's a Roll Call story. And everybody's trying to read it and nobody can click on it because their servers are shut down. So I got people e-mailing me, "What's that about? What's that about, Rush?" Here it is. Let me tell what you it's about. The wiretap angle on Fast and Furious is this.

Federal law requires a prosecutor seeking a wiretap to describe to the judge what investigative techniques have been used in the investigation. You don't just get a wiretap because you ask for it. You've got to tell a judge what you're doing. Now, those wiretap applications must -- by law -- be approved by Justice Department officials before they can be submitted to the judge. Now, Holder is claiming that he and other DOJ officials didn't know about the gun-walking, and this puts the lie to that.

That's why the wiretaps have rocked the DOJ.

Now, if the wiretaps complied with federal law, the wiretap applications would have had to reveal the gun-walking to the court. They would have had to have been told about that. DOJ officials would have had to review and approve those wiretap applications before they could be submitted to the court, which means that the DOJ officials must have known about gun-walking long before Agent Terry was killed in December 2010. And, therefore, it's likely -- very likely -- that Holder was personally informed about it too.

And he's out saying he didn't know anything about it, that it was Bush's program under [Attorney General Michael] Mukasey, and he and Obama didn't know anything about it. The Department of Justice has so far refused to show Issa's committee the wiretap applications. So you put two and two together and everybody is asking, "What are they trying to hide?" They're trying to hide that they knew anything about it while they're trying to deny any knowledge of it. That's why everybody's trying to click on that and find out what that's all about.

You know, most people hear the phrase, getting everyone on the same page and focus on the part of the sentence of getting everyone to agree. The important part of getting everybody on the same page is most often getting the page. What is it that everybody has to agree on? Now, the page that I'm referring to in this case, talking points, the republican platform at this summer's convention, everything is now gaining more importance because of this ruling yesterday. Now, freedomworks, our sponsor, they struck a deal.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: In order for the wiretap applications to be approved, the judge has to be told about the techniques being used (and the program, basically) and the Department of Justice has to provide that information to the judge. So we've got to be led to believe here that there may be some rogue people inside the DOJ running a program that Holder didn't know about? I don't know. It's a stretch.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: One more thing. The information in the wiretap affidavit is sealed. It's not supposed to be released in public. But Darrell Issa is using constitutional protections for speech and debate in Congress to get it released to the public. It's a legal way to show that Holder is probably lying about the documents from Fast and Furious. So we'll track that.

CoMoChief
06-30-2012, 12:58 AM
jfc

mikey23545
06-30-2012, 01:10 AM
I'll let Brian Terry know it was all in his head...

HonestChieffan
06-30-2012, 07:01 AM
The Obama spin machine at work

Chiefshrink
06-30-2012, 12:37 PM
The Obama spin machine at work

Precisely:thumb:

KC native
06-30-2012, 01:58 PM
jfc

I'll let Brian Terry know it was all in his head...

The Obama spin machine at work

ROFL You know how I know you guys didn't read the article (well aside from the fact you're all dumbfucks)?

patteeu
06-30-2012, 02:58 PM
OK, I read it. I don't see how it dramatically changes the scandal narrative. Assuming that the article is accurate, I see two possibilities here:

1) The agents in the field wanted to stop the flow of guns, but Justice Department attorneys prevented them from making any arrests or confiscating any weapons. This possibility seems to dovetail pretty well with the gist of the scandal allegations.

2) The agents in the field wanted to stop the flow of guns, but either the agents or the Justice Department attorneys were as incompetent as Keystone Cops and they couldn't manage to stop what they all knew was going on.

I'm not sure 2 is much better than 1, although I guess the lack of evil intent is superior.

2bikemike
06-30-2012, 06:00 PM
It seems to me like everybody else in this operation is doing their job. The culprit seems to be the Arizona firearm laws. Both sides of the gun control debate project loudly and frequently that the first thing we have to do is to close the loopholes, and make sure people (the Columbine kids, Soon Tek Oh, Jared Lee Loughner, and so on) who shouldn't get guns, don't get them. Both sides agree on this.

This is such an erroneous statement. First off the Columbine kids did not exploit some loophole and neither did Jared Lee Loughner. I would have to look up Soon Tek Oh to see if he was considered a prohibited person.

IIRC The Columbine kids got their guns from their parents. They didn't walk into some gun store and purchase them. They would have been prohibited due to their age.

Jared Lee Loughner was not a prohibited person as he was not a convicted felon nor was he judged to be menatlly ill before the shooting and prior to purchasing his firearm. Had his parents or teachers alerted someone to his problems maybe none of this shit would have happened.

This is just another stupid ass attempt to blame gun laws for the actions of flawed individuals. How many people will be killed in Chicago this weekend due to gun violence? They have the toughest laws in the nation and they can't rid that cesspool of the violence.

Chiefshrink
06-30-2012, 06:07 PM
This is such an erroneous statement. First off the Columbine kids did not exploit some loophole and neither did Jared Lee Loughner. I would have to look up Soon Tek Oh to see if he was considered a prohibited person.

IIRC The Columbine kids got their guns from their parents. They didn't walk into some gun store and purchase them. They would have been prohibited due to their age.

Jared Lee Loughner was not a prohibited person as he was not a convicted felon nor was he judged to be menatlly ill before the shooting and prior to purchasing his firearm. Had his parents or teachers alerted someone to his problems maybe none of this shit would have happened.

This is just another stupid ass attempt to blame gun laws for the actions of flawed individuals. How many people will be killed in Chicago this weekend due to gun violence? They have the toughest laws in the nation and they can't rid that cesspool of the violence.

:thumb:

petegz28
06-30-2012, 06:11 PM
They are busted on F&F and there is no two ways about it. From blaming Bush to claiming ignorance they just plain got caught in their lies and now have to pay the piper.

2bikemike
06-30-2012, 06:34 PM
Ok tried to find Soon Tek Oh and all I can come up with is the actor.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0644902/

Didn't look real hard but whoever the supposed person referred to, my guess is he wasn't a prohibited person either.

stonedstooge
06-30-2012, 06:56 PM
Trying to cover lies with more lies. Our administration at it's finest

go bowe
06-30-2012, 10:53 PM
OK, I read it. I don't see how it dramatically changes the scandal narrative. Assuming that the article is accurate, I see two possibilities here:

1) The agents in the field wanted to stop the flow of guns, but Justice Department attorneys prevented them from making any arrests or confiscating any weapons. This possibility seems to dovetail pretty well with the gist of the scandal allegations.

2) The agents in the field wanted to stop the flow of guns, but either the agents or the Justice Department attorneys were as incompetent as Keystone Cops and they couldn't manage to stop what they all knew was going on.

I'm not sure 2 is much better than 1, although I guess the lack of evil intent is superior.

there's a third possibility that the op points out - arizona law is so lax on gun purchasing and selling that the prosecutors didn't want to/couldn't take action...

and the fourth, that the phoenix office of atf was much worse than the keystone cops ever and actually came up with a terribly stupid idea and ran with it....

at this point i'm not sure what actually happened before holder closed down the operation, but as the evidence comes in (particularly the supervisor who has been interviewed recently) i expect that it will be a combination of all 4...

of course, all 4 are pretty similar, so maybe there's only one explanation - the totally ineffective inter-action of federal law enforcement with state laws and law enforcement and the absence of any effective federal legislation make it so the straw buyers can pretty much do what they want, whether we know about it not...

ok, that was a run-on sentence but i'm too full and happy after my anniversary steak from the grill and some fine rum and :bong: ...

have a nice night everybody!

patteeu
07-01-2012, 10:03 AM
there's a third possibility that the op points out - arizona law is so lax on gun purchasing and selling that the prosecutors didn't want to/couldn't take action...

and the fourth, that the phoenix office of atf was much worse than the keystone cops ever and actually came up with a terribly stupid idea and ran with it....

at this point i'm not sure what actually happened before holder closed down the operation, but as the evidence comes in (particularly the supervisor who has been interviewed recently) i expect that it will be a combination of all 4...

of course, all 4 are pretty similar, so maybe there's only one explanation - the totally ineffective inter-action of federal law enforcement with state laws and law enforcement and the absence of any effective federal legislation make it so the straw buyers can pretty much do what they want, whether we know about it not...

ok, that was a run-on sentence but i'm too full and happy after my anniversary steak from the grill and some fine rum and :bong: ...

have a nice night everybody!

You don't need an Arizona law to keep guns from being smuggled across an international border.

I agree that your 4th option is possible, although the article suggests otherwise (which is why I had the caveat about the article's accuracy).

2bikemike
07-01-2012, 11:32 AM
You don't need an Arizona law to keep guns from being smuggled across an international border.

I agree that your 4th option is possible, although the article suggests otherwise (which is why I had the caveat about the article's accuracy).

I think there is a huge misconception about the Arizona Law of so called straw purchases. If I understand correctly in AZ you can purchase a firearm and transfer it to a person who is not a prohibited person. For instance I could buy a firearm and give it to my daughter, she is not a felon and she has not been ruled mentally ill nor is she an illegal alien, and the state she lives in does not prohibit the particular firearm.

However Federal law does not allow you to purchase a firearm and send it across the border to known criminals or for that matter a country or State that has very explicit laws against firearm ownership.

Aries Walker
07-04-2012, 05:05 PM
Sorry guys, I've been out of action for a few days. I'm better now.

First of all, I accidentally typed in the name of a Hollywood character actor instead of Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter. Sorry about that.

Nice try Ariel:thumb: [quote]
I got a sportsshrink nickname! Awesome.

[QUOTE=sportsshrink;8710688]We'll soon get to the bottom of this scandal. Bottom line: Bush, ATF and Mexican govt worked together to actually track the guns to the criminals from 2005 to 07 then it was terminated because the cartel figured out the guns were rigged for GPS tracking. Obama gets elected and someone on his staff in the DOJ or wherever discovers this past program and gets this bright idea to reactivate the program but not actually track the guns or work with the Mexican govt but allow these guns to walk into the cartel's hands in hopes they commit crimes and then set up the Arizona gun dealers as the bad guys who supposedly sold them to the cartel( an excuse to go after and weaken the 2nd Amendment). Like I said we will soon find out for sure. EP was enough for me that they are hiding but now wiretaps as well?
The whole angle that it was somehow a cockamamie plan to undermine the 2nd Amendment is beneath any of our considerations. It was the brainchild of Michael Vanderbeogh, a far-right extremist blogger and conspiracy theorist who also advocated throwing bricks through the windows of Democrats in Congress, is a spiritual descendant of Wayne Lapierre's bizarre rant of how Obama is just giving the people a false sense of security before he revokes the Second Amendment, and as far as I can tell has no factual legs to stand on. Why some member of Congress are embracing this aspect at all is beyond me. It's every bit as ridiculous as the "Bush planned 9/11" idiocy that's been floating around since then.

Wiretaps May Prove Holder Knew About Fast & Furious
June 29, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Drudge has a story up.

(etc., long quote)

First of all, I'm immediately suspicious, if not dismissive, of any article where the first two words are literally "Rush" and "Drudge" being used as evidence to support beliefs. (I would, to be fair, be equally so if they were "Sharpton" and "Schultz".)

That said, I will grant this: Holder screwed up bad by denying everything at first. He deserves to be criticized for that, but the issue is that what he was denying has been misrepresented. The common thinking out there now, from what I can tell, is that the ATF deliberately let these guns go into Mexico, when - according to this article - they actually were trying to stop them but couldn't because of gun laws. This misperception was spread by Dodson and by the eager-to-get-a-story CBS News. Without intent, there's no scandal, and the story changes its direction completely.

This is such an erroneous statement. First off the Columbine kids did not exploit some loophole and neither did Jared Lee Loughner. I would have to look up Soon Tek Oh to see if he was considered a prohibited person.

IIRC The Columbine kids got their guns from their parents. They didn't walk into some gun store and purchase them. They would have been prohibited due to their age.

Jared Lee Loughner was not a prohibited person as he was not a convicted felon nor was he judged to be menatlly ill before the shooting and prior to purchasing his firearm. Had his parents or teachers alerted someone to his problems maybe none of this shit would have happened.

This is just another stupid ass attempt to blame gun laws for the actions of flawed individuals. How many people will be killed in Chicago this weekend due to gun violence? They have the toughest laws in the nation and they can't rid that cesspool of the violence.
Harris and Klebold bought their guns through two straw purchases - one through Harris's girlfriend at a gun show, and one through an underage friend - both of which were illegal. Seung-Hui Cho and Jared Laughner each had (have) major psychological issues which should have prevented them from being able to purchase handguns, although I will admit that Laughner is the shakier of the two claims, as his schizophrenia was at the time undiagnosed; his was more of a failing of society than law.

And in answer to your question, there were 432 murders (http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Local/RunCrimeTrendsInOneVarLarge.cfm) in Chicago in 2010, a number which has been steadily dropping for the past 25 years. About 75% of the killings were with firearms.

there's a third possibility that the op points out - arizona law is so lax on gun purchasing and selling that the prosecutors didn't want to/couldn't take action...

and the fourth, that the phoenix office of atf was much worse than the keystone cops ever and actually came up with a terribly stupid idea and ran with it....

at this point i'm not sure what actually happened before holder closed down the operation, but as the evidence comes in (particularly the supervisor who has been interviewed recently) i expect that it will be a combination of all 4...

of course, all 4 are pretty similar, so maybe there's only one explanation - the totally ineffective inter-action of federal law enforcement with state laws and law enforcement and the absence of any effective federal legislation make it so the straw buyers can pretty much do what they want, whether we know about it not...

ok, that was a run-on sentence but i'm too full and happy after my anniversary steak from the grill and some fine rum and :bong: ...

have a nice night everybody!
I agree with this. I hope you had a good anniversary.

You don't need an Arizona law to keep guns from being smuggled across an international border.
You do in order to keep the guns from being bought there in the first place.

I think there is a huge misconception about the Arizona Law of so called straw purchases. If I understand correctly in AZ you can purchase a firearm and transfer it to a person who is not a prohibited person. For instance I could buy a firearm and give it to my daughter, she is not a felon and she has not been ruled mentally ill nor is she an illegal alien, and the state she lives in does not prohibit the particular firearm.

However Federal law does not allow you to purchase a firearm and send it across the border to known criminals or for that matter a country or State that has very explicit laws against firearm ownership.
I will clarify. Arizona is such an easy target because of its lack of background checks or waiting periods, proliferation of gun shops, and proximity to the Mexican border. A straw purchase - buying a gun with the intention of giving it to someone who isn't allowed to buy one themselves - is illegal at the federal level, with the Gun Control Act of 1968. The guys who would routinely buy several assault weapons at once then immediately hand them over to the waiting gangs in the parking lot would say they were not straw purchases, because they didn't intend to give the guns to the Bad Guys until they had already bought them.

I said it's "technically illegal, but with giant loopholes", when I actually should have said it's "technically legal, because of giant loopholes". That's what the ATF was trying to stop, but couldn't.

patteeu
07-04-2012, 09:52 PM
You do in order to keep the guns from being bought there in the first place.

But again, you don't need an Arizona law to keep guns from being smuggled across an international border.

So don't try to arrest the suspected straw purchasers when they are buying the guns in the first place. Catch them trying to do something illegal like smuggle them across the border.

Aries Walker
07-04-2012, 10:09 PM
Or, arrest them as they hand the guns to the guys that they actually bought them for.

patteeu
07-04-2012, 11:59 PM
Or, arrest them as they hand the guns to the guys that they actually bought them for.

Right. If they were absolutely convinced that these were strawman buyers (and the article suggests that they were), why didn't they monitor them and try to catch them handing the guns off to illegal purchasers or taking them across the border?

Aries Walker
07-05-2012, 08:13 AM
The point is that they did. The law as it's written says that you can't buy guns with the intent of reselling them to someone else, but the standard defense has been that the straw buyers say they are buying them for personal use at first, but then change their mind and sell them, and that can't be disproven in court. No intent, no case, or something.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 08:39 AM
The point is that they did. The law as it's written says that you can't buy guns with the intent of reselling them to someone else, but the standard defense has been that the straw buyers say they are buying them for personal use at first, but then change their mind and sell them, and that can't be disproven in court. No intent, no case, or something.

Neither that point, nor anything in the article, vindicates the federal government in this F&F deal. The article tries to blame permissive Arizona laws for the lack of arrests, but if they had a strong enough interest in making arrests, they could have done so by watching the suspects until they could have been arrested.

vailpass
07-05-2012, 10:52 AM
Vilify a state (Arizona in this case) for the failings of the federal government? obama already uses that approach for illegal immigration, now you want to stretch it to include F&F too?
Laughable.