Bob Owens in Pajamas Media has written a summary of events of ATF's Fast and Furious operation that shows that the heads of several other federal law enforcement agencies were also involved.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-president-obamas-un-plausible-deniability/
Three departments (Justice, DHS and Treasury) and the directors of at least eight of their agencies were involved. And you are going to tell me that Holder, Napolitano and Obama didn't know?
What is clearly needed is a special prosecutor, a grand jury, and subpoenas to everyone involved to tesify under oath. It appears that there are plenty of street-level agents more than ready to tell what they know. In addition, Melson appears ready to tell what he knows. How many other agency directors can be convinced to talk? This needs to be handled like a conspiracy investigation. Work your way up the ladder and flip the right figures.
I wonder if there are any secret tapes in the Oval Office.
You still haven't made a case that there is anything of a criminal nature to investigate. Whoever did or didn't know, no crime has been alleged. At most, bad judgement in supervising an operation has been alleged, and even that hasn't been proven.
ReplyDeleteThe miniscule right-wing kaffee klatsch seems to have a case of special prosecutor envy here.
Sometimes, the cover-up is worse than the crime. It is possible that Eric Holder committed perjury in May when he said he first heard about F and F a few weeks earlier.
ReplyDeleteAs for the operation itself, if authorized at higher levels, it may be that no crime was committed-just incredible stupidity and embarrassment that such a venture has resulted in the involved guns being involved in murders including two BP agents. Now is the time for everyone involved to answer questions. If they lie under oath, well, then that is no tempest in a teapot, is it?
Lying under oath is lying under oath. Have any of them even BEEN under oath yet? Was the allegedly inaccurate statement made under oath, or off the cuff to a newsman? The latter isn't perjury.
ReplyDeleteIt would be a sad commentary on our sound-byte hypnotized culture if someone who committed no crime ended up lying under oath to deny what they feared someone might make into a scandal, when there might indeed by no scandal.