http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/09/exclusive-third-gun-linked-to-fast-and-furious-identified-at-border-agents/
Keep in mind; Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in December 2010. Two weapons (reported) were found at the site that had been purchased under Fast and Furious. Now we learn there was a third weapon present-linked to a government informant. In May 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder-under oath- testified to Darrell Issa's committee in Congress that he only learned of Operation Fast and Furious a few weeks prior to his testimony.
Does that pass the smell test?
"You can't prove nothin'
If Eric Holder knew nothing about Fast and Furious until a few weeks prior to his May testimony, then he should be fired for gross incompetence. What other explanations are possible here? Unless it is possibly the Woodrow Wilson theory.
For all you UC Santa Cruz Community Studies majors, Woodrow Wilson was president of the US during and after World War I. While trying to campaign for the US to join the newly-formed League of Nations, he suffered a major stroke. He was returned to the White House, and the public was not told. While Wilson lay in an upstairs bedroom incapable of running the country, his wife became the de facto president of the United States. Could that explain Eric Holder's incomprehensible lack of knowledge about a Justice Department operation that had gone so horribly wrong?
"Yeah! That's it! That's the ticket!"
7 comments:
Hmmmm!!!
Does this mean that Holder has secretly had a "Lobotomy" and the DoJ janitor is running the Department?
Squid
You still haven't made the case that there was anything terribly wrong with Fast and Furious.
As thousands of guns are sold illegally by licensed gun dealers in the United States, who have good cause to suspect they are being purchased for drug cartels in Mexico, the ATF tries to trace a few hundred to get an idea what the flow is.
Some of those traced are used to kill people, which is sort of what guns are designed for, and now, at least we know where the gun used to commit the killings came from, as opposed to before the operation, when we had no idea.
Now, the entire "law and order" crowd, most of them self-styled "conservatives," will cry out for the irresponsible gun dealers to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and sued for complicity in the deaths of the federal agents...
...Oh, this just in, they aren't saying any such thing. Instead, they are demanding to know why the ATF was tracking these weapons, and accusing the Obama administration of conspiring to limit access to guns.
Siarlys,
I have written about 15 articles based on my own DEA experience explaining why the operation was wrong and why Holder must have known about it. Furthermore, who is asking for gun dealers, who cooperated in good faith with atf to be prosecuted? I am not.
He is a true believer in CYA.
Gary, you SHOULD be calling for gun dealers who sold to STRAW BUYERS cooperating with ATF, and gun dealers who sold to straw buyers not cooperating, but under surveillance, to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am aware that you are not, and that is one reason I find your entire tirade suspect.
Your reference to your DEA experience is more a medal you wear on your chest to suggest that we should all just trust you that there is something fishy here, but you haven't offered any substantive insights.
My attitude toward an "expert witness" is always: If you can USE your expertise to EXPLAIN a set of facts in a manner that I can make sense of and evaluate, then you are useful. If you throw some jargon at me, then say "trust me, I'm an expert, you are useless.
Besides, you have an obvious ax to grind, which skews your ability to evaluate any new information.
The legal definition of expert witness is one who knows more about a topic than the average person. I have testified a few times as an expert witness.
I know what an expert witness is. The average jury member cannot be expected to understand the bar graph of a DNA test without someone well versed in molecular biology to explain it. But it is still the province of the jury to determine what facts have been proven, and, given those facts, whether the prosecution has proved its case.
The fact that you have testified a few times as an expert witness does not enlighten anyone on Fast and Furious. As I said, if your expertise enables you to explain facts in a manner that a non-expert can evaluate, well and good. You haven't done that here. You have merely offered rank hysteria about a nonexistent scandal.
Post a Comment