Thursday, January 5, 2012

Fast and Furious: Fire the Subordinates?

"That's right. It was those Junior G-Men who were running all those guns. Fire 'em, boys."

Bob Owens, writing in PJ Media, has an update on Fast and Furious, in which he worries that the plan may be to shift the blame for Fast and Furious onto lower-level subordinates who can be induced to resign en lieu of prosecution. If true, that would be designed to protect the higher-ups in the Justice Department. Pay particular attention to the linked LA Times article from last month.

Maybe Eric Holder can pin the blame on rogue Junior G-Men wearing those badges they got in that Post Toasties box. (See previous post.)


elwood p suggins said...

Here we go again. When you have some combination of fools and/or the blind leading (or following) other fools and/or the blind,this is what you get.

When something goes wrong, there is absolutely nothing new about denying knowledge of the activity and dumping on subordinates to avoid the heat. Happens all the time. Eminently predictable.

As to who knew what when, I obviously cannot say for sure that Mr. Obama (or who else specifically, for that matter)actually had advance/prior knowledge, but I believe he and the AG most likely did. I understand and believe that in simiilar situations, such as DEA actually "furnishing" any quantity of a controlled substance to violators, and almost certainly the recently reported money laundering activity by DEA, the prior approval of at least the DEA Administrator is still absolutely required. Higher level, more sensitive and significant operations (such as 'Fast and Furious") would, of course, require a higher level of DOJ approval, up to and including at least the AG if not higher, depending on the circumstances.

Additionally, periodic, recurring after-the-fact reports relative to all instances of "furnishing" would be routinely provided to "main Justice", with the virtual certainty that anything as significant as "Fast and Furious" would be reported at least to the AG level, again if not higher. Period.

Gary Fouse said...

I think I addressed the DEA undercover money-laundering stuff in a previous thread. Done correctly, it has been a very sucessful investigative tool. I don't know what occurred in the latest ops.

I also addressed the high-level approval requirements involved in providing any drugs to suspects in a undercover capacity when the agent is posing as seller. Buyers-especially in a first time deal, often ask for a sample of the drugs they are purchasing just as sellers usually ask to see the money.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Or, maybe somebody down the line took their eye off the guns, and is therefore responsible...

...I don't know that happened, but it is equally consistent with the scenario.

elwood p suggins said...

Gary, I was not criticizing or questioning the effectiveness of "reverse" or "sting" ops, just trying to emphasize/reiterate that the more involved the activity, the higher the level of approval needed, which strongly suggests that the AG, and probably Obama, were most likely aware of/involved in this caper.

Siarlys, someone obviously took their eye off the guns here. The questions are who and how many, how far down (or up??) the line they were, etc.

Harry Truman, one of my favorite Dems, had somoething to say about the buck. In my experience as both a supervisor and a manager, I was held responsible/accountable for the actions of my subordinates, even when I was not physically present and even when they acted in direct contravention of directives I had issued, both verbal and written. It was one of those "I knew, or should have known" things, which certainly applies in this instance.

I am neither paranoid (even though a lot of people are out to get me) nor normally a conspiracist. I am forced, however, to at least reconsider the possibility that since these "F&F" revelations followed the incccurate statements/reporting by some libs/Dems/media that some 90% of the guns recovered from crime scenes in Mexico were traceable to the U.S., this could have been an effort to "sweeten the pot" relative to gun control efforts in the U.S. Who knows??

Gary Fouse said...


You are on the right track. The problem is that we have a highly politicized Justice Department that is now engaged in a cover-up after having ATF conduct a disasterous operation that has cost many lives including 2 US agents. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect this was designed to cut back on the second amendment.

If you are late to arrive on this story, I suggest you peruse the numerous articles I have posted on this scandal. And it is a scandal.