Breitbart On The Media Ignoring Operation Fast And Furious

Andrew Breitbart was interviewed by Ginni Thomas (Mrs. Clarence Thomas) for the Daily Caller regarding Operation Fast and Furious.

Fast and Furious happened, Breitbart explained, “for the purposes of creating a narrative that they could use in America to try and thwart our Second Amendment constitutional rights. I don’t think the most sinister screenwriter could imagine a government that would abide by that, let alone the media to cover that up.”

A teaser for the full interview is below. The article notes the full interview will be available on Monday.

Fortress Holder

Infographics, if done well, are an excellent way to condense data and still make the information usable. That has been the emphasis behind the work of Edward Tufte for years.

This one from the House Oversight Committee gets the point across very well in my opinion.

Courtesy of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee

Darrell Issa’s Opening Statement For Today’s Hearing

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has released Chairman Darrell Issa’s prepared opening statement for today’s hearings into Operation Fast and Furious.

Chairman Issa Hearing Preview Statement

Over the past year, the ATF program known as Operation Fast and Furious has been the subject of a joint investigation by this committee and Sen. Chuck Grassley, who serves as the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. When this investigation began, the Department of Justice took the position that allegations by whistleblowers about reckless tactics and decision making in this operation were false.

Late last year, after months of investigation, the Justice Department finally acknowledged the allegations were true. Fast and Furious was both reckless and flawed.

The Justice Department, however, has been less than forthcoming in cooperating with the efforts of Congressional investigators to determine exactly what happened and who was responsible:

• The Justice Department has delivered fewer than 8% of the 80,000 documents we know it has identified as being related to this flawed operation.

• It has refused to allow investigators access to numerous witnesses who participated in the operation – one witness, after being served with a subpoena, invoked his Fifth Amendment right to protection against self-incrimination rather than answer questions.

• Justice Department now asserts that many documents pertaining to internal discussions and decision making about its response to Operation Fast and Furious are off-limits to investigators.

The American people deserve better from our nation’s top law enforcement agency. Thursday’s hearing will feature the nation’s top law enforcement official, Attorney General Eric Holder, who will be asked to explain his decision to withhold this factual evidence from investigators. What he is concerned this information would reveal? Why is the Department trying to keep its internal discussions about Operation Fast and Furious from after February 4, 2011 secret? Why did it take nearly nine months for the Justice Department to acknowledge its earlier denials were false? Why did senior Justice Department officials who knew about and received briefings on the operation fail to stop it? Should Americans have confidence in their chief law enforcement agency even though these same officials remain in their posts?

There is now broad bipartisan agreement that the congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious has exposed a serious and deadly failure of government. We know that the life of a brave Border Patrol agent has been lost along with countless Mexican citizens who have been victimized by guns from Operation Fast and Furious. Attorney General Holder has acknowledged that the danger created by Fast and Furious will continue for years.

This hearing is not about controversial struggles between gun control advocates and supporters of the Second Amendment. It is about the unifying, and what should be bipartisan, expectation that the Justice Department be held to a high standard and that those who failed to meet this standard should be held accountable. I look forward to Attorney General Holder’s testimony.

Much of the hearings and much of what has been released has been about incompetence which is a start but doesn’t go far enough. I would suggest that this operation could be more accurately be considered a subversion of the Constitution. I may be jaded but I don’t think a reasonable person would conclude that such a Keystone Cops approach to the Mexican drug cartels was ever meant to work. Rather it was meant as a way to build support for greater and greater gun control measures. If one reads John Ross’ Unintended Consequences or Matthew Bracken’s Enemies Foreign and Domestic which are fiction and then compare Operation Fast and Furious to them, the similarities become downright eerie.

Mike Vanderboegh has seen the briefing paper  from the Committee titled “Main Justice: Extensive Involvement in Operation Fast and Furious.” Buried within it is evidence that leads to involvement by the FBI in parts of this operation or a concurrent operation called Operation Headshot.

So, since October the committee staff have been aware of the FBI sanitized version of the “one-armed man” and his brother who were their confidential informants, who provided the money to the straw buyers and whom the FBI have been protecting ever since Brian Terry was murdered. But does the Committee draw the obvious conclusion? Have they aggressively probed the FBI on Operation Head Shot? If this pathetic entry is any indication, no, they haven’t. The FBI, it seems, is off limits.

So now you have a troika of agencies – ATF, DEA, and FBI – involved to some degree in Project Gunwalker. Such coordination of effort among agencies doesn’t just happen without a controlling hand from above in Main Justice. This leads me again to say  this wasn’t about the cartels but rather about building the case for more gun control. This administration is the most Machiavellian since Richard Nixon and it fits their under the radar approach to these issues.

Holder’s Testimony Tomorrow – Bush Did It

Attorney General Eric Holder’s prepared statement that will be delivered before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been posted on the committee’s website.

I think I can summarize the gist of it in three words – Bush did it.

The similarities in the arguments between Holder’s testimony and the so-called report released yesterday by the Democrats on the Oversight Committee make a prima facie case for coordination on this by the White House, the Department of Justice, and the Committee Democrats.

Holder’s testimony is below. I have highlighted some relevant passages but have resisted the urge to insert commentary which might be scatological in nature.

Statement of
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
United States House of Representatives
February 2, 2012

Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the Committee, I am here today because I understand and appreciate the importance of congressional oversight, and because I am committed to ensuring the highest standards of integrity and professionalism at the Department of Justice. That’s precisely what I pledged to do – exactly three years ago tomorrow – when I was sworn in as Attorney General. And it is exactly what I have done.

My dedication to the Department’s mission is shared by an extraordinary group of
colleagues: the 117,000 employees who – each day, in offices all around the world – work tirelessly to protect the American people from a range of urgent and nprecedented threats – from global terrorism and violent crime, to financial fraud, human trafficking, civil rights abuses, and more. Over the last three ears, we’ve made a number of significant improvements, including policy and personnel changes that address many of the concerns that are the subject of this hearing. Today, I’d like to discuss some of these improvements in specific terms – and outline the steps that we have taken to ensure that the flawed tactics used in Operation Fast and Furious – and in earlier operations under the prior Administration – are never again used.

If some of my comments today sound familiar, it is because this marks the sixth time I have answered questions about this operation before a congressional committee in the last year. Let me start, however, with something that cannot be said often enough: allowing guns to “walk” – whether in this Administration or in the prior one – is wholly unacceptable. This tactic of not interdicting weapons, despite having the ability and legal authority to do so, appears to have been adopted in a misguided effort to stem the alarming number of illegal firearms that are trafficked each year from the United States to Mexico. To be sure, stopping his dangerous flow of weapons is a laudable – and critical – goal. But attempting to achieve it by using such inappropriate tactics is neither acceptable nor excusable.

That’s why, when I learned early last year about the allegations raised by ATF agents involved with Fast and Furious, I took action. In addition to requesting an Inspector General investigation last February, I ordered that a directive be sent prohibiting the use of such tactics. There also have been important personnel changes in the Department. And vital reforms reflecting the lessons we have earned from Operation Fast and Furious have been implemented.

Today, I reaffirm my commitment to ensuring that these flawed tactics are never used again. And I reiterate my willingness to work with Congress to address the public safety and national security crisis along our southwest border that has taken far too many lives.

Congress has sought answers to questions about law enforcement Operations Wide
Receiver
and Fast and Furious. And my colleagues and I at the Department of Justice have worked diligently to provide those answers. In addition to my frequent testimony before Congress, I have answered – and am continuing to answer – questions that have been submitted for the record during previous hearings. The Department also has responded to more than three dozen letters from members of Congress and facilitated numerous witness interviews. We also have submitted or made available for review more than 6,400 pages of documents to congressional investigators. This has been a significant undertaking for Department employees – and our efforts in this regard remain ongoing.

We also have provided Congress with virtually unprecedented access to internal deliberative documents to show how inaccurate information was initially conveyed in a letter sent to Senator Grassley on February 4, 2011. These documents show that Department officials relied on information provided by supervisors from the relevant components in the best position to know the facts. We now know that some of the information they provided was inaccurate. We also understand that, in subsequent interviews with congressional investigators, these supervisors have stated that they did not know at the time that the information they provided was inaccurate.

In producing internal communications regarding the drafting of the February 4th etter, the Department made a rare, limited exception to longstanding Executive Branch policy. This decision reflected unusual circumstances and allowed us to respond, in the most comprehensive way possible, to congressional concerns where the Department itself concluded that information in the letter was inaccurate. The documents we produced have answered the question of how that letter came to be drafted and put to rest questions about any intentional effort to mislead. All of our communications to Congress should be accurate and that is the standard I expect the Department to meet. At my direction, the Deputy Attorney General has instituted new procedures to increase safeguards in this area.

As I testified in a previous hearing, the Department does not intend to produce additional deliberative materials about the response to congressional oversight or media requests that postdate the commencement of congressional review. This decision is consistent with the longstanding approach taken by the Department, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, and reflects concerns for the constitutionally-protected separation of powers.

Prior administrations have recognized that robust internal communications would be
chilled, and the Executive Branch’s ability to respond to oversight requests thereby impeded, if our internal communications concerning our responses to congressional oversight were disclosed to Congress. For both Branches, this would be an undesirable outcome. The appropriate functioning of the separation of powers requires that Executive Branch officials have the ability to communicate confidentially as they discuss how to respond to inquiries from Congress.

I want to note that the separation of powers concerns are particularly acute here, because the Committee has sought information about open criminal investigations and prosecutions. This has required Department officials to confer about how to accommodate congressional oversight interests while also ensuring that critical ongoing law enforcement decision-making is not compromised, and is free from even the appearance of political influence. Such candid internal deliberations are necessary to preserve the independence, integrity, and effectiveness of the Department’s law enforcement activities and would be chilled by disclosure to Congress of such materials. Just as we have worked to accommodate the Committee’s legitimate oversight needs, I trust that the Committee will equally recognize the Executive Branch’s constitutional interests and will work with us to avoid further conflict on this matter.

I know the Committee also is keenly interested in policy changes that the Department has undertaken in the wake of Operation Fast and Furious. The ATF, which is now under the leadership of Acting Director Todd Jones, has implemented a number of key reforms and critical oversight procedures to prevent such a flawed operation from occurring again. These reforms include: clarifying current firearms transfer policies to more effectively prevent the criminal acquisition, trafficking, or misuse of firearms; implementing a new Monitored Case Program designed to facilitate closer coordination on sensitive investigations between ATF field and headquarters personnel; revising policies regarding the use of confidential informants to, among other things, prevent using Federal Firearms Licensees as paid informants except in limited circumstances; and reinforcing the importance of deconfliction and information sharing so law enforcement agencies can investigate subjects more effectively.

I’m also pleased to report that, under the leadership of the Department’s Criminal
Division, we’ve bolstered crime-fighting capacity on both sides of the U.S./Mexico border. We’ve done this by creating new cartel-targeting prosecutorial units; developing new procedures for using evidence gathered in Mexico to prosecute gun traffickers in U.S. courts; training thousands of Mexican prosecutors and investigators; extraditing more than 300 defendants wanted by U.S. law enforcement; successfully advocating for enhanced sentencing guidelines for convicted traffickers and straw purchasers; and pursuing coordinated, multi-district investigations of gun-trafficking rings.

This is an important start, but we have more to do. And no one knows this better than the members of our nation’s law enforcement community – including the ATF agents who testified before this Committee last summer. Not only did these agents bring the inappropriate and misguided tactics of Operation Fast and Furious to light, they also sounded the alarm for more effective laws to combat gun trafficking and improve public safety.

These agents explained that ATF’s ability to stem the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico suffers from a lack of effective enforcement tools. Unfortunately, in 2011, a majority of House Members – including all members of the majority on this Committee – voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and long guns – like AK-47s – in gun shops in four southwest-border states.

In this new year, I hope we can work together to provide law enforcement agents with the tools they desperately need – and have requested – to protect our citizens and ensure their own safety. Indeed, incidents of violence against law enforcement officers are approaching the highest levels we’ve seen in nearly two decades, even though violent crime is down overall. Last year, a total of 177 federal, state, and local officers lost their lives in the line of duty – a 16 percent increase over 2010. More than 70 of these deaths involved firearms – 20 percent more than the previous year. And, since the beginning of this year, an additional 14 officers have been killed – half of them in gun-related incidents.

That is unacceptable. The Justice Department is committed to turning back this rising tide, and to protecting those who serve on the front lines. We’ve designed and implemented a comprehensive new training initiative to provide law enforcement leaders with the information, analysis, and cutting-edge tools they need to respond to a range of threats – including ambush style assaults. We’ve developed and distributed 8,000 Officer Safety Toolkits, and have partnered with public safety professionals at every level to make sure our officers have the communications platforms necessary to share information more quickly – and to more effectively identify and combat threats. And we’ve built a robust network of elationships – between state, local, and tribal authorities; key federal partners; private sector stakeholders; and Cabinet-level agencies – to explore new strategies, invest in critical research, and ensure that this vital work remains a top priority. Let me be clear: nothing is more important than ensuring the safety of the brave law enforcement professionals who put their lives at risk for us each and every day.

But we can’t make the progress we need – and that our law enforcement partners deserve – without your assistance and your leadership. As I have said before, I am determined to ensure that our shared concerns about these flawed law enforcement operations lead to more than wornout Washington “gotcha” games and cynical finger pointing. The Department of Justice stands ready to work with you – not only to correct the mistakes of the past, but also to strengthen our law enforcement capacity in the future.

I look forward to discussing this, and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

Good For The Terry Family

The family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is suing the ATF for $25 million in Arizona state court for their role in his death. They are also suing Lone Wolf Trading Company in a second suit.

From FoxNews:

According to the claim, agent Terry was patrolling near Rio Rico on the night of Dec. 14, 2010 when he was shot and killed by criminals yielding assault rifles. Those rifles were traced to a straw purchaser for Mexican drug cartels in Arizona who the ATF knew about and allowed to deliver the weapons to the cartels.

“The murder of agent Terry and other acts of violent crimes were the natural consequence of ATF’s decision to let dangerous weapons designed to kill human beings ‘walk’ into the hands of violent drug-trafficking gangs,” the complaint reads.

The claim also contends that the circumstances that led to Terry’s murder were not isolated events, but rather there were thousands of guns purchased under occasional ATF surveillance with no way of tracking all the weapons from straw purchases.

The suit against Lone Wolf Trading Company is asking for unspecified damages. It says the company should have recognized just how risky these sales were but ignored it. Moreover, it says they knew that the ATF was letting the guns walk and should refused to participate in future straw purchases.

Bob Owens suggests that pulling Lone Wolf into the equation was a smart move.

By pulling Lone Wolf into the equation, the family’s attorney’s are creating a situation where Lone Wolf is going to be forced to give up what they know and pressure the ATF into providing documents for their defense as well.

I think he may be on to something there.

Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>

Grassley Dismisses Cummings’ Attempt At A Whitewash

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) today dismissed out of hand the attempt by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and the other Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to exonerate senior Department of Justice officials involved in Operation Fast and Furious.

“The idea that senior political appointees have clean hands in these gunwalking scandals doesn’t pass the laugh test, especially considering we’ve seen less than 10 percent of the pages that the Justice Department has provided the Inspector General. They ignored the warning signs and failed to put a stop to it or hold anyone accountable. Lanny Breuer is a senior political appointee, and he admits to knowing about gunwalking as early as April 2010. Documents turned over late Friday night indicate he was still discussing plans to let guns cross the border with Mexican officials on the same day the Department denied to me in writing that ATF would ever let guns walk. He stood mute as this administration fought tooth and nail to keep any of this information from coming out for a year. It will take a lot more than a knee-jerk defense from their political allies in Congress to restore public trust in the leadership of the Justice Department. The American people want to see those who failed to act be held accountable.”

 In his release he pointed to documents which show senior officials not only knew about it but were involved. They can be seen here and here.

Quote Of The Day

The quote of the day comes from Townhall.com’s Katie Pavlich who calls them as she sees then with regard to the behavior of the Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Although Cummings claims he wants to bring justice to the Terry family for his murder, which was a direct result of this recklass (sic) program, he has done the opposite by using the scandal to promote new gun control measures, implying ATF should be given more power and as a chance to blame President Bush for using the “same tactics” that were used during Fast and Furious for other programs during his time in the White House. During Bush-era “gunwalking” programs, the Mexican government was informed and cooperating with ATF to interdict and follow guns into Mexico. During Fast and Furious under President Obama, Mexican officials were left in the dark as 2500 guns were delivered to the hands of ruthless cartel members thanks to DOJ and ATF officials.

Note to Cummings: Your cover-up is showing.

More Court Documents Released In Agent Terry’s Murder

Lori Jean Gliha of ABC15 in Phoenix has been one of the best local sources for information on Project Gunwalker. Her station and five others sued to get more court documents released in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. We finally have a name and a charge for the person who pulled the trigger: Manuel Osorio Arellanes is charged with second degree murder in Terry’s death.

Those documents can be found here. The firearm that Manuel Osorio Arellanes or the other redacted defendant was accused of possessing, a Romanian WASR-10/63 AK-47, serial number 1971CZ3775, was one of two Operation Fast and Furious firearms traced to the murder scene. (See p.46 of the Oversight Report) I may be mistaken as I’m going from memory here but I don’t think either of these weapons had been tied conclusively to Agent Terry’s murder before now. It has always been said they were at the scene but never used in his murder. If the court documents are accurate – and there is no reason to believe that they aren’t – then the government is now saying a gunwalked AK was used to kill Agent Terry.

This is political dynamite! No wonder the Democrats are working so hard to blame the locals and exonerate Eric Holder.

UPDATE: In an article published last night, Dennis Wagner of the Arizona Republic says the second person indicted for the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is Rito Osorio-Arellanes.

The U.S. District Court documents name Rito Osorio-Arellanes, 41, who is believed to be a brother of the only previously named defendant, Manuel Osorio-Arellanes.

Wagner notes in his article that there is a third suspect who remains at large and who has not been identified.

The Minority Report Released By Cummings

Here is the full Minority Report released by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings.

You will note that significant effort is put into “Bush did it” claims and that the personnel recommendations note that those involved on the ground have either resigned or be reassigned.

“Fatally Flawed: Five Years of Gunwalking in Arizona.”(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Preemptive Strike By Cummings And Democrats On Oversight Committee

In what can only be considered a preemptive strike in advance of Attorney General Eric Holder’s appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) has released a report from the committee minority staff that blames Project Gunwalker entirely on the ATF Phoenix Field Division. It explicitly exonerates senior DOJ officials including Holder and Lanny Breuer.

From Cummings’ press release:

Cummings Issues Report Detailing Five Years of Gunwalking Operations in Arizona

Comprehensive Report Finds No Evidence that Senior Officials Approved Controversial Tactic

Washington, DC (Jan. 31, 2012)—Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a 95-page minority staff report entitled “Fatally Flawed: Five Years of Gunwalking in Arizona.” The report describes the results of the Committee’s year-long investigation into the actions and circumstances that led to multiple gunwalking operations in Arizona from 2006 to 2010.

According to a letter Cummings sent to Committee Members accompanying the report, “this report tells the story of how misguided gunwalking operations originated in 2006 as ATF’s Phoenix Field Division devised a strategy to forgo prosecutions against low-level straw purchasers while they attempted to build bigger charges.”

The report finds that this strategy failed to include sufficient operational controls to stop these dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of violent criminals, creating a danger to public safety on both sides of the border. Rather than halting operations after flaws became evident, ATF’s Phoenix Field Division launched several similarly reckless operations over the course of several years, according to the report, also with tragic results.

Cummings’ letter noted that he instructed his staff “to focus on the facts we have discovered rather than the heated and sometimes inaccurate rhetoric that has characterized much of this investigation.”

“Contrary to repeated claims by some, the Committee has obtained no evidence that Operation Fast and Furious was a politically-motivated operation conceived and directed by high-level Obama Administration political appointees at the Department of Justice,” Cummings wrote in his letter. “The documents obtained and interviews conducted by the Committee indicate that it was the latest in a series of reckless and fatally flawed operations run by ATF’s Phoenix Field Division during both the previous and current administrations.”

The report sets forth ten constructive recommendations intended to address specific problems identified during the course of this investigation.

As might be expected from the rabid anti-gunners composing the Democrat side of the committee, many of their “constructive recommendations” are calls for more gun control. They include continuing and expanding the multiple semi-automatic rifle reporting requirement, repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, enactment of a “dedicated firearms trafficking law”,  and more money for ATF.

The New York Times’ Charlie Savage has a long story on this effort by the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee to shield Holder and other DOJ officials. After three paragraphs trumpeting the Democrats’ conclusions and so-called exoneration of Holder, even the Times has to admit the timing is suspect.

Still, because the report was written by Democrats, the political impact of its conclusion exonerating high-level officials of wrongdoing may be limited. Its publication comes two days before Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is to testify before the committee.

In the Times article, there is significant discussion of the letter sent by DOJ to Sen. Chuck Grassley on February 4, 2011 which falsely denied any gun-walking took place. It seems to cast the blame for the false claims on Patrick Cunningham, the former head of the U.S. Attorney for Arizona’s criminal section. Cunningham, you may recall, has elected not to answer questions from Committee investigators and has pled the Fifth.