Tomorrow, Darrel Issa and the House Oversight Committee will grill Eric Holder—once again—about Fast and Furious, the operation in which ATF officials allowed guns to be transported to Mexican drug cartels.
I’m trying to imagine how all this ends. I think there’s a non-trivial chance that the investigation just fizzles out—that congressional investigators don’t discover anything terribly interesting and that most of us end up believing that all the problems were simply due to bureaucratic ineptitude.
But on the other hand, just as the opera can’t end until the fat lady sings, I have a strong hunch that a few fairly dramatic events/revelations must occur before the investigation can end. The following are a few of those metaphorical fat ladies, listed in order of my confidence that they will sing:
1) Someone in the Obama administration admits that he or she thought that Fast and Furious was a good idea. So far, no one in the ATF nor any of their bosses in the Justice Department has explained why it was a good idea to let guns “walk” across the border.
(One senior ATF agent, William Newell, has been almost willing to say that Fast and Furious was a good idea. He has said that it might help to “disrupt and dismantle” some of the Mexican drug cartels. However, watch the 55:00 and 1:18:00 marks of this video of House hearings. He denies that he wanted guns to cross the border. But if that's true, how was the program suppose to help “disrupt and dismantle” the Mexican cartels?)
Some senior official, I believe, thought that the program would on net be beneficial—perhaps to demonstrate why the U.S. needs tougher gun laws, or perhaps to gain data about the number of guns that are being illegal transferred. I’m waiting to learn the identity of that official and for him to come clean about the why he thought Fast and Furious was a good idea.
2) Someone in the Obama administration admits that the Justice Department has been lying about how much it knew about Fast and Furious. Some White House officials have already gotten caught telling some fishy statements. E.g. in a letter dated Feb. 4, 2011, an assistant attorney general claimed that the “ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.” Later, the Senate Judiciary Committee obtained emails showing that another assistant attorney general, Lanny Breuer helped write the letter. Breuer later admitted that he knew about Fast and Furious when the letter was written. Eric Holder has insisted that the letter, although inaccurate, did not contain any lies, only mistakes, since the Justice department did not intend to deceive anyone.
In another instance, Eric Holder claimed that “Prior to early 2011, I certainly never knew about the tactics employed in the operation [Fast and Furious].” However, congressional investigators have released memos sent to Holder dated July 2010 that describe Fast and Furious by name.
Earlier this week, Fox News reporter William La Jeunesse noted that four Justice Department officials (Lanny Breur, Gary Grindler, Monty Williams, and Jason Weinstein) and three high-level ATF agents (Kenneth Melson, William Hoover, and William McMahon) have made some questionable statements. “All these guys,” reported La Jeunesse, “said they did not know or could not recall being told that agents were deliberately walking guns to pierce the cartel and arrest people higher up the ladder. Documents, however, suggest that they did know.” (See also, this breaking report by La Jeunesse.)
3) Some journalist, due to his or her outstanding investigative reporting, sees his or her status to reach legendary or near-legendary levels. Columnist Jeffrey Kuhner has called Fast and Furious “Obama’s Watergate.” Although it’s possible that the scandalous nature of Fast and Furious will reach Watergate levels, I suspect that it will fall short of that level. But if it does reach Watergate levels, I believe it will be largely because of some enterprising journalist. And I believe that the fame and status of such a journalist could approach that of a Woodward and Bernstein.
If you’d have asked me a week ago, I would have suggested CBS’s Sharyl Attkinson as the most likely candidate to take that honor. See here or here, for example, for some explosive findings that she has uncovered.
However, now my bet is on Fox News’ William La Jeunesse. When La Jeunesse made the above report, I happened to be at the same studio, and I appeared on camera shortly after him. (I was there to discuss some issues about media bias). After my segment, I got to talk to La Jeunesse about Fast and Furious. I don’t want to steal his thunder, but it’s obvious to me that he’s discovered lots of interesting facts and insights that he has not yet reported. It’s also clear that he has a huge passion for the topic. As I left the studio, I talked to one of the employees at the studio, whom I’ll call Kristin. “He [La Jeunesse] really should do some sort of one-hour special on this,” I said. “Oh trust me,” said Kristin. “He’s all over this.”
- Comment (47)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
That is exactly how this will end. Considering the paucity of coverage to date, it should come as no surprise to anyone.
Mar '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
Tim Groseclose 3) Some journalist, due to his or her outstanding investigative reporting, sees his or her status to reach legendary or near-legendary levels. Columnist Jeffrey Kuhner has called Fast and Furious “Obama’s Watergate.” Although it’s possible that the scandalous nature of Fast and Furious will reach Watergate levels, I suspect that it will fall short of that level. But if it does reach Watergate levels, I believe it will be largely because of some enterprising journalist. And I believe that the fame and status of such a journalist could approach that of a Woodward and Bernstein.
If you’d have asked me a week ago, I would have suggested CBS’s Sharyl Attkinson as the most likely candidate to take that honor. See here or here, for example, for some explosive findings that she has uncovered. ·
If there was any justice in the media Ms. Attkinson would have long since been heralded as the 21st Century Woodward & Bernstein, surpassing them even I would say for the tepid support she has received from CBS. Ms. Attkinson is the one who has kept this story alive, without her work we would not even be discussing this.
Aug '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
Please remember that this scandal (which I think is far bigger than Watergate) concerns a Democrat administration. Ergo, it will be dismissed as no big deal.
Jan '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
The key fact here is that maybe 20% of the American public have even heard of the Operation Fast & Furious scandal...
Jul '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
Not one presidential candidate has discussed this. The cover up goes deeper than the fact that the president approves of the cover up. I promise you that Obama knows who ordered this and why. The individual who approved this was probably Holder himself but there is no question Holder knows everything already and has discussed this with Obama. Holder has been caught lying repeatedly and has engaged in intimidation, bribery, and a media disinformation campaign. Will he catch any more three months old news Iranian terrorists tomorrow or perhaps another Obama impromptu news conference to add more news coverage to the day?
Nov '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
How exactly does one ascribe the allowance of 2000 guns to be walked across the border to Mexican narco-terrorists to bureaucratic ineptitude? As one of the ATF whistleblowers testified:
What is the legitimate law enforcement interest? If there is none, then what is the purpose of allowing this to happen? I keep asking myself these questions, and I have yet to come up with any acceptable answers.
May '10
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
Does anyone know if the Mexican government has made any formal protest over the deaths of many of their citizens due to the guns of Fast and Furious?
Jan '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
Mothership_Greg:
What is the legitimate law enforcement interest? If there is none, then what is the purpose of allowing this to happen? I keep asking myself these questions, and I have yet to come up with any acceptable answers. · 0 minutes ago
The nature of government is such that programs are frequently begun in one administration and are carried over into the next. This is true of the law enforcement, intelligence, diplomacy, trade...I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Holder hadn't heard of Fast & Furious until it was too late. Which is not a condemnation of the Bush administration, either. At the end of the day, F&F is pretty low-level within the federal bureaucracy.
Edited on Feb 1 at 7:23pmJan '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
Fast & Furious ... a policy threat to basically shut down religious colleges and hospitals unless they provide free condoms ... millions given to failing "green" businesses because the owners are major donors ...
... zero coverage in the media ...
... and yet, pundits all over the media saying how Mitt Romney is tone deaf ...
The media wouldn't know a news story if it was staged for them in a big hearing room in the United States Senate.
Oh, wait ...
Jan '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
You're kidding.
Eric Holder is the Atty General of the United States - he's shown you what the outcome will be. You're to be congratulated for not recognizing the reality. You still have faith in the America Way. Until recently, I did too, and I miss it. It's no good putting on your patriotic shirt and shouting "I still believe in the American Way." Open your eyes and look around you.
George Soros and the Unions are now in charge. They're not many, but evidently it doesn't take many. People keep focusing on the rules. The rules haven't changed, the game has changed. There aren't any rules in this game - they're made up as as those in charge require. What do people think Obama acting in place of congress, or Eric Holder prosecuting selectively, means? Is that the American Way?
As I say, I think the outcome will be nothing. I believe the Gordian knots, and technicalities will keep the issue alive way past next November, and then it will be really game time.
Nov '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
Tristan Abbey
F&F is pretty low-level within the federal bureaucracy. · 1 minute ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
So, you know who came up with the idea, and ordered it to be carried out? I thought that was a great mystery that the OIG has been attempting assiduously to figure out.
Jul '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
Tristan Abbey, if this is so low level then why hasn't Holder thrown the perpetrators under the bus? Why has he gone through tremendous levels of deception? The dem report discusses the old far less egregious program and claims this as an extension. Why was Holder notified throughout this investigation yet he claims ignorance? This is massive incompetence or it was treason. Either way, the cover up has been orchestrated by the administration as well as the DOJ. Any GOP issue of a similar nature would have been 24/7 news.
Jan '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
An operation that went bad, it seems to me -- not the first dumb idea we've ever seen in government, and certainly not the dumbest. From the LA Times -- yes, yes, liberal mainstream media, but worth a look:
Oct '10
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
There are few in the overall public that are even aware of this or current on the issue. As the MSM views the people in the Administration, their guys, the soft peddle will continue.
Given the current debates, this is a topic that could put some meat on the bones as it were. If the idea is to bring the failures of the administration to light, there is a start. Simply engage in truths and use a bigger hammer.
Speaking the truth wins bespite character assassinations. Forgive one for this, if any Republican seeking office owned a farm and liked animals. Chris M. would do twist the effort to the most base level of human depravity. How did we get to this point ?
Washinton was built on swampland and this to will sink into the morass.
Edited on Feb 1 at 7:47pmNov '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
I am not aware of any formal protest, but I did remember this:
Does anyone here follow popular Spanish language media, and if so, are you aware of if and how Fast and Furious has been reported?
Jan '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
Yes, the cover-up is terrible. No denying that -- but the actual operation itself just seems like a dumb idea that got even dumber. As for what Holder knew and when he knew it, cabinet-level officials get hundreds of briefings a month. As you read the Iran-Contra investigations, for example, one recurrent theme is: "So-and-so mentioned something about that, maybe, but it was mentioned in passing in an unrelated briefing."
Nov '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
Tristan Abbey: An operation that went bad, it seems to me -- not the first dumb idea we've ever seen in government, and certainly not the dumbest. From the LA Times -- yes, yes, liberal mainstream media, but worth a look:
4 minutes ago
This may be true, but why is it not possible to identify who is responsible for Fast and Furious? Why is that a difficult thing to ascertain? And what exactly was the idea behind letting narco-terrorists have guns?
Jan '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
Mothership_Greg
This may be true, but why is it not possible to identify who is responsible for Fast and Furious? Why is that a difficult thing to ascertain? And what exactly was the idea behind letting narco-terrorists have guns? · 0 minutes ago
The idea was to let them have the guns and see where they went -- just like in The Wire, except that was with drugs. The difference of course is that guns are made to kill and drugs are made to get high -- and it seems like our people had an incompetent plan for following the guns in any event. As for the investigation itself, I probably known even less than you, Mothership! ;-)
Edited on Feb 1 at 7:44pmNov '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
The whistleblowers have supervisors. The whistleblowers weren't happy about what they were being told to do. Perhaps it stops with the supervisors. Determining who ordered Operation Fast and Furious should not be difficult. What am I missing?
Nov '11
Re: What’s the Likely Outcome of the Fast and Furious Investigation?
Tristan Abbey
Mothership_Greg
This may be true, but why is it not possible to identify who is responsible for Fast and Furious? Why is that a difficult thing to ascertain? And what exactly was the idea behind letting narco-terrorists have guns? · 0 minutes ago
The idea was to let them have the guns and see where they went -- just like in The Wire, except that was with drugs. The difference of course is that guns are made to kill and drugs are made to get high -- and it seems like our people had an incompetent plan for following the guns in any event. As for the investigation itself, I probably known even less than you, Mother! ;-) · 0 minutes ago
In Operation Wide Receiver, the Bush era operation that is supposedly similar to F & F, this justification makes sense. I have never heard any description of what was being done to track walked weapons once they crossed the border in F & F. I suppose it is possible that some of the people doing the walking were informants...?