'Gunwalker' Hearing - National Academy of Public Administration ('NAPA'): Racketeering Think Tank - SES Through USIS

Source: examiner.com

Issa asks THE question at 'gunwalker' hearing; anti-gunners scramble for excuses
Kurt Hofmann
June 16, 2011

Recently, we discussed Congressman Darrell Issa's (R-CA) explanation of what this week's (and upcoming) "Project Gunwalker" hearings have been (and will be) about:

This is not a discovery process of what happened--we know what happened. We know that this administration, at the highest levels, approved a process that allowed thousands of high-powered weapons--basically AK-47 and M-16 look-alikes--to go to the worst of the worst on both sides of the borders, that those weapons have been used to commit crimes, and they have led to the death of federal agents on our side of the border, obviously, also Mexicans on their side of the border. This is known. The real question is what were they thinking.

Indeed--what were they thinking? In yesterday's hearing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) Special Agent John Dodson (the first whistleblower to come forward publicly) and Special Agent Peter Forcelli made clear over and over again that the "gunwalking" had no value as a law enforcement tool, and no conceivable chance of attaining any value. One example, as Dodson explains to Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT):

Chaffetz: I mean, what was the goal here?

Dodson: Sir, I can tell you what I was told. I was told that the goal is to ultimately target and bring an entire cartel to prosecution.

Chaffetz: How were they going to do that? The suspected cartels were in Mexico, were they not?

Dodson: Yes sir, they were. I have no idea how they planned to do that by this operation, or how it was designed to function.

And in fact, no one can adequately begin to explain (or, really, even inadequately explain) how this was supposed to work. The described plan is, as we've discussed before, a drug cartel-busting strategy equivalent of the Underpants Gnome's business model.

So finally, Congressman Issa came out and asked Special Agent Forcelli if the real objective might not be much more sinister (also in sidebar video):

Issa: I am going to follow a line of questioning I think I have been seeing develop throughout here with law enforcement experts. You have two points, you know the old expression, you connect the dots. The first point is the straw buyer; the last point is the scene of the crime. You've said, each of you, Special Agents, that in this case, as soon as you got to the next point of connect the dots, you were generally sent the other direction. You were not allowed to go beyond that next point. You weren't even allowed to follow that next point, even when they headed north with the weapons.

Now, if an operation like Fast and Furious seems to have a pattern, a consistent pattern, that you're only looking for two points--the beginning and the end--it's not a criminal prosecution. It's not an effective one. Plus, of course, if you take the logic that you can't prosecute a straw purchaser if the gun is in Mexico, if you take that point, then that part of it was frivolous from the start, even though today, every one of those straw purchasers has been charged, oddly enough, with the evidence that was available before that gun ever walked beyond the first step.

So let me just ask a question for your supposition, but I think it's a very well educated one. If you only look at the beginning and the end of the dot, isn't the only thing you've proven is that guns in America go to Mexico? Now could that be a political decision? Could that be a decision that basically, we just want to substantiate that guns in America go to Mexico--something we all knew, but would have considerable political impact, as Mexico began complaining about these, and they could say, "Well, yeah--we're even rolling up the straw purchasers." It wouldn't change the fact that Mexicans were dying at the behest of the United States, but wouldn't it ultimately meet a political goal?

Forcelli: I imagine, sir, that it's possible. In this instance, I think it's more just as I said earlier. A case agent had a bad idea; a group supervisor who failed to rein her in; an ASAC who failed to rein in--the chain of command, all the way up, failed.

Issa: But you'd agree that it doesn't meet any criminal goal--goal of prosecuting, the way it was handled?

Forcelli: No, because you can't show the chain of how those pieces of evidence went from Point A to Point B, which you'd need to prove at a trial.

Issa: I hope it was just a terrible mistake.

Even though Special Agent Forcelli was not ready to get on board with the idea of this being a politically motivated operation, geared to justifying more restrictive American gun regulation, he was forced to acknowledge that it couldn't accomplish anything else. Are we really expected to believe that BATFE leadership (and those above the BATFE hierarchy) are too "felony stupid" to know what the street agents knew all along--that this "investigation" had zero utility as a crime-fighting measure?

"The BATF and FEMA were designed to implement and accelerate a police state scenario in the US. This is why their leadership is chosen for their capacity to trample the Constitution and as such are inherently, [treasonous] duplicitous, malfeasant and inept. The question for Mr. Issa is, what THINK TANK brought these agencies into being [The National Academy of Public Administration ('NAPA') Washington; a racketeering think tank presently run by Kristine Marcy, NAPA President, and Lena Trudeau, NAPA Vice President] and from whose list are their leadership selected [Senior Executive Service through USIS by Marcy and Trudeau]?"



Onion Router Encryption Devices - Gunwalker-Mexico - Trade In Drugs, Patented Weapons and Pedophile Snuff Films - DOJ Pride - JPATS (ConAir)

Abel Danger Mischief Makers - Mistress of the Revels - 'Man-In-The-Middle' Attacks