Chapter Nine: Revelations

Trying to cover ground more quickly...

"It isn't the original scandal that gets people in the most trouble -- it's the attempted cover-up." ~~ Congressman Tom Petri. (pg 123)
It would be nice if more politicians lived their lives and ran their political campaigns accordingly.

".. confirmed that they had been ordered to keep Mexican officials in the dark about the agency's project to walk 2,500 guns into their country." ~~ pg 123
No footnote to check, but based on previous reporting style, suspicious. For example, Darren Gill and Carols Canino could have been told not to mention Operation Fast and Furious to Mexican officials for fear of corrupt officials passing crucial information on to the cartels and putting US undercover Agents in harm's way. The author, with no ethical qualms about misrepresentation, states matters to assume the conclusion she wishes the reader to arrive at. This might be considered circular reasoning, but there isn't any reasoning going on. She simply states and restates unsubstantiated claims in the hopes that they will eventually be accepted by the reader as true.

"Newell was unrepentant." ~~ pg 124
Someone who hadn't done anything wrong would not appear repentant. Phrasing in this way is used to assume guilt and get the reader used to it. Effective, I wager, but not a devotion to truthfulness. We've already touched on that previously. This repetition of what you want someone to believe sounds a lot like how the Republicans run their political ad campaigns. Truth is unnecessary if you can just put your lie into someone's ear often enough.

"The emails, released by the White House in response to congressional subpoena, undercut Newell's claim to the committee that 'at no time in our strategy was it to allow guns to be taken into Mexico.' One of the emails, in fact, included a map showing exactly where the guns from the Phoenix areas were showing up in Mexico." ~~ pg 125
Showing where the weapons ended up does not refute a claim that the strategy was not to allow guns to be taken into Mexico. It shows that the cartel were able to get the guns into Mexico, not that the intention was for this to happen. This would be the difference between gun-walking and gun-smuggling.

".. at least eleven crimes were committed on American soil in 2011 with guns traceable to Fast and Furious." ~~ pg 126.
Unstated are crimes committed on American soil by guns lost during Operation Wide Receiver. If the crimes are committed on American soil, then these represent guns that were not "walked." In particular, as previously explained, it makes no sense to smuggle a gun twice.. one into Mexico and once back when it is easy enough to purchase one in the USA. More important than guns used to commit crimes purchased as a part of Operation Fast and Furious might be the guns used to commit crimes purchased legally. Oh, and there's the little tidbit the NRA likes to put out about assault style weapons not being frequently used in crimes. Because this would directly refute that, wouldn't it?

"...800 of the 2,500 guns were linked to criminal activity in the United States and Mexico." ~~ pg 126.
Wonderfully evasive. First, it would be possible to list the number of guns linked to criminal activity in the United States. The only reason to lump the reporting together is to enable people who are angry over the Operation to feel that they have been put in harms way because many of the guns are still in the United States and being used in crimes. Secondarily, "linked to criminal activity" is different than "used to commit crimes" and yet stated in this way we would expect many readers not to be perceptive enough to pick up on that. Strictly speaking, every gone smuggled into Mexico is linked to criminal activity.. smuggling!

"You now claim that  you were unaware of  fast and Furious because your staff failed to inform you of information contained in memos that were specifically addressed to you." ~~ Issa as found on pg 130.
Do you mind if we start using that assumption of guilt in Corporate corruption investigations, banking disaster investigations, or the Iran Contra affair? Marvelously one-sided of you. I believe, if Issa were ever investigated in this manner he would find this defense entirely reasonable.

"Knowing what I now know was a pattern of unacceptable and misguided tactics used by the ATF, I regret that i did not alert others within the leadership of the Department of Justice tot he tactics used in Operation Wide Receiver." ~~ Breuer as quoted on page 131-132
Katie has stated that Breuer misleadingly labeled Fast and Furious by its Bush-era predecessor. I stipulate that it is entirely possible Breuer made no mistake at all. He could very well have been talking about Operation Wide Receiver when he made the statement, even if he had been asked a question about Operation Fast and Furious. Reminds me of Poindexter.

"Not good. 18 miles w/in [U.S. territory]" ~~ Burke email as quoted on pg 134.
Again, a gun purchased legally in Arizona and no evidence it was smuggled south of the border and smuggled again north. Straw purchasing wasn't illegal at the time the gun was purchased. Agents had to catch the purchasers lying on their paperwork in order to do anything.




 "The notion that [Fast and Furious] reaches into the upper levels of the Justice Department is soemthing that at this point I don't think is supported by the facts and I think once we examine it and once the fats are revealed we'll see that's not the case." ~~ Holder as Quoted on page 135.
History shows Holder was correct.


"Five emails linking her to Holder. They go back to two days after it happened--the first email was two days after Brian was killed."~~ Inside Sources quoted on pg 136.
Once you establish a respectable reputation as a journalist, you get some credit when mentioning inside an anonymous sources. Without such a reputation, or with a reporting style like Katie Pavlich's, no reasonable person should dismiss that your anonymous sources are could be entirely made up or completely misrepresented. After all, we see what you do with actual footnotes we can check.

"The emails, the source says, show Holder discussing Brian Terry's murder with Napolitano." ~~ pg 136.
"Show me the money." ~~ Jerry McGuire. You should not accept a statement as true simply because it is made. People say all sorts of things all the time. Where are the emails mentioned? Are we expected to trust Katie's reporting credentials?

"We honestly believe that Holder kept her in the dark about a lot of things, but we also know that her office approved the guns going across the border because CBP agents had to go through her chain of command in order to let those guns go across the border," ~~ anonymous source as quoted on pg 137.
This is not reasonable. The cartel, having purchased the guns, would also have established some means of getting them to Mexico around the CBP, possibly bribing corrupt agents on their own. They would not have trusted to luck and fortune that the guns were not found. Most likely, they smuggled the guns down the same way they smuggle the drugs up.. and I doubt this has to do with Napolitano giving them permission.

Conclusion:
C'mon, it is like she's not even trying to be honest. Biased perspective only explains so much.... after that you have to assume incompetent or corrupt.