Some cleaning-up after yesterday’s bombshell:
Fast and Furious Update for December 8, 2011
December 8th, 2011Documents Shows Fast and Furious WAS About Promoting Gun Control
December 7th, 2011Continuing her excellent reporting on the issue, Sharyl Attkisson drops another bombshell: Just like us “paranoid” right wingers thought all along, Fast and Furious was about promoting gun control:
Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
[snip]
ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3”. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”
Read the whole thing.
The best, most favorable explanation is that Fast and Furious was instituted for some still-undisclosed purpose, and that some ATF agents saw it as a ghoulish opportunity to promote gun control.
The worst: The Obama Administration designed and implemented Fast and Furious in a premeditated fashion, breaking the law and helping kill hundreds of Mexican citizens and U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry, all for the sole, express purpose of promoting gun control.
They had to kill people with guns in order to save them from getting killed by guns.
It shows that just because your paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.
Hat tip: Powerline, where John Hinderaker says: “If the Obama administration did arrange for the shipment of arms to Mexican drug gangs, not for any legitimate public purpose but in order to advance a left-wing political agenda, and those guns were used to murder hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American border agent–which they were–then we are looking at a scandal that dwarfs any in modern American history.”
Indeed.
Fast and Furious Update: Obama Administration Now Laundering Drug Cartel Money?
December 7th, 2011So says that bastion of right-wing propaganda, The New York Times:
Undercover American narcotics agents have laundered or smuggled millions of dollars in drug proceeds as part of Washington’s expanding role in Mexico’s fight against drug cartels, according to current and former federal law enforcement officials.
[snip]
The officials said that while the D.E.A. conducted such operations in other countries, it began doing so in Mexico only in the past few years. The high-risk activities raise delicate questions about the agency’s effectiveness in bringing down drug kingpins, underscore diplomatic concerns about Mexican sovereignty, and blur the line between surveillance and facilitating crime. As it launders drug money, the agency often allows cartels to continue their operations over months or even years before making seizures or arrests.
[snip]
Another former agency official, who asked not to be identified speaking publicly about delicate operations, said, “My rule was that if we are going to launder money, we better show results. Otherwise, the D.E.A. could wind up being the largest money launderer in the business, and that money results in violence and deaths.”
Those are precisely the kinds of concerns members of Congress have raised about a gun-smuggling operation known as Fast and Furious
I suppose it’s progress of a sort when even The New York Times realizes something went horribly wrong in Fast and Furious. And even if the money laundering program was working, what chance does it have now that the cover has been blown?
Does anyone actually believe the Obama Administration has an effective, coherent plan to take down the cartels?
What next? Will we find out that U.S. agents actually carried out cartel assassinations?
Also this:
The former officials said that federal law enforcement agencies had to seek Justice Department approval to launder amounts greater than $10 million in any single operation. But they said that the cap was treated more as a guideline than a rule, and that it had been waived on many occasions to attract the interest of high-value targets.
If Fast and Furious is any guide, those “hundreds of thousands of dollars” will turn out to be tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.
(Hat tip: Instapundit.)
Dewhurst Contributions: A Lot of Money from Fulbright & Jaworski
December 6th, 2011It takes a while for the FEC to put up the list of individual donations (even longer than putting up the summary reports), so I didn’t think to check out David Dewhurst’s individual contributions until this week. One thing that jumped out at me from the report was just how many donations he got from lawyers at Fulbright & Jaworski.
Fulbright & Jaworski ranked 52 overall on the Vault list of the top 100 law firms in the U.S., and fourth in the energy sector. The Jaworksi in the name comes from Watergate prosecutor Leon Jaworski. They’re headquartered in Houston but have offices worldwide. They’re generally considered one of the three biggest law firms in Houston, the other two being Baker Botts and Vinson & Elkins.
From the FEC, here are the donations Dewhurst received from Fulbright & Jaworski employees for his senate race (presented in the same format provided by the FEC, both for authenticity, and because I’m too lazy to reformat them):
I actually offer this up as more of a data point than a “gotcha.” While some Fulbright & Jaworski lawyers have been involved in liberal causes (like representing detained terrorists at Guantanamo Bay), 71% of their political donations have gone to Republicans. Fulbright & Jaworski seems to have done a lot of work for Dewhurst’s company Falcon Seaboard. (The Howard Wolf listed above is actually a retired partner for Fulbright & Jaworsk, as he’s currently President and Acting Chairman of Falcon Seaboard, has been appointed to several state boards, and is one of Dewhurst’s closest confidants.) Indeed, Dewhurst’s ties to the company are so extensive that he was he was willing to do this video taking about how awesome they are:
(I was also surprised to find an old high school classmate in the same video…)
A Look at David Dewhurst’s Personal Financial Report
December 5th, 2011Although they haven’t officially been put up yet, Quorum Report has obtained the personal financial disclosure report the U.S. Senate requires for David Dewhurst, Ted Cruz, Tom Leppert and Ricardo Sanchez. According to the Statesman, Dewhurst’s wealth adds up to some $225 million, quite a formidable amount (I suspect that myself and many of my readers could be quite content for 1/100th of that), but not quite the billionaire some had tagged him as.
Tom Leppert clocked in at $12 million (nice, but an order of magnitude less than Dewhurst) and Ted Cruz came in at just under $1 million. Ricardo Sanchez had a net worth of $212,009, but that was probably before his recent house fire.
A little bird was kind enough to provide me a copy of Dewhurst’s report, and I wanted to take note of a few tidbits.
Under income, Dewhurst lists his salary from the State of Texas at $61,119. The Lieutenant Governor’s base salary, as set by the Texas Constitution, is $7,200, though actual pay varies somewhat depending on which days he acts as the acting governor. I find it ironic that if I wanted to be Lieutenant Governor, I’d have to take a significant pay cut. Still, I bet the benefits are pretty awesome…
Dewhurst’s biggest wealth comes in the form of holdings in Falcon Seaboard, the energy and investment company he founded and for which he owns (according to the report) 97.38%. His report lists assets to the tune of over $50 million in Falcon Diversified and $25–50 million in Falcon Seaboard Investment Company, plus over $50 million in a blind trust. He also listed a receivable note from them in the $1–5 million range, as well as a promissory note (i.e. loan) from them in the $5–25 million range. Plus various other Falcon Seaboard-related investments and income.
Next comes Section IIIA, Publicly traded assets and unearned income sources, which lists the companies Dewhurst owns shares of stock in. Among those he has listed as owning shares worth between $100,000–250,000:
Stocks he holds $50,001-100,000 in are:
There are also lesser amounts of stock in Section IIIB, non-publicly traded assets and unearned income sources, which are presumably either in trusts or retirement accounts. (I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant.) I’m not clear if all Mr. Dewhurst’s stock holdings are inside or outside of his blind trust, or some other arrangement. My quick impression is that, blind trust or not, that’s an awful lot of foreign corporations for an American politician to have investments in.
Other tidbits:
That’s not a very blind trust. Indeed, about the trust, the report says “Mr. Dewhurst is the 100% beneficiary of the David Dewhurst Blind Trust which is a grantor trust for tax purposes. The trust is NOT considered a blind trust.” Que?
I’ll be happy to link to Dewhurst’s report (as well as those of the other candidates) when they’re publicly available.
Another Democratic Party Longshot, Virgil Bierschwale, Joins the Texas Senate Race
December 5th, 2011Real Estate agent Virgil Bierschwale sent me an email to note that he was joining the senate race; presumably the Texas senate race, although his text-heavy website does not mention our fair state until a good way down the page. (Pro-tip: It helps if you let people know what state you’re running in at the very top of your webpage.)
Mr. Bierschwale seems to be a disgruntled former Republican upset over free trade, globalization, and Grover Norquist (not necessarily in that order). As Mr. Bierschwale seems to approve of the Occupy Wall Street crowd, it does seem that he’s running in the right primary. Now we’ll see if he has the drive and stamina to zoom past Stanley Garza and challenge Sean Hubbard for second place…
LinkSwarm for December 4, 2011
December 4th, 2011I’ve been sick this weekend, so here are a few random link of interest before they get positively antique:
Fast and Furious Update for December 1, 2011
December 1st, 2011I’m feeling a bit under the weather, so here are some random and no doubt woefully late updates on Fast and Furious just to prove that I’m not totally out of it:
EVERYBODY in ATF and DOJ along the border knew, and they knew it before the murder of Brian Terry, for it obviously is no surprise to the highly-placed AUSA Cook, and he doesn’t mind using this common knowledge to achieve the desired result from Phoenix.
Texas Senate Race Update for November 29, 2011
November 29th, 2011Ten Days to a EuroZone Collapse?
November 28th, 2011So says a piece in the Financial Times, here excerpted from behind the paywall.
Things are moving very fast indeed on the Euro front:
From the beginning, the Brussels elites made it clear that, to adapt Abraham Lincoln, their paramount object was to save the Union. Never mind if that meant imposing epochal poverty and emigration on the southern members, and unprecedented tax rises on the northern. Never mind if it meant toppling the elected prime ministers of Italy and Greece and replacing them with Eurocrats (respectively a former European Commissioner and a former vice president of the European Central Bank — two perfect specimens of the people who caused the crisis in the first place). They were prepared to pay any price to keep the euro together — or, more precisely, to expect their peoples to pay, since EU employees are generally exempt from national taxation.
The only beneficiaries of the State’s assumption of [Anglo Irish Bank]’s liabilities are taxpayers in the countries whose banks were the reckless lenders to Anglo. Anglo, for all the guff at the time of the bank guarantee, had no systemic importance to the Irish economy. Irish taxpayers had no moral or other liability for its debts.
The sole reason for saving it was the ECB’s insistence that no euro zone bank should fail. Had Anglo failed, the costs would have been borne primarily by European banks and consequently by European taxpayers.
So the undertaking by the Irish State to stump up €47 billion to pay those private debts is an act of extreme (if extremely demented) euro-altruism. We are Europe’s ragged-trousered philanthropists, bailing out the euro with money we don’t have and that our European partners are kindly lending us at penal interest rates.
And this single act of insane generosity wipes out every red cent we’ve got from Europe since 1973.
[snip]
And for what? For less than nothing. For a moment of panic, a daft notion, a stupid indulgence in bluster and bravado. Some bleary-eyed fools decided, in the middle of the night, that they could bluff the markets by throwing all the chips we might ever have on to the table. It didn’t take long for the markets to realise that their hand contained nothing better than a pair of deuces.
But the gamble failed for Europe too. There might be some kind of (very expensive) pride in being able to say that little Ireland took the hit to save the euro zone, like the starry-eyed gal who takes a bullet for the outlaw in a corny western. But we saved nothing. All we managed to do was to buy the euro zone leaders more time in which to delude themselves that there was no real crisis.