ATF Project Gunrunner

I think the Mexican Law Enforcement officials would rather end it there on the spot than have to risk prison breaks and retaliation.
Click to expand...
No matter what the LE officials want, if they don't kill the feller on the street, the best way to assure they serve a sentence is to extradite to the USA... If they imprison them there, they just escape...

Remember, they have hundreds of millions in cash if not billions at their disposal to spend on any elaborate scheme they choose to thwart the security measures of a prison not much more secure than a nice home with a fence around it.

Brent
 
News comes today that Newell will not be assigned to be the ATF's attache to Mexico. The Mexican government is now handling Fast and Furious as a criminal investigation, and

Concern had surfaced recently within ATF that the Mexican government might arrest Newell if he came down there as the attache.
Click to expand...
 
This was a doomed project from the start the only objectives that appear to me are as follows.

1. Create murder and mayhem on both sides of the border for political purposes.
2. Equip the drug Cartels at tax payer expense with zero possibility of tracing it to any big players ever, it simply wasnt traceable period.
3. Use the resulting chaos to impose further gun regulations, possibly try to outlaw FFLs... This is my guess but it seems spot on....
 
If Newell is so clean, such a great LEO and general savant, a real teller of truth at any cost...I thought the Mexicans would like that. Or, if some of that recitation is optimistic, perhaps he could be useful.

ATF is afraid they would put the guy in prison? The Mexicans have higher standards than ATF or Holder, I guess, or it would be very useful to make an example of this paticular gringo for short-term political gain.

I am sure there are people in Mexico who look at it either way. I am so sorry for the former, and hope the latter reap what they sow, fall upon their own poison, and leave the field.
 
maestro pistolero wrote:

The link in post #836 from which the link was quoted works.

-----------------------

Looks like it does, thank you.
 
In the roving clown car that has become Fast & Furious, we have a new development. The Terry family had petitioned to come before the court as "crime victims" in the case against Jaime Avila, the straw purchaser who purchased the AK47s used in the death of Agent Terry.

Typically, this motion might be opposed by a defense attorney for his client's sake. However, in this case, the U.S. Attorney (Emory Hurley and Dennis Burke of Fast and Furious fame) is opposing the petition on the grounds that the family was "not directly or proximally harmed" by the illegal purchase of the AK.

Apparently, the US Attorney's office in Arizona is more concerned about the possible legal consequences of acknowledging that the AK47s sold to Avila may have been used to kill Terry than they are about the PR nightmare of telling a murdered federal agent's family that they were not "directly or proximally harmed" by the crime.
 
I just read that article and popped in to post it. I'm glad you beat me to it because you expressed my sentiments better than I would have.

If this was a novel, I think that it would be reviewed poorly because nobody would believe that a federal prosecutor would act so cravenly.
 
If the US Attorney is correct, let's just imagine for a moment...then doesn't that mean...the two crimes have nothing to do with each other...and how then or why did ATF ever undertake F+F if the crimes of their targets were only illegal purchases of firearms? The rest of what the bad guys do has nothing to do with the firearms they bought?

Am I missing something? It's a bummer being dumb.
 
What it means (from the Fed's point of view) is that there is no direct connection between Avila's purchase of the firearms and Agent Terry's murder.

To me, though, that seems like wearing an industrial set of blinders. And, again to me, it sounds like Mr. Burke is giving "proximate" a whole new definition.

What a mess. What a tragic, unnecessary mess.
 
So, if I steal a firearm and then transfer it to another person who uses it to kill someone I will not be charged as an accessory before the fact in that murder case? After all, the victim's family would not be "directly or proximally harmed" by my having stolen the firearms in the first place so they would also have no civil case against me as well. Sounds like precedent.
 
Last edited:
So, if I steal a firearm and then transfer it to another person who uses it to kill someone I will not be charged as an accessory before the fact in that murder case? After all, the victim's family would not be "directly or proximally harmed" by my having stolen the firearms in the first place so they would also have no civil case against me as well. Sounds like precedent.
Click to expand...

That depends... Are you a US Attorney, or a federal LEO? If you are, you're probably safe. (if not, you're toast)
 
Bartholomew Roberts wrote:


Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 4,438 In the roving clown car that has become Fast & Furious, we have a new development. The Terry family had petitioned to come before the court as "crime victims" in the case against Jaime Avila, the straw purchaser who purchased the AK47s used in the death of Agent Terry.

Typically, this motion might be opposed by a defense attorney for his client's sake. However, in this case, the U.S. Attorney (Emory Hurley and Dennis Burke of Fast and Furious fame) is opposing the petition on the grounds that the family was "not directly or proximally harmed" by the illegal purchase of the AK.

Apparently, the US Attorney's office in Arizona is more concerned about the possible legal consequences of acknowledging that the AK47s sold to Avila may have been used to kill Terry than they are about the PR nightmare of telling a murdered federal agent's family that they were not "directly or proximally harmed" by the crime.
-----------------------------
Re the position taken by DOJ, see above, given that the person murdered was a "family member", how is it that the feds can claim that the family was "not directly or proximally harmed" by the illegal purchase of the AK.

I'm not a person trained in the law, however given that 2 + 2 still equal 4, they still do, don't they, how can this contention be even remotely tenable?
 
In the roving clown car that has become Fast & Furious, we have a new development. The Terry family had petitioned to come before the court as "crime victims" in the case against Jaime Avila, the straw purchaser who purchased the AK47s used in the death of Agent Terry.
Click to expand...

Whisky Tango Foxtrot... Over?

That is all I can say...:mad:

Brent
 
That might, on the other hand, explain the apparent involvement of the CIA in all of this. The CIA is fairly well renowned for taking the long way around when it comes to manipulating the political environments of countries we take an interest in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top