Fast and Furious defendant sentenced to 57 months

[Star]

.
Gun buyer sentenced in Fast and Furious case - CBS 5 - KPHO


PHOENIX (CBS) -

The man who admitted to buying guns as part of a smuggling ring, including two rifles found in the aftermath of a 2010 shootout that killed U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, was sentenced to 57 months in prison Wednesday as part of a plea agreement accepted by a Superior Court judge.

Jaime Avila Jr., 25, was given the sentence after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy for acting as a straw buyer of guns for a Mexican drug cartel being monitored as part of a botched federal investigation known as Fast and Furious.

Avila had admitted to lying that the weapons he bought were for him and not the drug cartel, and out of an original 57-count indictment, he was charged with only five counts.

<snip>
.

 

[WillowTree]

Holder he got some spinning do dew.

 

[TNHarley]

Jesus christ. I guess the executive priveledge does not cover everyone..

 

[beretta304]

While the real criminal gets a pass...

 

[TNHarley]

While the real criminal gets a pass...

My point exactly

 

[francoHFW]

The ATF chief said NEITHER the Bush nor Obama administration knew anything about the gunwalking, brainwashed Pub dupes. Pfffft!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Holder should get 20 years

 

[Jarhead]

So Holder should get 20 years

To this day no one has answered my question...and I have asked it on here numerous times...

Holder claimed to not have known about F and F becuase there are many operations going on at once and he can not be aware of all of them.....

Soooooo.....

If selling arms to the enemy of an ally (Mexico declared the cartels an enemy of the Mexican Government several years ago), by transporting them over the border of an ally, without the ally knowing (deemed an act of war, by the way)..was not deemed as one of the IMPORTANT operations he shoiuld be aware of.....then what exactly would be the cirteria for being deemed important enough?

Furthermore, who made the decision NOT to tell Holder about an operation that an ally could consider an act of war....and why wasnt his ass fired on the spot?

Or...

Is Holder a liar.

 

[beretta304]

So Holder should get 20 years

I'd rather hand him over to the drug cartel lords.

 

[beretta304]

So Holder should get 20 years

To this day no one has answered my question...and I have asked it on here numerous times...

Holder claimed to not have known about F and F becuase there are many operations going on at once and he can not be aware of all of them.....

Soooooo.....

If selling arms to the enemy of an ally (Mexico declared the cartels an enemy of the Mexican Government several years ago), by transporting them over the border of an ally, without the ally knowing (deemed an act of war, by the way)..was not deemed as one of the IMPORTANT operations he shoiuld be aware of.....then what exactly would be the cirteria for being deemed important enough?

Furthermore, who made the decision NOT to tell Holder about an operation that an ally could consider an act of war....and why wasnt his ass fired on the spot?

Or...

Is Holder a liar.

Your question is answered by your own last sentence...Holder is not a liar but a FUCKING POS liar.

 

[Jarhead]

So Holder should get 20 years

To this day no one has answered my question...and I have asked it on here numerous times...

Holder claimed to not have known about F and F becuase there are many operations going on at once and he can not be aware of all of them.....

Soooooo.....

If selling arms to the enemy of an ally (Mexico declared the cartels an enemy of the Mexican Government several years ago), by transporting them over the border of an ally, without the ally knowing (deemed an act of war, by the way)..was not deemed as one of the IMPORTANT operations he shoiuld be aware of.....then what exactly would be the cirteria for being deemed important enough?

Furthermore, who made the decision NOT to tell Holder about an operation that an ally could consider an act of war....and why wasnt his ass fired on the spot?

Or...

Is Holder a liar.

Your question is answered by your own last sentence...Holder is not a liar but a FUCKING POS liar.

My question is this...

Why wasnt the administration asked that very question by the press?

Why is the media more interested in his final 4 picks?

 

[beretta304]

To this day no one has answered my question...and I have asked it on here numerous times...

Holder claimed to not have known about F and F becuase there are many operations going on at once and he can not be aware of all of them.....

Soooooo.....

If selling arms to the enemy of an ally (Mexico declared the cartels an enemy of the Mexican Government several years ago), by transporting them over the border of an ally, without the ally knowing (deemed an act of war, by the way)..was not deemed as one of the IMPORTANT operations he shoiuld be aware of.....then what exactly would be the cirteria for being deemed important enough?

Furthermore, who made the decision NOT to tell Holder about an operation that an ally could consider an act of war....and why wasnt his ass fired on the spot?

Or...

Is Holder a liar.

Your question is answered by your own last sentence...Holder is not a liar but a FUCKING POS liar.

My question is this...

Why wasnt the administration asked that very question by the press?

Why is the media more interested in his final 4 picks?

You and I know why but you don't seriously expect to get an honest answer here from Obama supporters.

 

[Jarhead]

Your question is answered by your own last sentence...Holder is not a liar but a FUCKING POS liar.

My question is this...

Why wasnt the administration asked that very question by the press?

Why is the media more interested in his final 4 picks?

You and I know why but you don't seriously expect to get an honest answer here from Obama supporters.

OK...then how about this....

why dont Obama supporters want to know?

 

[Abatis]

Holder claimed to not have known about F and F becuase there are many operations going on at once and he can not be aware of all of them.....

Holder is a liar and the dates he has testified to, about his learning of the operation don't pass muster.

Holder testified before Congress on May 13th of 2011 that he wasn't, "sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say that equals five weeks; at best then that puts his "first hearing" at or around April 8th . . . Which is 9 weeks after the DOJ's Feb 4th letter of lies to Senator Grassley and over 40 weeks after Holder received a MEMORANDUM TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL that updated the AG on the operation called "Fast and Furious" begun in September 2009, summarizing the operation to the date of this memo (July 5, 2010) in which:

______________________________

"Manual Celis-Acosta . . . and and [redacted] straw purchasers . . . are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican drug trafficking cartels. They also have direct ties to the Sinaloa Cartel which is suspected of providing $1 million for the purchase of firearms in the greater Phoenix area."​

______________________________​

Which makes the months and months of denials by Holder and his claim of no knowledge of Fast and Furious prior to April of 2011 or thereabouts, quite perplexing. Either he is lying or incompetent.

In reality, Holder lied and continues to lie because he was nothing more than middle management in Fast and Furious. He really was given an impossible task and then managed it terribly.

That the directives came from a level above him is without doubt because the modifications to the Arizona US Attorney's prosecutorial doctrine was not something Holder, even as Attorney General, could have executed himself.

The Arizona US Attorney's office was directed to completely deny any and all prosecution of Title 18 crimes (purchase & transfer offenses, i.e., strawbuying) and instead demand Phoenix ATF bring indictable evidence of Title 22 international gun trafficking offenses under the Arms Export Control Act, against unknown foreign individual members in the Sinaloa Cartel, citizens of, living in, and operating within Mexico . . . AND do it without the knowledge, approval or cooperation of the Government of Mexico, without informing the ATF Agents sanctioned to work in Mexico and without making any attempt to actually "track" the guns after they were purchased in the USA.

This gets really complicated here, which proves that it was directed from above DOJ/AG . . . The State Department is actually in charge of the Arms Export Control Act by way of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) because of the international nature (and diplomatic ramifications) of these crimes and the cross border actions required by US Law Enforcement to gather evidence, arrest, charge and prosecute violators who are citizens and residents of a foreign nation. This is assuming of course that the operation being discussed really has as an objective the capture of those individuals (NOT a safe assumption for Fast and Furious).

Now, since the State Department is in charge of these international gun laws it is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a department of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that are the legal enforcers of ITAR -- not ATF! Such a switcheroo isn't a small thing explained away by saying Fast and Furious was the actions of a "rogue ATF Agent" or simply a "botched law enforcement operation".

Consider for a moment the domestic and international hurdles to either jump or evade (in the latter, likely violate an international treaty, the Brownsville Agreement), by demanding ATF be the lead investigators for ITAR violations by foreign nationals operating outside the USA. ICE was told to stand down by DHS (who was told by State/NSC/White House???) and defer to ATF for anything to do with guns in the border areas of Arizona (does the President invoking Executive Privilege make a bit more sense considering all this interplay of agencies?).

It is clear that Fast and Furious was an operation engineered to fail as a "law enforcement" initiative so that leaves its only real intention as placing thousands of guns sourced from US FFL's combined with perhaps tens of thousands of assault weapons sourced from State Department approved direct sales, (another topic entirely) into the hands of narco-terrorist members of various and assorted Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations.

You are on the right track with seeing the international ramifications as too problematic for the pathetic official excuses offered so far. The wiretap applications are of great importance here (which is why the administration tried so hard to keep them under wraps).

 

[francoHFW]

Total Pubcrappe, dupes- change the channel.

 

[TNHarley]

Total Pubcrappe, dupes- change the channel.

Thats about all you say.. Prove everyone wrong, dupe

 

[Abatis]

And nobody is discussing the biggest source of guns to cartels; direct government sales approved by the State Department.

I'd like to ask why, in 2009, did the State Department suddenly increase the number of "direct sales" ten-fold from the Bush era (to nearly 20,000) when the State Department's own audits showed a 26% diversion rate of direct government assault weapon sales in the region to the cartels (which in Mexico would be the Zeta's, made up of 150,000 deserters from the Mexican police and military, relying on corrupt officials in office for their guns and the on again, off again enemy of the Sinaloa's)?

Remember, back when Obama first took office it was all about guns being found at Mexican crime scenes and his totally deceptive statement that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States” . . .

Those traces didn't necessarily need to ALL point to regular gun store retail sales from US gun DEALERS to make the point, they just needed to simply be traced back to the USA . . . Was this remarkable jump in State Department approved direct sales intended to help that 90% false claim along, and make it become true?

Now, after decades of openness and full accounting, the State Department refuses to release the number of sales of assault weapons it approved to Mexico for 2010 and 2011. It sure would be interesting to find out how many assault weapons in total went to Mexico on the Obama State Department's OK and to have Mexico account for them to see how many were diverted to the Cartels . . .

Executive Privilege makes more sense when one sees the entire picture and the interplay of the NSC/DHS/ICE/DOJ/ATF/FBI and State Department. What if there were 50,000 or 100,000 assault weaons sent down there between 2010 & 2011 on the State Department's OK? Will we ever know?

Note that 26% of 20,000 in one year plus 26% of ??,??? for 2010 plus 26% of ??,??? for 2011 far, far, far, exceeds the 1750 guns "lost" over 15 months of Fast and Furious.

We do know Wikileaks exposed State Department cables (example 1) questioning the Mexican government as to the disposition of assault weapons transferred to the Mexican government through direct sales that we knew were lost in Mexico.

Other cables discuss the weapons diverted to the Cartels from direct sales of heavy military weaponry throughout Central America or left over from previous conflicts.

Should Hillary be subpoenaed to find out what the answers were?

 

[Abatis]

Total Pubcrappe, dupes- change the channel.

If anyone needs to change the channel it is you.

Turn off MSDNC, stop with the Think Progress, dailyKos, Democratic Underground, Mother Jones . . .

You are warmly invited to dispute and prove wrong anything I have posted.

I doubt you have any capacity for reasoned debate.

 

[Sallow]

While the real criminal gets a pass...

That was the real criminal.

 

[Sallow]

And nobody is discussing the biggest source of guns to cartels; direct government sales approved by the State Department.

I'd like to ask why, in 2009, did the State Department suddenly increase the number of "direct sales" ten-fold from the Bush era (to nearly 20,000) when the State Department's own audits showed a 26% diversion rate of direct government assault weapon sales in the region to the cartels (which in Mexico would be the Zeta's, made up of 150,000 deserters from the Mexican police and military, relying on corrupt officials in office for their guns and the on again, off again enemy of the Sinaloa's)?

Remember, back when Obama first took office it was all about guns being found at Mexican crime scenes and his totally deceptive statement that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States” . . .

Those traces didn't necessarily need to ALL point to regular gun store retail sales from US gun DEALERS to make the point, they just needed to simply be traced back to the USA . . . Was this remarkable jump in State Department approved direct sales intended to help that 90% false claim along, and make it become true?

Now, after decades of openness and full accounting, the State Department refuses to release the number of sales of assault weapons it approved to Mexico for 2010 and 2011. It sure would be interesting to find out how many assault weapons in total went to Mexico on the Obama State Department's OK and to have Mexico account for them to see how many were diverted to the Cartels . . .

Executive Privilege makes more sense when one sees the entire picture and the interplay of the NSC/DHS/ICE/DOJ/ATF/FBI and State Department. What if there were 50,000 or 100,000 assault weaons sent down there between 2010 & 2011 on the State Department's OK? Will we ever know?

Note that 26% of 20,000 in one year plus 26% of ??,??? for 2010 plus 26% of ??,??? for 2011 far, far, far, exceeds the 1750 guns "lost" over 15 months of Fast and Furious.

We do know Wikileaks exposed State Department cables (example 1) questioning the Mexican government as to the disposition of assault weapons transferred to the Mexican government through direct sales that we knew were lost in Mexico.

Other cables discuss the weapons diverted to the Cartels from direct sales of heavy military weaponry throughout Central America or left over from previous conflicts.

Should Hillary be subpoenaed to find out what the answers were?

Bwuh?

Are you in favor of a small arms ban?

This ought to be good.