Links

Columnists



Site Search


Entire (RSS)
Comments (RSS)

Archive Calendar

September 2022
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Guides

How to Become a Bounty Hunter



Uncategorized

Does Secret Service Need More Rules to Make Sure Agents Don’t Hire Hookers?

By Allan Lengel
ticklethewire.com

It would seem like common sense that if you’re a Secret Service agent and you’re on the road, you shouldn’t booze it up too much and bring prostitutes back to the hotel.

Well, obviously some Secret Service agents needed a little more guidance and common sense.

So after the Colombia-prostitute scandal, the Secret Service is tightening and clarifying its policies for travel, according to NPR.

The new rules were contained in an internal message, NPR reported.

Too bad the guidelines weren’t tightened earlier.

I’m sure if the agents had known they weren’t supposed to bring prostitutes back to the hotel, they wouldn’t have done it. Right?

 

Secret Service Scandal is Not Indicative of Agency’s Current Culture

By James G. Huse
ticklethewirecom

I have been somewhat “retired” from this column for many months, but the No. 1 news story in Washington this past week, the Secret Service personnel who broke the code of conduct rules in Cartagena on an advance assignment for President Obama’s trip, has motivated me back to the keyboard.

I have waited a bit for the media hysterics to somewhat abate before making these observations.

Contrary to the hue and cry, this is not the greatest crisis in Secret Service history.

That was, as we all know, the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963. That was a true crisis. This instant mess is an egregious failure of discipline on the part of the personnel involved. The breach was reported to leadership and instant remediation action ensued.

This is not, by any gauge, proof of a pandemic culture of immorality and irresponsibility in today’s Secret Service, nor is it the first time in Secret Service history that agents and officers have been disciplined for breaking the rules.

As in all organizations there are people who fail to meet or perform to acceptable standards. Dealing with those individuals has been a continuing Secret Service focus through the years.

I know this because it was my job as a Secret Service Assistant Director. In this current matter the Secret Service process of discipline and correction was well underway before it became public knowledge.

When the failure became known to management the situation was immediately addressed and the miscreant agents and officers immediately replaced.

While this event is certainly an embarrassment to the Secret Service it is not -as some strident media experts suggest – a complete condemnation of its leadership, professionalism and public service to the United States. The over-the-top posturing of these so-called experts should raise some questions about the substantiation behind their pronouncements they endlessly tout on the news media. I wonder what their professional experience is and what their qualifications are, to advance these opinions.

I also question why their inside sources remain anonymous? During my years as Inspector General of Social Security Administration a steady stream of provocative allegations about agency leaders were reported to my office from anonymous sources.

Very few proved to have any validity. I am wary of unidentified sources. To me, it’s the old courage of your convictions test. Too much exists as fact today that is never substantiated by good validation and verification before it is proclaimed to our over-connected world.

I know I am very subjective about my views on the Secret Service. I spent the balance of my federal career in it. I served with the finest men and women I know. I also know that the agents, officers, and all the Secret Service staff of today hold to the same commitments and standards that I did in my time.

On this past Wednesday evening, April 18, a wreath was placed at the Law Enforcement Memorial on E Street NW, here in Washington to commemorate the 29 officers and agents who have died in the line of duty since the Secret Service was authorized by President Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865.

The Secret Service has a long and rich history of public service to the United States. It is made up of real people, steadfast men and women who respect these traditions, and serve their country with honor and commitment.

Where there are individuals who fail to keep this compact they are identified, and following due process, are removed. This is the abiding core culture of the Secret Service.

James Huse is currently a Senior Advisor to the Global Public Sector practice for a major consulting firm.

Column: Ex-Secret Service Official: Scandal is Not Indicative of Agency’s Current Culture

James G. Huse

James G. Huse is a retired Inspector General for Social Security and the retired assistant director of the U.S. Secret Service. He occasionally writes a column for ticklethewire.com. He currently a Senior Advisor for a major consulting firm.
By James G. Huse
ticklethewirecom

I have been somewhat “retired” from this column for many months, but the No. 1 news story in Washington this past week, the Secret Service personnel who broke the code of conduct rules in Cartagena on an advance assignment for President Obama’s trip, has motivated me back to the keyboard.

I have waited a bit for the media hysterics to somewhat abate before making these observations.

Contrary to the hue and cry, this is not the greatest crisis in Secret Service history.

That was, as we all know, the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963. That was a true crisis. This instant mess is an egregious failure of discipline on the part of the personnel involved. The breach was reported to leadership and instant remediation action ensued.

This is not, by any gauge, proof of a pandemic culture of immorality and irresponsibility in today’s Secret Service, nor is it the first time in Secret Service history that agents and officers have been disciplined for breaking the rules.

As in all organizations there are people who fail to meet or perform to acceptable standards. Dealing with those individuals has been a continuing Secret Service focus through the years.

I know this because it was my job as a Secret Service Assistant Director. In this current matter the Secret Service process of discipline and correction was well underway before it became public knowledge.

When the failure became known to management the situation was immediately addressed and the miscreant agents and officers immediately replaced.

While this event is certainly an embarrassment to the Secret Service it is not -as some strident media experts suggest – a complete condemnation of its leadership, professionalism and public service to the United States. The over-the-top posturing of these so-called experts should raise some questions about the substantiation behind their pronouncements they endlessly tout on the news media. I wonder what their professional experience is and what their qualifications are, to advance these opinions.

I also question why their inside sources remain anonymous? During my years as Inspector General of Social Security Administration a steady stream of provocative allegations about agency leaders were reported to my office from anonymous sources.

Very few proved to have any validity. I am wary of unidentified sources. To me, it’s the old courage of your convictions test. Too much exists as fact today that is never substantiated by good validation and verification before it is proclaimed to our over-connected world.

I know I am very subjective about my views on the Secret Service. I spent the balance of my federal career in it. I served with the finest men and women I know. I also know that the agents, officers, and all the Secret Service staff of today hold to the same commitments and standards that I did in my time.

On this past Wednesday evening, April 18, a wreath was placed at the Law Enforcement Memorial on E Street NW, here in Washington to commemorate the 29 officers and agents who have died in the line of duty since the Secret Service was authorized by President Abraham Lincoln on April 14, 1865.

The Secret Service has a long and rich history of public service to the United States. It is made up of real people, steadfast men and women who respect these traditions, and serve their country with honor and commitment.

Where there are individuals who fail to keep this compact they are identified, and following due process, are removed. This is the abiding core culture of the Secret Service.

Scandals Need to Vanish Quickly

By Allan Lengel
ticklethewire.com

When it comes to scandals, the best thing is to make them vanish quickly.

Waiting for an Inspector General report takes far too long.

In the case of the Secret Service-prostitution scandal, so far, so good.

Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, a veteran of navigating Capitol Hill, has done all the right things. He quickly launched an investigation. He’s called for an I.G. investigation. And he’s talked to folks on the Hill like Sen. Chuck Grassley to keep them apprised of the unfolding events.

So far, two agents have resigned and a third has retired. More need to go. The sooner the better.

Not that the agents have committed the crime of the century. In fact, they’ve committed no crime. Prostitution is legal in Colombia.

But when you represent an agency like the Secret Service while abroad, and you’re there on behalf of the President of the United States, more is expected of you.

The Secret Service is wisely delving deeply into the matter.

Bloomberg news reports investigators are trying to determine if any of the prostitutes were spies and whether any classified info was compromised.

If there ended up being something to that, the scandal would only get bigger.

That’s something the President, the Secret Service and the public doesn’t need. Scandals provide plenty of fodder for the press.

But they distract from more important issues at hand.

New Orleans Saints’ Bountygate Could be Prosecuted as a Conspiracy

This column also appeared in the New York Daily News.
 
By Greg Stejskal
ticklethewire.com

What if several executives of a multimilliondollar national corporation hatched a plan to pay bounties to its employees to deliberately injure key employees of competing corporations?

Then put the plan in action, actually disabling key employees, thereby affecting those corporations’ ability to compete. It clearly would be something that should be criminally prosecuted.

As you may have guessed, this is just a generic business- term description of the un-Saintly bounty scheme New Orleans was apparently running. There have been reports there may be criminal prosecutions pursued. Apparently the NFL Players Association has warned players involved that they may face criminal charges.

The Associated Press reported that “most legal scholars agree that prosecutors are reluctant to prosecute on-field sports activity,” said Gabriel Feldman, a sports law professor at Tulane. “They’re difficult cases to bring, because it’s hard to prove the injury was caused by a tackle with specific intent to injure, rather than a regular tackle.”

I would agree with the prosecutors’ reluctance to prosecute on-field activity, but criminal prosecution of the Saints’ pay-for-injury scheme would not necessarily entail proving much specific on-field activity.

Instead of charging individual incidents as though they were a series of assaults and batteries, a criminal conspiracy could be charged using federal criminal law. Under the so-called Hobbs Act (18 USC 1951), a racketeering statute, whoever conspires to commit physical violence to any person in furtherance of a plan or purpose which in anyway or degree effects commerce is in violation of the statute. Clearly the NFL and all of its teams are involved in interstate commerce.

Those teams’ primary purpose is to compete with the other teams in the NFL and win football games. Thus illegal activity that impedes or obstructs a team’s ability to compete is adversely affecting commerce.

The other question to be answered is, would a conspiracy rewarding intentionally injuring opposing players be criminal? Football is a violent game and “hard hits” are encouraged, but within the rules. Late hits, unnecessary roughness and unsportsmanlike conduct are proscribed by the rules. If the conspiracy encouraged hits, with the intent to cause injury regardless of whether the hit would or could result in a penalty, then it seems such conduct goes from being aggressive football to assault and battery under the guise of playing football.

The prosecution would not have to show specific injuries resulted from specific hits for which a bounty was paid. It need only show a conspiracy was formed to commit acts of illegal violence which affected interstate commerce. It now appears, like Watergate, there is compelling, recorded audio evidence of the conspiracy. Although I think this is viable prosecutorial theory, I’m not sure I would be enthusiastic about recommending or pursuing a criminal prosecution in Bountyate based on the facts that have been reported.

But I do have a concern. What if organized crime and professional gambling interests became aware of or participated in the pay-to-injure activities? (Who understands paying bounties for injuries better than the mob?) That would change the whole perspective. This is why it is important for the NFL to come down hard on the participants in Bountyate. The integrity of the game is at risk. The potential for criminal prosecution should not be dismissed, but rather held in abeyance.

Fed Judge Who Circulated Racist Joke About Obama Should Resign

Judge Richard Cebull/wikipedia

By Allan Lengel
ticklethewire.com

It would come as no shock to find out some Republican appointees to the federal bench are not President Obama’s biggest fans.

Nonetheless, it still comes as a shock that Chief Judge Richard Cebull, who is in his late 60s, who was appointed by George W. Bush to the fed bench in Montana in 2001, would circulate an email with a blatantly racist joke about the President.

Sure, Cebull is sorry. He’s apologized to the President personally. He has said that his essential endorsement of the joke wasn’t really about race but rather about his dislike for Obama. And oh yes, he admitted the joke was pretty racist.

Cebull needs to resign from the bench.

In case you haven’t seen the joke, here it is:

“A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’” the email joke reads. “His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’” […]

Sure Judge Cebull is sorry. We all do stupid things. But as a friend Daniel Proudfoot commented on ticklethewire.com, the spell has been broken and Cebull “cannot be made whole again.” The trust is gone. I look at this way: If a bank teller steals once, can they ever be trusted again?  The teller will always be suspect.

Let’s be honest.

If you were an African-American, would you trust the judge to be fair and impartial? If  your life literally depended on it, the answer is a big NO!

So the question is: Can we have someone on the federal bench who can only preside over cases with white defendants? Who can only sentence white defendants?

If you thinks that’s a good idea, then by all means, keep him on the bench.

If not, Judge Cebull, needs to retire, sooner than later.

A Tale of Union Racketeering or How I Learned to Love the Hobbs Act

By Greg Stejskal
ticklethewire.com

Richard Debs was President of the United Auto Workers union local 1776. (No relation to Eugene V. Debs, the union organizer and socialist from the early 20th Century.) Debs had been the President of the local for 15 years in 1988. 1776 was the local representing the workers at the General Motors Willow Run assembly plant near Ypsilanti, Mich., where the Chevrolet Impalas were made.

Debs liked that job. And authorities suspected he was willing to harm people to keep it. But before I get into that, a little more about the Willow Run plant.

Willow Run was a massive industrial complex first developed by Ford during World War II to make the B24 Liberator bombers. At that time it was the largest assembly line facility in the world. At its peak it turned out a bomber every 55 minutes and was home to Rosie the Riveter. (The model for the iconic picture worked at the plant.)

After the war GM acquired the complex, GM expanded and converted it to an assembly plant and another plant to build the GM Hydra-matic transmissions.

During the waning halcyon days of the American auto industry, as president of a local, Debs had considerable power over a fiefdom that was comprised of all the workers at the assembly plant. Debs did not work at the plant, but rather administered the local from an office in a union building near the plant.

Because all GM plant jobs required UAW membership, Debs had the ability to influence hiring and to disperse jobs. He also had political power in the local community that derived from his position. There were also ample opportunities for corruption and graft to those so inclined.

Periodically UAW local officers have to stand for reelection, and there was to be an election in the spring of 1989. Debs was being challenged for the presidency by two other local members, Jesse Gray and Bob Harlow. Despite Debs 15 years as president, he was not universally well liked. Also he had recently been charged albeit acquitted in a Federal corruption case involving a local judge. (The judge and several others were convicted.)

In the fall of 1988, the FBI learned from a confidential informant (CI)that Debs had been attempting to hire some men to dissuade by violence Gray and Harlow from running against Debs. The source knew the identities of some of the men that had been approached by Debs, but he/she did not know whether anyone had agreed to Debs’ plan.

Although the CI’s information was deemed creditable, it was not clear whether Debs had progressed beyond the solicitation stage, and we did not want to jeopardize the CI.

It was decided the best course of action was to advise the Michigan State Police (MSP) and the potential victims of the information. We arranged to have Jesse Gray and Bob Harlow come to the MSP Post in Ypsilanti which was the Post responsible for the Willow Run complex.

Gray and Harlow were apprised of the alleged threat. They were also advised to take some precautions like avoiding predictable routines and varying the routes to and from work.

About a month after the meeting with Gray and Harlow, Gray was shot in the neck while driving to work in the early morning of December 29th. Gray was not killed, but multiple shots had been fired at his truck from a pickup as it passed him. Gray was unable to give more than a general description of the pickup. He thought there was more than one person in the pickup, but he could not provide any descriptions.

MSP did the crime scene investigation and was able to recover several spent 9mm slugs from Gray’s vehicle including the one that struck Gray. Although Gray’s wound was not life threatening, it was serious, and it had to be concluded the shooter was trying to kill Gray.

As a result of the shooting, Gray dropped out of the race for presidency of the UAW local. Bob Harlow decided to continue his effort to unseat Debs, but he confided that following our warning, he had varied his route to and from work. Gray had not.

MSP and the FBI began an investigation into the shooting. We interviewed Debs. He denied any involvement in the shooting, and said he and his wife were in Cleveland visiting family at the time of the shooting. Debs also denied soliciting anyone to do harm to either Gray or Harlow.

During the investigation we were hearing rumors about Debs having unusually close relationships with young men and boys. (That would foreshadow some future events.)

We interviewed one of the young men. (I’ll refer to him as John.) John said that Debs had befriended him and had given him money and gifts, but denied being asked by Debs to do harm to anyone. When asked about his whereabouts at the time of the shooting, John said he was in Cleveland with Debs.

John elaborated that late on the night of December 28th, Debs and his wife came to John’s apartment. Debs said he would pay John to drive them in Debs’ car to Cleveland.

They drove to Cleveland and arrived early in the morning on the 29th. Debs had John drop them off at a house. Debs told John to pick them up at 11:00 am. When John picked them up, Debs had John drive them back to Michigan. Debs never explained to John why he and his wife needed to go to Cleveland late at night and a few hours later return home.

As an investigator you question coincidences. Why would Debs seemingly on the spur of the moment decide to travel to Cleveland hours before the shooting of Jesse Gray and then return only hours after the shooting? I remembered an old adage from the Book of Proverbs: “The wicked flee when none pursueth….” (Proverbs 28:1)

In April, Debs was defeated by Bob Harlow for the presidency of local 1776.

It had been months since the shooting, and we weren’t any closer to identifying the shooters or tying Debs to the shooting. MSP had to cut back on their involvement. We had done most of the investigation and without new leads a resolution didn’t seem too promising.

We had interviewed some of the individuals the CI said had been approached by Debs to dissuade Gray and Harlow from running against him. All of them had been eliminated as the actual shooters.

We were able to confirm that 4 of the 5 men had been approached by Debs. He offered jobs and/or money to violently dissuade Gray and Harlow from running against him. All 4 had refused Debs’ offer. There hadn’t been any further discussion as to what specific violence Debs had in mind.

I came away from those interviews not enthusiastic with how creditable these 4 men would be to a jury. When you try to recruit some guys to commit felonies of violence, you don’t go looking for Eagle Scouts.

When I interviewed the 5th man Debs reportedly had contacted, he said Debs had made the same proposal to him that he made to the others. The 5th man, Larry Poore, said his initial response to Debs was he didn’t even know Bob Harlow. So Debs gave Poore a photo of Harlow. Poore told Debs he would think about it, but he said he never had any intention to do anything. Later he told Debs he didn’t want to do it.

As I was getting ready to leave Poore’s home, he asked me if I wanted the photo Debs had given him of Harlow – I hadn’t thought to ask. The photo had potential to be a great windfall. I very carefully placed the photo in an evidence envelope. The next day I sent the photo to the FBI Lab with a request that it be examined for fingerprints. Any latent fingerprints found would be compared with the fingerprints of Poore and Debs. I wasn’t optimistic, but it was worth a shot.

When I received the lab report, it stated there were only two legible fingerprints on the photo. One was Larry Poore’s, the other was Richard Debs. I felt like I had just drawn to an inside straight. We now had physical evidence to corroborate Poole’s account of Debs’ solicitation which indirectly corroborated the other 4 men’s similar statements.

I knew we still couldn’t prove Debs had any connection to the shooting of Jesse Gray, but we could show that Debs prior to the shooting had attempted or conspired to commit violence against Harlow and Gray. Because this conspiracy’s goal was to impede UAW members from running for office it denied the member electorate a choice. Also because a conspiracy was alleged the rules as to hearsay evidence didn’t apply to statements in furtherance of the conspiracy.

In late fall, 1989, a Federal Grand Jury returned a 4 count indictment charging Debs under the Hobbs Act (18 USC 1951) with having “solicited 5 different men to do wrongful violence against Bob Harlow and Jesse Gray” in an attempt to frighten them away from running against Debs for the UAW local presidency. (The Hobbs Act was enacted as a statute to combat racketeering in labor-management disputes and corruption directed at members of labor unions.)

A 4th count of the indictment actually charged that “Debs caused Jesse Gray to be shot for the purpose of inducing him and other union members not to oppose Debs in the 1989 election.” We knew we would have difficulty proving Debs involvement in the shooting, but by charging it, we could make the jury aware of the shooting and Debs’ coincidental “fleeing” to Cleveland.

Pursuant to the indictment we arrested Debs at his home. He was in bed and on his nightstand was a 38-caliber revolver. When we arraigned Debs, the government asked for detention, but he was released on a $25,000 bond despite the nature of the charges.

In September 1990, Debs pleaded guilty to one count of the indictment. Debs was allowed to stay on bond until his sentencing.

In November while awaiting sentencing, Debs was arrested and charged with 1st degree criminal sexual conduct after allegedly forcing a 12-year-old boy to perform oral sex on him. Now he would await sentencing in jail.

In January, Debs was sentenced to 4 years for the Hobbs Act violation. Ultimately Debs pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 15-30 years on the sex charge. Debs remained in prison until he died of natural causes.

Debs never admitted his involvement in the shooting of Jesse Gray, and the shooter(s) were never identified. But thanks to the Hobbs Act, at least as far as Debs was concerned, justice was served.

 

Dem Staff Report Says Top Justice Officials Did Not Give Green Light for Fast and Furious

By Allan Lengel
ticklethewire.com

A report issued late Monday night by the Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform tries to debunk suggestions by Republicans that high level appointees at the Justice Department conceived and directed the very flawed ATF Operation Fast and Furious. It places the blame for the operation squarely on the agents in Phoenix.

“This report debunks many unsubstantiated conspiracy theories,” Representative Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), the top ranking Democrat,  wrote in a cover letter for the detailed report. “Contrary to repeated claims by some, the committee has obtained no evidence that Operation Fast and Furious was a politically motivated operation conceived and directed by high-level Obama administration political appointees at the Department of Justice.”

“The documents obtained and interviews conducted by the Committee indicate that it was the latest in a series of reckless and fatally flawed operations run by ATF’s Phoenix Field Division during both the previous and current administrations,” Cummings wrote.

The report counters repeated claims by Republicans like Committee Chair Darrell Issa (R-Calif) that top ranking Justice Dept. officials gave the green light for  Fast and Furious.  Under the operation, ATF’s Phoenix office encouraged gun dealers to sell to “straw purchasers”, all with the hopes of tracing the guns to the Mexican cartels.  Some of the weapons surfaced at crime scenes including at the murder scene in Arizona of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  Many Republicans have called for Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, to resign.

The report is expected to be met with skepticism by many Republicans and critics of ATF, which has come under intense scrutiny, and has undergone a major shakeup in management. Holder is scheduled to appear before Issa’s and Cumming’s committee on Thursday where he’s likely to get a grilling from the Republicans.

Cummings, who has sometimes been at odds with Issa over Fast and Furious, said in a press release  that the minority staff report was the result “of the Committee’s year-long investigation into the actions and circumstances that led to multiple gunwalking operations in Arizona from 2006 to 2010.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings/govt. photo

The report concludes that the ATF Phoenix office failed to use sufficient controls to stop weapons from getting into the hands of violent criminals.

“Although this report provides a great amount of detail about what we have learned to date, it has several shortcomings,” Cummings wrote in his letter. “Despite requests from me and others, the Committee never held a hearing or even conducted an interview with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey. The Committee obtained documents indicating that in 2007 he was personally informed about the failure of previous law enforcement operations involving the illegal smuggling of weapons into Mexico, and that he received a proposal to expand these operations. Since the Committee failed to speak with Mr. Mukasey, we do not have the benefit of his input about why these operations were allowed to continue after he was given this information.”

“The Committee also rejected my request to hold a public hearing with Kenneth Melson, the former Acting Director of ATF, the agency primarily responsible for these operations. Although Committee staff conducted an interview with Mr. Melson, the public has not had an opportunity to hear his explanations for why these operations continued for so many years without adequate oversight from ATF headquarters.”

The report states that in 2006, ATF agents in Phoenix initiated Operation Wide Receiver with the cooperation of a local gun dealer.

“For months, ATF agents watched in realtime as traffickers purchased guns and drove them across the border into Mexico,” the report states.

The report also states “that ATF’s former Acting Director, Kenneth Melson, and ATF’s Deputy Director, William Hoover, told Committee staff that gunwalking violated agency doctrine,that they did not approve it, and that they were not aware that ATF agents in Phoenix were using the tactic in Operation Fast and Furious. They also stated that, because they did not know about the use of gunwalking in Operation Fast and Furious, they never raised it up the chain of command to senior Justice Department officials.”

The report further stated: “Former Phoenix U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke told Committee staff that although he received multiple briefings on Operation Fast and Furious, he did not approve gunwalking, was not aware it was being used, and did not inform officials in Washington about its use.”

“He told Committee staff that, at the time he approved the proposal for a broader strategy targeting cartel leaders instead of straw purchasers, he had been informed that there was no probable cause to make any arrests and that he had been under the impression that ATF agents were working closely with Mexican officials to interdict weapons.”

The report goes on to state: “Gary Grindler, the former Acting Deputy Attorney General, and Lanny Breuer, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, both stated that neither ATF nor the U.S. Attorney’s Office ever brought to their attention concerns about gunwalking in Operation Fast and Furious, and that, if they had been told, they ‘would have stopped it.’”

“When allegations of gunwalking three years earlier in Operation Wide Receiver were brought to the attention of Mr. Breuer in 2010, he immediately directed his deputy to share their concerns directly with ATF’s leadership. He testified, however, that he regretted not raising these concerns directly with the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General, stating, “if I had known then what I know now, I, of course, would have told the Deputy and the Attorney General.”

“The Committee has obtained no evidence indicating that the Attorney General authorized gunwalking or that he was aware of such allegations before they became public. None of the 22 witnesses interviewed by the Committee claims to have spoken with the Attorney General about the specific tactics employed in Operation Fast and Furious prior to the public controversy.”