This is not a discovery process of what happened--we know what happened. We know that this administration, at the highest levels, approved a process that allowed thousands of high-powered weapons--basically AK-47 and M-16 look-alikes--to go to the worst of the worst on both sides of the borders, that those weapons have been used to commit crimes, and they have led to the death of federal agents on our side of the border, obviously, also Mexicans on their side of the border. This is known. The real question is what were they thinking.
No kidding. As to the answer to that,
So let me just ask a question for your supposition, but I think it's a very well educated one. If you only look at the beginning and the end of the dot, isn't the only thing you've proven is that guns in America go to Mexico? Now could that be a political decision? Could that be a decision that basically, we just want to substantiate that guns in America go to Mexico--something we all knew, but would have considerable political impact, as Mexico began complaining about these, and they could say, "Well, yeah--we're even rolling up the straw purchasers." It wouldn't change the fact that Mexicans were dying at the behest of the United States, but wouldn't it ultimately meet a political goal?
Forcelli: I imagine, sir, that it's possible. In this instance, I think it's more just as I said earlier. A case agent had a bad idea; a group supervisor who failed to rein her in; an ASAC who failed to rein in--the chain of command, all the way up, failed.
Issa: But you'd agree that it doesn't meet any criminal goal--goal of prosecuting, the way it was handled?
Forcelli: No, because you can't show the chain of how those pieces of evidence went from Point A to Point B, which you'd need to prove at a trial.
Issa: I hope it was just a terrible mistake.
I've reached the point that I don't believe it was a mistake: they managed exactly what they wanted. Problem is, some people in BATFE with some integrity and honor blew the whistle.