From Sipsey Street Irregulars, skipping straight to the key point, written by Glen Cook or Glenn Cook – either a Deputy Chief of Prosecutions in TX, or an ATF Supervisor from El Paso, TX on December 17, 2010, just a few days after USBP Agent Brian Terry was murdered:
“(I)f the AUSA in Phoenix refuses to comply then maybe Phoenix should start preparing their explanations for the way that they conducted their straw purchase cases there. They should probably hire a media expert anyway to assist them in explaining the 2000 firearms and the possible connection in the murder of the Border Patrol Agent.”
Either way, it’s somebody very much outside of the Phoenix field office, the supposed “rogue” field office of the ATF that was the only place doing Fast and Furious-type smuggling, according to the official version.
The point is that it was something totally expected, and was known almost immediately. Not just the local ATF, but ATF (or maybe the Deputy Chief Prosecutor) two states away in Texas already knew it was time to start circling the wagons and finding a narrative to cover up their crimes.
It also means a lot of people in ATF and prosecutor circles were well aware of Fast and Furious, and were part of Misprision of a Felony.
Mike Vanderboegh at Sipsey Street opens the story saying that even if this email he acquired is bogus, the central point is still true. While that smacks of lefty “truthiness” where even if the facts are wrong, the point is still correct because it fits a lefty narrative, this is not the same. The point of this email and story is merely confirmation of what we already know from months ago about the ATF and the cover-up. We already know much of this from John Dodson’s testimony that ATF supervisors were worried about the disposition of Fast and Furious guns when Congresswoman Giffords was shot. And remember what Sharyl Attkisson reported on the cover-up back on Sept 1 about the cover-up.
This looks like it’s just showing the expansiveness of Fast and Furious and similar programs, and giving us one more confirmation. If it’s incorrect or the source is wrong, it doesn’t invalidate what we’ve learned previously.