Issa and Grassley Question ATF about Disciplinary Action Taken against Key Operation Fast and Furious Players

March 31, 2014

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) questioned Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) Director B. Todd Jones about the apparent lack of disciplinary actions taken against key players in the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, 19 months after the Inspector General found these individuals culpable.

“While several ATF officials chose to retire or leave ATF in the wake of Fast and Furious rather than face discipline, it is our understanding that ATF continues to employ three key players from Fast and Furious: Case Agent Hope MacAllister, Group Supervisor David Voth, and Special Agent in Charge William Newell,” wrote Issa and Grassley.

“It is inexcusable that, 19 months after these findings became public, ATF has provided Congress with no information about whether, or to what extent, these employees have been held accountable. The repeated faulty judgment of MacAllister, Voth, and Newell severely jeopardized public safety during Fast and Furious, and ATF’s failure to account for what disciplinary action, if any, has been taken is an affront to the family of Brian Terry.”

The lawmakers continued: “Although you suggested during your confirmation process that [former Deputy Assistant Director (DAD) for Field Operations William] McMahon had been terminated prior to reaching his early retirement date, it is far from clear that any personnel action in his case had anything to do with his involvement in Fast and Furious. As a result of our letter to you, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General initiated an investigation and recently found that McMahon took approximately one month of sick leave at the same time ATF approved his outside employment at J.P. Morgan. ATF approved both the sick leave and the outside employment, despite the obvious conflict between the two, suggesting that the sick leave may have been fraudulent. However, the narrative in the OIG report stopped short of describing any personnel action that may have been taken or explaining the basis for any such action.”

Read the letter here.

 

Related Documents