According to a high-ranking Mexican drug cartel operative, who is currently in U.S. custody, there are some things that the American people are not being told about Fast and Furious. We obviously knew something was not being told behind the scenes because of Barack Obama issuing executive privilege and Holder being in contempt of Congress for failing to comply. But this makes even the sleepiest of people perk up their ears and pay attention.
Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, known as the Sinaloa Cartel’s “logistics coordinator,” has brought allegations that the gunwalking operation had nothing to do with tracking guns and everything to do with supplying them. According to Zambada-Niebla it was part of an elaborate agreement between the U.S. and Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel to take down rival cartels.
Zambada-Niebla claims that under a “divide and conquer” strategy, the U.S. helped finance and arm the Sinaloa Cartel through Operation Fast and Furious in exchange for information that allowed the DEA, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies to take down rival drug cartels. The Sinaloa Cartel was allegedly permitted to traffic massive amounts of drugs across the U.S. border from 2004 to 2009 — during both Fast and Furious and Bush-era gunrunning operations — as long as the intel kept coming.
This pending court case against Zambada-Niebla is being closely monitored by some members of Congress, who expect potential legal ramifications if any of his claims are substantiated. The trial was delayed but is now scheduled to begin on Oct. 9.
Zambada-Niebla is reportedly a close associate of Sinaloa Cartel kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman and the son of Ismael “Mayo” Zambada-Garcia, both of which remain fugitives, likely because of the deal made with the DEA, federal court documents allege.
Zambada-Niebla believes that he, like the leadership of the Sinaloa cartel, was “immune from arrest or prosecution” because he also actively provided information to US federal agents.
Zamada-Niebla’s attorney filled a motion for discovery in U.S. District Court in July 2011 which alleged the above agreement stating: