Tag Archives: United States Department of Justice

Looking For Your Keys Under The Streetlight

Posted on by

There is an old joke about a man who was walking around under a streetlight as if he was searching for something. When asked what he was doing, he explained that he had lost his car keys on the other side of the street. When further questioned, he explained that he was looking for them under the streetlight because the light was better. That is the only way I can even begin to explain the logic behind the following story.

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted a story about spying on American citizens. The government’s justification for the increased spying on Americans is that it is needed because of the terrorism threat. That almost makes sense–but there seems to be a gap between the purpose of the spying and its actual execution.

The article at Investor’s Business Daily reports:

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.

Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.

We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel’s formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.

So it’s okay to violate the rights of average Americans, but not okay to violate the rights of Muslims? We really need to take a closer look at how this happened.

The article further reports:

One of the Muslim bombers made extremist outbursts during worship, yet because the mosque wasn’t monitored, red flags didn’t go off inside the FBI about his increasing radicalization before the attacks.

This is particularly disturbing in light of recent independent surveys of American mosques, which reveal some 80% of them preach violent jihad or distribute violent literature to worshippers.

The more I learn about the surveillance programs currently in place, the more I am convinced that these programs have more to do with politics than national security.

Enhanced by Zemanta

About That Transparency Thing…

Posted on by

Today’s Washington Free Beacon posted an article about the Department of Justice’s handling of Freedom of Information Act requests. The article points out that the Department of Justice has not challenged a single instance of a federal agency withholding records from Freedom of Information (FOIA) requesters since 2009.

The article reports:

The audit (a government-wide audit performed by the National Security Archive in December) prompted a letter to the justice Department from Issa and Cummings.

“Given OIP’s role in in implementing compliance with FOIA, the committee seeks information about a number of issues including what many term as outdated FOIA regulations, exorbitant and possibly illegal fee assessments, FOIA backlogs, the excessive use and abuse of exemptions, and dispute resolution services,” Issa and Cummings wrote in February.

The Justice Department did not respond to oversight’s letter for four months.

The National Security Archive sought the information through a FOIA request in March, but the Justice Department told the NSA the records were exempt from disclosure.

“The fact that this document was blocked from release using a b(5) exemption is a good example of why the DOJ isn’t meeting the president’s instruction on FOIA,” National Security Archive FOIA coordinator Nate Jones told the Free Beacon.

Issa and Cummings wrote to the department again on Monday, saying Justice’s failure to respond “extremely disappointing.”

The Washington Free Beacon has previously reported that the number of FOIA requests has greatly increased during the Obama Administration.

The article further reports:

An August 2012 Washington Post analysis found that early freedom of information progress by the Obama administration “stalled and, in the case of most departments, reversed in direction.”

The number of FOIA requests denied in full due to exemptions rose more than 10 percent last year, to 25,636 from 22,834 the previous year, according to the Post’s analysis.

This really does not sound like transparency to me.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Keeping The War On The Media Secret

Posted on by

On Friday, Ryan Lizza posted an article in “The New Yorker” entitled,  “How Prosecutors Fought to Keep Rosen’s Warrant Secret.” In order to keep the warrant secret, they had to call Rosen a co-conspirator to the crime of espionage.

Ronald C. Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a former State Department adviser who allegedly leaked classified information to Rosen, wrote “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”

I am not a lawyer, but let me see if I understand this. There is not enough evidence to bring charges, so we will keep snooping through Rosen’s e-mail until we find something we can nail him with. With any luck at all, we might find an affair as we did with General Petraeus, and we can use that against him to get him under our control.

The article reports:

The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.

Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.

Rosen was not indicted in the case. Kim was indicted for making unauthorized disclosures of national defense information and for making false statements to F.B.I. agents about his contacts with Rosen.

The article in the New Yorker includes pictures of all the relevant court documents. Please follow the link above to follow the events.

Attorney General Holder has been asked by President Obama to review the Justice Department’s policies concerning investigations of the media. That is really interesting since Attorney General Holder was the one who personally approved the warrant to search James Rosen’s email. Obviously, the investigation will prove that everyone in the administration was totally blameless.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Another Story About Telling The Truth

Posted on by

I really think that the people in our government have an obligation to be honest with the American public except when national security issues are truly at stake. That may be a minority opinion, but it is my opinion. Right now there are a number of scandals floating around the Obama Administration, and the problem with most of them is that the government overreached and then tried to hide what it did.

One of those scandals is the snooping against Fox News reporter James Rosen. The snooping was outrageous–even to the point of going after the phone records of Mr. Rosen’s parents. Well, the plot thickens…

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported today that evidence shows that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress.

The article reports:

Last week, under relatively friendly questioning from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) about the Department of Justice seizure of Associated Press phone records, Johnson asked about the potential to prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917.  ”You’ve got a long way to go to try to prosecute the press for publication of material,” Holder responded.

Later, though, he returned to the topic unbidden, emphasis mine (at the 5-minute mark):

In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.

The article explains the problem:

As it turns out, Holder not only heard of it, he personally approved it.  The warrant in the Rosen case specified that he was considered a potential suspect in the leak of classified material, the reason that the DoJ didn’t bother to follow the existing Watergate-era statute in coordinating the records request with Fox News.  And note that Holder’s testimony in this case wasn’t produced by some sophisticated perjury trap sprung by a Republican, but as a freely-offered representation to no particular question during the question period of a Democrat.

This contradiction raises some rather serious questions. First of all, was Attorney General Holder lying when he said he was not part of the snooping on James Rosen?

A website called The Right Sphere explains the second problem:

The problem for Holder is that we now know he personally signed off on the order to get a subpoena for Fox News’ James Rosen’s phone records. The entire basis of the warrant for those records relies on Rosen being a potential conspirator and therefore potentially prosecuted.

According to the DoJ’s subpoena, Google surrendered Rosen’s emails, who is described as “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator,” to the government.

I’m sure Holder and his allies will say that they never intended to prosecute Rosen, but that’s 1) not the point and 2) even worse. If that’s their defense, they knowingly lied to the judge who would, hopefully, reject the request if they admitted it was just a fishing expedition for information.

They’re stuck. Either he (by signing the request for the records) lied to the judge or Holder lied directly to Congress.

It will be interesting to see how Congress reacts when they realize they have been lied to.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Attorney General Will Investigate the Department Of Justice And Report To The President On July 12th

Posted on by

ABC News is reporting that President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to review the national security leak investigations. So Attorney General Eric Holder will be conducting a 45-day review on the Department of Justice’s guidelines for handling these investigations.

The article states:

And then the news: “I have raised these issues with the attorney general, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the attorney general to report back to me by July 12th.”

So Eric Holder is going to investigate Eric Holder. This should be interesting. We all know how that will turn out.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Consequences Of Reporting The News–Not The Spin

Posted on by

Breitbart.com is reporting today that the Obama Administration took actions to intimidate the press long before they got to the Associated Press.

The article reports:

Rosen (James Rosen of Fox News) wrote on his blog that U.S. intelligence officials felt that North Korea would respond to United Nations sanctions with more nuclear tests. That information was apparently given him by Kim (Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department arms expert).

Even though it has not been proven to this day that it’s illegal for a reporter to solicit information, because of the First Amendment’s protection of the press, the Obama Administration went to work. The Justice Department not only grabbed Rosen’s telephone records, they used security badge access records to track the Rosen’s visits to the State Department, traced the timing of his calls with Kim, and obtained a search warrant for Rosen’s e-mails.

First of all, James Rosen is a good reporter–he has been doing this for a while. The statement that North Korea would respond to sanctions with more nuclear tests was not earthshaking. Second of all, the Justice Department’s investigation is clearly overreach.

The article concludes:

First Amendment lawyer Charles Tobin said, “Search warrants like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important information to the public. That’s a very dangerous road to go down.” Attorney Abbe Lowell, who is defending Kim, asserted,  “The latest events show an expansion of this law enforcement technique. Individual reporters or small time periods have turned into 20 [telephone] lines and months of records with no obvious attempt to be targeted or narrow.”

FBI agent Reginald Reyes wrote in an affidavit that Rosen had broken the law “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.” But that statement may well conflict with First Amendment rights.

I understand that most of the mainstream media is philosophically aligned with President Obama, but keeping that is mind, there are two aspects of this story that I find interesting. First of all, do members of the press care when one of their own is subject to extreme scrutiny by the Justice Department? Second, is it easier to go along with the Obama Administration’s taking points than to take a chance on being investigated for reporting the truth?

The story of the investigation of James Rosen along with the excessive investigation of Associated Press reporters should give all Americans reason to question everything they read from the mainstream media. We are reaching a point where reporters will be afraid to report the truth for fear of retribution.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Happens When Your Administration Focuses On The Wrong Things

Posted on by

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported yesterday that the U. S. Marshall Service has lost track of two terrorists that had entered the Witness Security Program. The latest search for these two men indicates that one man is definitely living outside the United States and the other man is probably living outside the country.

Let’s look at some of the facts surrounding this–both men were involved or accused of being involved in terrorism. They have now left America. They took with them a personal knowledge of how the American Witness Security Program works.

So what happened? The article states:

The DoJ also failed to update the Terrorist Screening Center, which runs the no-fly lists.

I am reminded of an old episode of the television series WINGS in which Lowell Mather finds himself in the witness protection program. As he is leaving the airport on Nantucket, he shouts to his friends, “Aloha.” Needless to say, he is very quickly given a new destination. Anyone can make a mistake, but that mistake may cost American lives either in America or overseas. Who in the world is running our government?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Manufacturing A Phony Crisis

Posted on by

In recent years we have had a number of very disturbing incidents involving guns. While those incidents are horrific, they are not an indication of where things are in relation to guns in the United States.

CBN News reported today that the Justice Department released a report on Tuesday showing that gun violence in the United States has decreased 39 percent since 1993.

The article reports:

Another report by the Pew Research Center found a drop of 49 percent. Both studies indicate non-fatal crimes involving guns were down by about 70 percent over that same period.

The article also reminds us:

“The public doesn’t get its feelings out of crime statistics,” Alfred Blumstein, an urban systems professor at Heinz College at Carnegie Mellon University, noted. “The public gets its feelings from particularly notorious events, and what the press talks about.”

If we choose to watch the mainstream media, we need to remember that they have long since departed from the idea of reporting the news impartially.  The fact that gun violence has decreased rather than increased would be news for most Americans. The question remains as to whether or not they will ever hear that news.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Deja Vu All Over Again

Posted on by

Yesterday’s Washington Post posted an article stating that the Obama Administration is working toward making home loans available to people with weak credit in order to boost the economy. Wow. Just as the housing market is recovering from the sub-prime mortgages of the 1990′s, we are going to add a bunch of risky mortgages to the mix.

The article reports:

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Part of the problem here is the government’s intervention into the housing market. Banks should be left alone to make their own decisions on issuing loans.

The article further reports:

Deciding which borrowers get loans might seem like something that should be left up to the private market. But since the financial crisis in 2008, the government has shaped most of the housing market, insuring between 80 percent and 90 percent of all new loans, according to the industry publication Inside Mortgage Finance. It has done so primarily through the Federal Housing Administration, which is part of the executive branch, and taxpayer-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, run by an independent regulator.

It really is time to let the private sector be the private sector and shrink to government to a reasonable size.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Unfortunate Choice Of Nominee

Posted on by

Yesterday’s Washington Times posted an article stating that present and former justice department attorneys do not support the nomination of Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez to be secretary of labor. It seems as if some of Mr. Perez’s actions as Assistant Attorney General were not in full compliance with the law.

The article reports:

“People should be raising serious questions about this nomination,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a veteran Justice Department lawyer who formerly served as counsel to the division. “This is a man who misled both Congress and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

“He was the focus last week of the most devastating indictment of a federal government agency I have even seen,” he added, noting that the Justice Department’s office of inspector general in a 258-page report documented widespread intimidation, harassment and even threats of violence under Mr. Perez’s leadership.

 This does not sound like someone we want in charge of the Department of Labor.

This is another part of this story that is deeply troubling.  Mr. Perez intervened in a legal case involving the city of St. Paul, Minnesota, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The case involved St. Paul’s agreement to drop its appeal in exchange for an agreement by Justice not to join a fraud lawsuit against the city. The case had the potential to return more than $180 million in damages to the U.S. treasury.

The article reports:

They (Three House members — Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee; Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; and Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican and chairman of the House Oversight financial services subcommittee) said they were “shocked to learn” that Mr. Perez — over the objections of career Justice Department attorneys — had enticed the city to drop its lawsuit that he “did not want decided by the Supreme Court.” They said Mr. Perez was concerned that a decision in the city’s favor “would dry up the massive mortgage lending settlements his division was obtaining by suing banks for housing discrimination based on disparate effects rather than any proof of intent to discriminate.”

 We have seen this problem in other areas. One of the reason that Congress has not really gone after the big banks is that the fines that can be levied against the banks for various charges are an easy flow of money into the treasury. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that the ultimate source of that money is the consumer. Another reason Congress hasn’t done much about the banks is that an investigation of the bank’s roll in the 2008 collapse would also reveal the part the Congress and the Community Reinvestment Act played in the collapse.

 At any rate, Mr. Perez is not a good nominee, and his name should be withdrawn. He is another potential part of gangster government.

Now That We Know This, What Should We Do ?

Posted on by

Yesterday PJMedia posted an article by J. Christian Adams about the newly released Inspector General‘s report on Tom Perez’s DOJ Civil Rights Division. Tom Perez is President Obama’s potential Labor secretary nominee.

The report exposes serious racial bias in the law enforcement practices of the Obama Justice Department.

The article reports:

The report was prepared in response to Representative Frank Wolf’s (R-VA) outrage over the New Black Panther voter intimidation dismissal.  In response to the report, Rep. Wolf said today, the “report makes clear that the division has become a rat’s nest of unacceptable and unprofessional actions, and even outright threats against career attorneys and systemic mismanagement.”

Former Voting Section Chief Chris Coates and I both testified about the hostility towards race-neutral law enforcement by the Justice Department.

Today’s report paints a disgusting portrait, confirming our accounts.

It is entirely possible that Tom Perez was simply following orders issued by Attorney General Holder, but do we want to promote someone who was unwilling to enforce the law equally for all Americans? Please follow the link to the article at PJMedia to read the entire account.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Overreach In Gun Laws

Posted on by

A lot of the discussion of gun violence and limiting access to certain kinds of guns overlooks what the Second Amendment is actually about. The purpose of the militia was to protect us from the kind of totalitarianism we had experienced under the British. Now, some of those attempting gun control have forgotten about the rest of the U. S. Constitution.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported today that the State of Washington may be guilty of this. The article reports:

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

That is a law that should be illegal! It is interesting to see this sudden interest in assault weapons when a Justice Department study reveals:

Justice Department researchers have concluded that an assault weapons ban is “unlikely to have an effect on gun violence,” but President Obama has not accepted their report as his administration’s official position.

“Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence,” the DOJ’s National Institute for Justice explains in a January 4 report obtained by the National Rifle Association. “If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.” That idea is also undermined by the acknowledgement that “a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.”

The research in that report didn’t stop Obama denouncing “weapons of war” during his State of the Union speech on February 12.

So what is this really about? It is much easier for a government to control an unarmed citizenry than an armed citizenry. Americans have never been about being controlled by the government. If we are serious about protecting our freedom, we need to look at the statistics and not buy into the rhetoric.

They’re Baaack!!!

Posted on by

From Breitbart.com:

This is a picture of one of the New Black Panthers guarding the polls in Philadelphia. We did this four years ago, we are doing it again. Why? Because of the way the Department of Justice under Eric Holder handled the case.

In case you have forgotten, Breitbart.com tells the story:

In 2009, the Department of Justice sought a permanent nationwide injunction against the New Black Panther Party appearing at the polls.  The Eric Holder Justice Department gutted the case in May 2009.

Had the political appointees at Holder’s Justice Department sought the relief requested by Michael Mukasey’s Justice Department, this wouldn’t be happening.  Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s DOJ filed a complaint that sought a permanent injunction against King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson from appearing in front of a poll in New Black Panther attire nationwide. 

To make matters worse, the Washington Examiner reports:

Court-appointed Republican poll inspectors are being forcibly removed from voting stations in some Philadelphia wards and replaced in some cases by Democratic inspectors and even members of the Black Panthers, according to GOP officials.

Secrets just received this memo from GOP officials:

The Philadelphia GOP is reporting that court appointed Minority (read GOP) Inspectors are being thrown out of polling locations in several Wards.

These Inspectors are election officials – again, court appointed — and are reportedly being thrown out by the Head Judges of Elections (these Judges are elected Democrats) and being replaced by Democrats.

Chicago-style politics has come to Philadelphia. If the American people return President Obama to office, they will see more thuggery every time there is a close election involving Democrats.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Purchase Of Thomson State Prison In Illinois

Posted on by

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today about the government’s  purchase of Thomson State Prison in Illinois. Mr. McCarthy believes that the prison is being prepared to house the inmates currently at Guantanamo.

The article reports:

As the 9/11 Families point out, the Justice Department’s court filing on the purchase of the state prison took pains to keep open its option to transfer Gitmo prisoners there. DOJ declares that the purpose of the acquisition includes “provid[ing] humane and secure confinement of individuals held under authority of any Act of Congress, and such other persons as in the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States are proper subjects for confinement in such institutions.” The Gitmo detainees are being held under the authority of acts of Congress — in particular, the 2001 authorization for the use of military force. And Attorney General Holder has been insistent that, in his opinion, civilian federal prisons are fitting holding facilities for enemy-combatant terrorists captured in wartime.

As with many other things (the release of the Blind Sheik, the nasty parts of Obamacare, the crackdown on fracking, etc.), it is a safe bet that there will be no transfers of Guantanamo prisoners there until after the 2012 election.

What is the problem with moving Guantanamo prisoners there? Housing prisoners in the United States rather than on an island makes them easier for terrorists to access or to create hostage situations near the prison. Because the prisoners are actually on United States soil, it is only a matter of time before lawyers will get involved and find a legal loophole to let the prisoners loose on American streets. Generally, housing terrorists on American soil is just a bad idea.

This is another illustration of the need for a new administration in Washington.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Other Aspects Of The Fast And Furious Investigation

Posted on by

I am sure I was not the only person disgusted by the whitewash of the Fast and Furious investigation by the Justice Department. Since they were investigating themselves, it was no surprise that the culprits named did not include either Eric Holder or his top staff. However, Heritage.org pointed out some facts about the investigation that I hadn’t considered.

Today’s Morning Bell at Heritage listed five ways the Justice Department report tarnishes the reputation of Eric Holder’s Justice Department.

The article lists the five ways:

1. The report singles out top Department of Justice officials for wrongdoing.

2. The report appears to contradict sworn testimony by Attorney General Eric Holder.

3. The report faults top Justice Department leadership with failing to adequately respond to the murder of an American border patrol agent.

4. The White House refused to disclose any internal communications to the inspector general.

5. The report fails to consider evidence that a top DOJ official knew the department misled Congress.

Please follow the link and read the entire article for the details on each charge. I suspect that sometime after President Obama leaves office (either in 2012 or 2016), the truth about Operation Fast and Furious will come out. Until then, the facts will continue to get muddied.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Foxes Have Reported That There Is No One In The Chicken Coop–Only Us Chickens

Posted on by

Fox News reported yesterday that the Justice Department‘s inspector general has released his report on Operation Fast and Furious. Now stop a minute and reread that sentence. The Justice Department’s inspector general has issued his report on the Justice Department’s actions in Operation Fast and Furious. The inspector general reports to Eric Holder–the head of the Justice Department.

The article at Fox News reports:

The report says Attorney General Eric Holder was not made aware of potential flaws in the program until February of last year. But the report cites 14 other department employees — including Criminal Division head Lanny Breuer — for potential wrongdoing, recommending the department consider disciplinary action against them. 

I suspect that some time after the November election we will find out what actually happened. Right now I refuse to dignify this report with any more words.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Not Right–But It’s Not A Surprise

Posted on by

Today’s Daily Caller posted a story about Eric Holder‘s Justice Department collaborating with Media Matters to control press coverage on some of the scandals within the department. The information in the story was obtained through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests.

The article states:

Dozens of pages of emails between DOJ Office of Public Affairs Director Tracy Schmaler and Media Matters staffers show Schmaler, Holder’s top press defender, working with Media Matters to attack reporters covering DOJ scandals. TheDC obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Two of the main cases discussed in the article are the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case in Philadelphia and Operation Fast and Furious. In both cases Media Matters was asked to attack the people investigating the scandals or the people attempting to inform the American public. The goal was to make sure the American people never learned the truth in either case.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is worth reading. This is the kind of story that explains why the mainstream media is dying and the alternative media is growing. It is obvious that there was very little truth in what was reported by the mainstream media.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Good News

Posted on by

It is no secret that the Justice Department has gone political under President Obama. For the people who follow such things, it is amazing how unsuccessful they have been in some of their attempted prosecutions. One of those witch hunts has been aimed at Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

USA Today and website called Stand with Arizona are reporting that the investigation of Sheriff Arpaio has now ended and no charges will be filed.

NBC News reports:

The federal government has closed a criminal probe of alleged financial misconduct by Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio, who styles himself as “America’s toughest sheriff,” and no charges will be filed, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said on Friday.

A separate federal investigation relating to allegations of civil rights abuses by Arpaio’s office is continuing. 

That last sentence means that the Justice Department is still looking, hoping they can find something! I think, as Americans, we need to take a really good look at the federal government’s ability to hassle people.

The article at Stand with Arizona expresses it very well:

Friday night releases of embarrassing political revelations are a long and infamous tradition, in order to minimize the exposure of the story to the American people. But this release took the cake: Friday at 5pm, before a Labor Day weekend, and right after the close of the Republican National Convention.

And no wonder. This one was a doozy. After all, this was a political persecution right from the start. The Obama DOJ started this thing less than 100 days after Obama took office, at a time when the Department was not even fully staffed. They were chomping at the bit to go after him. And now it is all for nothing.

Dozens of investigators, 4 Federal prosecutors, countless FBI agents, all working for three damn years to try and bring down Sheriff Joe. We won’t hold our breath waiting for the left-wing media to demand to know how much the DOJ spent on this disgraceful witch-hunt, but you can bet it was in the tens of millions.

And they came up with NOTHING. Because there IS nothing. Because this was never about substance, only politics.

NBC News reported:

Arpaio, who returned from the Republican National Convention on Friday night, said he was “very happy” with decision.

“I send my appreciation to the federal government for their hard work in clearing my office,” he said in a news briefing. 

Arpaio, 80, who is seeking re-election to a sixth term as sheriff in November, has been under a separate federal inquiry since 2008 over allegations that he and his deputies engaged in an extensive pattern of civil rights abuses.

If Sheriff Arpaio has been elected five times, the people of Arizona must think he is doing something right!

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Latest Ruling On The New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Case

Posted on by

Today’s Washington Examiner is reporting that a federal court has determined that some of President Obama’s political appointees interfered with the Department of Justice prosecution of the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case. Judicial Watch had sued the Department of Justice to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents. The documents were eventually obtained. The current lawsuit involved reimbursement for attorneys fees.

The article cites the writing of United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton:

The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.
…
In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.

Wow.

The article concludes:

“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”

Incidents like this need to be remembered when all of us vote in November.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Chance That The First Amendment May Be Upheld

Posted on by

There is a possibility that the First Amendment (free speech, religious freedom, etc.) may actually be upheld in the courts. The Blaze reported yesterday that a Federal court has upheld a lawsuit against the controversial contraception mandate, filed by Catholic-owned employer Hercules Industries.

On Wednesday I posted an article about Hercules Industries and their right to reflect their religious beliefs in their corporate policies. The Justice Department denied them that right and they have appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Colorado.

LifeNews.com reports:

A federal court issued an order Friday that halts enforcement of the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate against a Colorado family-owned business while an Alliance Defending Freedom lawsuit challenging the mandate continues in court.

…Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys obtained the first-ever order against the mandate on behalf of Hercules Industries and the Catholic family that owns it. The administration opposed the order, arguing, contrary to the U.S. Constitution, that people of faith forfeit their religious liberty once they engage in business.

The decision only applies to the company, and the court emphasized the ruling did not apply nationwide.

This is good news. Federal judges had dismissed two other lawsuits against the contraception mandate. The decision of the Tenth Circuit to hear this case will eventually bring this matter before the Supreme Court regardless of what the ruling by the Tenth Circuit is.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Losing Our First Amendment Rights

Posted on by

Townhall.com posted an article today about Hercules Industries, a Colorado-based corporation, a business owned and operated by the Newland family, that manufactures heating, ventilation and air-conditioning equipment.

The article reports:

The Newlands believe the morality the Catholic faith teaches them must animate their lives not only within the walls of the churches they attend, but literally everywhere else, as well — in the way they deal with their families, their neighbors and, yes, their business.

The Newlands sued to protect their free exercise of religion in this regard because Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a regulation, under the Obamacare law, that requires virtually all health care plans to cover — without cost-sharing — sterilizations, artificial contraception and abortifacients.

Unfortunately, the family lost the lawsuit. The article reports:

In response to the Newlands’ complaint that ordering them to violate the teachings of the Catholic Church in the way they run their business is a violation of their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, the Obama administration told the federal court that a private business has no protection under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause — especially if the business is incorporated.

“The First Amendment Complaint does not allege that the company is affiliated with a formally religious entity such as a church,” said the Justice Department. “Nor does it allege that the company employs persons of a particular faith. In short, Hercules Industries is plainly a for-profit, secular employer.”

“By definition,” said the Justice Department, “a secular employer does not engage in any ‘exercise of religion.’”

“It is well established that a corporation and its owners are wholly separate entities, and the Court should not permit the Newlands to eliminate that legal separation to impose their personal religious beliefs on the corporate entity or its employees,” said the Justice Department.

The message here is very simple. You are free to practice your religion in your church. The government will no longer allow you to exercise your beliefs anywhere outside of that church building. This is a far cry from the early days of America when churches were routinely meeting in the Senate and House of Representatives and public prayer by elected officials was accepted and expected. The attack on the First Amendment rights of religious people is one of the main characteristics of Obamacare. Obamacare needs to go away as quickly as possible!

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Much Have You Heard About OCDETF ?

Posted on by

Andrew McCarthy was the man who led the prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the “Blind Sheik”) after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. At that time he was the Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. His service as assistant United States attorney in that state gives him a unique and very insightful perspective on some of the more obscure aspects of operation Fast and Furious.

Mr. McCarthy posted an article today at the National Review Online with some insight into one aspect of the Fast and Furious operation that I had not been aware of.

The article reports:

OCDETF stands for the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. It was created during the Reagan administration to throw the coordinated muscle of Justice’s component investigative agencies — especially the FBI and the DEA — at domestic and international organized crime, a scourge that had been dramatically exacerbated by unprecedented drug-trafficking millions.

I was working at the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan at the dawn of OCDETF — which at DOJ is referred to as if it were a word, “Osedef.” In those days, with New York City both the notorious capital of La Cosa Nostra and the target market of Colombian drug cartels, I was fortunate to be assigned to some of the original “Osedef cases.”

The reason Mr. McCarthy brought up the existence of OCDETF is to illustrate how OCDETF cases (of which Operation Fast and Furious would have to be one for reasons explained in his article) involve a degree of communication and authorization in the Executive Branch of our government that ordinary Justice Department operations do not have.

Please read the entire article at National Review. It clearly explains the implications of Fast and Furious in relation to OCDETF.

Mr. McCarthy points out:

In fact, Fast and Furious was an OCDETF case. That made it a Main Justice case, not the orphan Arizona debacle of media portrayal.

…The website (DOJ Website) goes on to explain that the “OCDETF strategy” is implemented “under the direction of the Deputy Attorney General” — second in command to Holder at DOJ (and, in fact, the position Holder himself occupied in the Clinton/Reno Justice Department). With the coordinated effort of numerous investigative agencies and U.S. attorneys under Main Justice’s leadership, OCDETF is depicted as not only “disrupt[ing] the drug market” but “bolster[ing] law enforcement efforts in the fight against those terrorist groups supported by the drug trade.” Main Justice annually develops a “Regional Strategic Plan” for the country by requiring OCDETF participants to “identify major Regional Priority Organizational Targets.” And it has established an “OCDETF Fusion Center” as “the cornerstone” of its “intelligence-driven law enforcement, an essential component to the OCDETF program.”

The Fast and Furious controversy is not political–this operation was clearly well outside the authority of the Justice Department. Aside from the number of people who have died as a result of this operation, the risk of an international incident caused by this operation also has to be considered.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Is This Taking So Long ?

Posted on by

Lying before Congress is a serious matter. We were just treated to the spectacle of Roger Clemens being dragged before Congress because he was accused of lying. If lying about drug use is important enough for Congress to challenge, why isn’t lying about matters that impact international relations and result in the death of Americans important?

The investigation into Operation Fast and Furious is not a witch hunt. It is not, as Nancy Pelosi says, about voting rights (hotair) or about racism–it is about lying to Congress. In October of 2011, The Heritage Foundation quoted a CBS report showing Department of Justice memos indicating that Attorney General Holder was briefed on Fast and Furious in July 2010. In May 2011, Eric Holder testified to Congress that he had just learned about Fast and Furious “in the past few weeks.”

On June 20, The Blaze reported:

In a second major retraction over its version of the the gun-walking scandal, the Justice Department has retracted Attorney General Eric Holder’s charge in a hearing last week that his Bush administration predecessor had been briefed on the affair.

In a memo just released by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa senator reveals that Holder also didn’t apologize to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey for dragging him into the Fast & Furious scandal that is headed for a major legal clash and likely contempt of Congress charge against Holder.

According to Grassley’s memo, Justice said that Holder “inadvertently” made the charge against Mukasey in a hearing.

A few obvious facts in this entire mess. Executive privilege is somewhat like the Fifth Amendment–you can’t testify a little bit and then claim it–it needs to be claimed at the beginning of the testimony. Executive privilege does not apply unless the ‘executive’ was involved in some way.

There are a number of possible outcomes of this scandal. The White House (and Justice Department) could suddenly decide to release everything and show that there is no smoking gun–it was all a political ploy to make the Republicans look bad. Or, what I consider the more likely scenario, the stonewalling continues until after the election and when the smoking gun is revealed, it is a moot point.

The Eric Holder Justice Department is a political organization–it’s not supposed to be, but it is. This was shown in the New Black Panther case on voter intimidation early in the Obama Administration. There were YouTube videos showing voter intimidation, and the case was dropped. This Justice Department has set a very bad precedent for the future of America. If the Justice Department is not forced to obey the laws it is supposed to enforce, then Americans are no longer equal in the eyes of the law. Some Americans are now more equal than others.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Defense Of Marriage Act Is Headed For The Supreme Court

Posted on by

According to USA Today, on April 2, President Obama said the following:

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

The President was referring to the Supreme Court taking up the Obamacare case. The article reminds us:

…the health care law wasn’t passed by a “strong” majority, either. In the House, the final vote was 219 to 212, with all Republicans and even 34 Democrats voting in opposition.

The health care law passed in the Senate on a party-line vote of 60–39.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is now headed for the Supreme Court. DOMA was passed in 1996 by a vote of 85–14 in the Senate and a vote of 342–67 in the House. President Obama has previously stated that his Department of Justice would not support DOMA in the courts.

I wonder if the President will take the same position on the Supreme Court’s ruling on DOMA as he has with Obamacare.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Pay Attention–Your Freedom Is At Risk

Posted on by

The Justice Department is now going after individual citizens who disagree with their political policies. A recent case, the Judge ruled correctly, but the fact that the case was brought is chilling. It is easy to see from the actions of the President and the Justice Department that both are strong supporters of abortion. Although the heathcare directive that religious organizations provide contraception services (and abortion services) violates the First Amendment rights of these organizations, the Obama Administration has strongly supported the directive. The Executive Order stating that no taxpayer dollars would be used to pay for abortions has turned out to be worthless when viewed against the procedures set up in Obamacare.

The pro-abortion attitude is now reflected in an attack on a pro-life citizen acting within her rights. On Friday the Daily Caller posted a story about the court case against Mary “Susan” Pine, a pro-life sidewalk counselor. Holder v. Pine charged Ms. Pine with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance (FACE) Act.

The article reports:

You won’t hear it from the mainstream media, but the Justice Department has just faced an embarrassing smack down on the highest profile of these cases. It has dropped an appeal in Holder v. Pine against pro-life sidewalk counselor Mary “Susan” Pine, who is represented by the civil rights firm Liberty Counsel. The DOJ has agreed to pay $120,000 for this frivolous lawsuit which, as the evidence indicated, was intended to intimidate Ms. Pine and send a shot over the bow of pro-lifers around the country.

The case itself was interesting. The article reports some of the Judge’s statement:
 
Judge Ryskamp wrote that Holder’s complete failure to present any evidence of wrongdoing, coupled with the DOJ’s cozy relationship with PWC and their apparent joint decision to destroy video surveillance footage of the alleged “obstruction,” caused the court to suspect a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Obama administration. “The Court is at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place,” wrote Judge Ryskamp. “The Court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct.”
 
At least the Judge acted on the evidence and not the politics.
 
Enhanced by Zemanta