Six????

Oversighthouse.gov reported yesterday that the enrollment numbers in ObamaCare are not good.

The website reported:

WASHINGTON – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., today released new HealthCare.gov meeting notes stating that as of 10/2/2013, there were “248 enrollments.” According to meeting notes from the day before, “6 enrollments have occurred so far with 5 different issuers.”

The numbers come from notes taken during “War Room” meetings at the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance (CCIIO), part of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) tasked with implementing ObamaCare. The meetings were comprised of Administration officials and contractors discussing the standing issues and problems with the disastrous launch of HealthCare.gov.

The first set of notes, taken the morning of October 2nd, states, “6 enrollments have occurred so far with 5 different issuers… Issuers include BCBS NC, BCBS Kansas City, and CareSource. Healthcare Service Corporation had the 2 enrollments.”

At the next meeting held the afternoon of October 2nd, the notes add that “[a]pproximately 100 enrollments have happened as of this meeting.”

At the morning meeting held October 3rd, the notes say that “[as] of yesterday, there were 248 enrollments.”

The website provides a link to some of the meetings concerning ObamaCare. I really do wonder what the future of this program will be. It obviously is not providing healthcare for the majority of uninsured people in America. It seems as if it is only responsible for causing those people who were already insured to lose their health insurance.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Internal Revenue Service Is Not Supposed To Be A Political Entity

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article about the continuing investigation into the misbehavior of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) during the Obama Administration.

The article reports:

Top Internal Revenue Service Obamacare official Sarah Hall Ingram discussed confidential taxpayer information with senior Obama White House officials, according to 2012 emails obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and provided to The Daily Caller.

That is illegal.

The article reports:

Lois Lerner, then head of the IRS Tax Exempt Organizations division, also received an email alongside White House officials that contained confidential information.

Ingram attempted to counsel the White House on a lawsuit from religious organizations opposing Obamacare’s contraception mandate. Email exchanges involving Ingram and White House officials — including White House health policy advisor Ellen Montz and deputy assistant to the president for health policy Jeanne Lambrew — contained confidential taxpayer information, according to Oversight.

Unfortunately, we have an administration that routinely uses Chicago-style tactics to intimidate people who disagree with them. Debate on issues is part of the American political system. This administration has done everything possible to squelch that debate. If you disagree with President Obama, his staff will attempt to intimidate you. If that doesn’t work, media allies are called in. Please notice that the media targets any new Republican leaders that might actually move the country away from the policies of President Obama. There are some real conflicts between ObamaCare and the First Amendment rights of Bible-believing Christians. The Obama Administration decided to ignore those rights and to engage in a campaign against the people and organizations that supported those rights. It we don’t stand up to this administration, we have only ourselves to blame when we realize that much of our freedom is gone.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something Is Wrong With This Picture

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon reported that a report by the inspector general of the Department of Energy shows that a top legal official was advising the human resources people at the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) on how to implement hiring practices that put veterans at a disadvantage. When two employees at BPA questioned the hiring practices, the BPA attempted to remove them from service.

The article reports:

The report reinforces criticism of BPA by congressional investigators, who in August held a hearing investigating similar allegations from the department’s IG.

“Today’s report offers shocking new details about the Bonneville Power Administration’s illegal hiring practices that discriminated against veterans and the agency’s culture of intimidation toward whistleblowers,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement.

According to the report, a staff attorney at Bonneville “provided guidance that likely facilitated” hiring practices that disadvantaged veterans.

Federal regulations require that veterans receive preferential treatment in federal hiring.

During an investigation into what was happening, employees of BPA were not willing to speak before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee because they were afraid of losing their jobs.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

Enhanced by Zemanta

About That Free Speech Thing

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article about a Democrat effort to limit political donations by businesses after those donations were allowed by the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision.

The House Oversight Committee is investigating events that occurred under the previous chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Events similar to those at the Internal Revenue Service–senior officials rolling over career staff to politicize the agency–evidently also occurred at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The article reports:

Last year politicians like then-Rep. Barney Frank and liberal tax-exempt groups like Public Citizen were encouraging the SEC to demand more disclosure from public companies about the organizations they support. Staff for Mr. Frank specifically told the SEC that, “There is particular interest in what the authority is for disclosure of 501(c)(4) contributions (political contributions).” Mr. Frank’s staff also noted that the interest was coming from the House Democratic leadership.

A former Democratic Congressman gave the political motive away while lobbying the SEC’s then-chairman Mary Schapiro. The former lawmaker, unnamed in a memorandum accompanying the Issa letter, was asked by Ms. Schapiro why this wasn’t a job for the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The former pol responded, “because the FEC is even more broken than you,” according to a May 2012 email sent by the deputy director of the SEC’s division of corporation finance. Democrats couldn’t get what they wanted out of the Congress or the FEC. So they went to the SEC.

This sort of behavior is unacceptable. Hopefully the House Oversight Committee will be able to hold the people who initiated this sort of illegal political activity accountable.

Enhanced by Zemanta

At Some Point The Republicans Need To Realize That They Are Not Playing TiddlyWinks

Yesterday National Review Online posted an article about the House Oversight Committee hearings on the Internal Revenue Service last week. The article focused on the attacks on Inspector General (IG) J. Russell George. This is the political equivalent of a defense lawyer attacking the District Attorney because he does not want to deal with the evidence against his client.

I am a registered Republican only because there is no real Conservative Party at this time. Generally I can go along with most of what the Republicans do, but if they don’t wake up and smell the coffee, they will be permanently known as the Stupid Party.

The attacks on the IG were designed to change the subject. Unless some Republicans start speaking up, the attacks will have served their purpose.

Scott Johnson at Power Line also posted an article about last week’s hearings. In his article he pointed out that none of the mainstream reported that the attack on the IG was unwarranted and false.

The Democrats‘ claim is that the IG neglected to mention that progressive groups were targeted as well as Tea Party groups. That probably has something to do with the fact that the claim is false.

The story at National Review states:

The accusations contradict the obvious facts: The 14 BOLO lists Levin released, though they contain the term “Progressive,” instruct IRS screeners to treat the applications of progressive organizations differently from those of tea-party groups. In George’s words, the “Progressive” entry “did not include instructions on how to refer cases that met the criteria,” whereas tea-party cases were automatically sent to higher-ups in the agency for coordination with Washington, D.C. The “Occupy” entry to which Cummings refers instructs screeners to send cases to the same group processing tea-party applications. The head of that group, though, told Congress that when she received applications from liberal groups, she sent them back to “general inventory.” George on Thursday told the House panel that, of the 298 cases scrutinized for political activity, zero fell under the “Occupy” rubric. The “Progressive” and “Occupy” listings may be problematic — it is not clear why the terms were added to the list — but the political activity of liberal groups simply was not put under the microscope.

The use of the IRS for political purposes is wrong. It is also dangerous to our republic. It becomes even more dangerous with all the information the IRS will be overseeing under ObamaCare. What was done with the targeting of Tea Party groups is a threat to our republic. If this abuse continues, our elections will be neither free nor fair.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Government Becomes A Bully

Today is the day that the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform holds hearings to try to find the root of the problems at the Internal Revenue Service. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is supposed to be a non-political organization that collects taxes from Americans. Unfortunately under President Obama, it seems that the IRS has become a political organization used to silence political opponents.

The Weekly Standard posted an article today listing some of the problems within the IRS and the Obama Administration that have recently been revealed.

The article reports:

Career IRS employees have testified on Capitol Hill that the federal agency’s chief counsel played a part in the scandal of targeting conseratives, the House Ways and Means Committee announced today in a press release. As a result, House Ways and Means Committee chair Dave Camp, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chair Darrell Issa, Ways and Means Subcommittee chair Charles Boustany Jr, and Oversight Subcommittee chair Jim Jordan have sent a letter to the IRS requesting “new documents related to IRS employee discussions about the 2010 election, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, and the tax-exempt status of Tea Party groups,” a press release announces.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision essentially leveled the playing field in terms of funding political campaigns. Before that decision, the unions had pretty much provided an unmatched, never-ending flow of money into Democrat campaign coffers. The blocking of Tea Party tax-exempt applications limited the amount of money the Tea Party would be able to put into the campaigns of conservative candidates. The Obama political machine needed to prevent the Tea Party from funding candidates that would not be in line with the objectives of the Obama Administration.

The politicization of the IRS is a danger to our representative republic. If the group in power can limit the funds available to their opponents, they can stay in power. Whether we like it or not, money is a very important part of American elections. Money pays for the advertisements that explain the views of the candidates on various issues. If you cut the funds of one candidate, you limit his ability to get his message out.

Hopefully, at the end of these hearings, those people responsible for the mistreatment of conservative organizations will face the full legal consequences of their actions.

Enhanced by Zemanta

If She Didn’t Do Anything Wrong, Why Does She Need Immunity?

I will readily admit to being a simple person–black is black, white is white, to me life is pretty simple. But sometimes when I see what goes on in our legal system and political system, I just wonder who is making the rules and if anyone making the rules has any common sense. This article is an example of my simplicity coming up against the complexity of our legal system.

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported that Lois Lerner has told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that she will not testify before them without being granted full immunity. Hmm. If she didn’t do anything wrong, why does she need full immunity?

The article reports:

On Tuesday, William W. Taylor III, attorney for Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the center of the Tea Party targeting scandal who invoked her Fifth amendment rights before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 22, set forward his client’s hard line conditions to return and testify openly before the committee.

“They can obtain her testimony tomorrow by doing it the easy way … immunity. That’s the way to resolve all of this,” he told Politico.

As I said–I am a simple person. If she didn’t do anything wrong, why does she need immunity?

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Testimony From An Internal Revenue Employee In Cincinnati

Breitbart.com posted an article today showing testimony from one of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees interviewed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The article shows testimony from a Cincinnati IRS employee. I strongly suggest that you follow the link above and read the entire transcript.

The key exchange goes something like this:

Q: So what do you think about this, that allegation has been made, I think as you have seen in lots of press reports, that there were two rogue agents in Cincinnati that are sort of responsible for all of the issues that we have been talking about today.  What do you think about those allegations?

[…]

A:  It’s impossible.  As an agent we are controlled by many, many people.  We have to submit many, many reports.  So the chance of two agents being rogue and doing things like that could never happen.

The article concludes:

The Oversight Committee will be conducting hearings this week focusing on the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report on excessive IRS conference spending and abuses of taxpayer dollars. Chairman Issa sent a letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman in April, 2012 regarding the agency’s bloated spending habits. According to the Committee, the IRS spent $50 million on at least 220 conferences between 2010 and 2012.

Anyone who has ever dealt with “low-level” government employees knows that their authority is limited. There is usually a procedures manual that they have to follow to do anything. There is no way a “low-level” employee could create the havoc that was created in the tax-exempt division of the IRS. Orders had to come from higher up. The question at hand is how much higher up.

Note that the problem began in 2010 after the passage of ObamaCare and as the Tea Party was gaining strength. The Democrats saw the threat and dealt with it–illegally, but they did deal with it. If the Democrats were as quick and efficient in dealing with the financial problems of America, America would no longer have financial problems!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Seamy Side Of The Internal Revenue Service

It seems rather obvious that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was a little unfair to to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, but there is more to the story. Hot Air posted an article yesterday about some other very questionable activities the IRS was engaging in during the past few years.

The article at Hot Air cites a McClatchy news story about IRS harrassment:

McClatchy includes the case of Catherine Engelbrecht, which CBS NewsSharyl Attkisson co-reported yesterday.  That case, of course, goes far beyond the IRS; Engelbrecht’s business got harassed by the FBI, ATF, and OSHA as well, which would mean coordination far above the Treasury Department.  They also include the case of an anti-abortion group that was told they couldn’t picket Planned Parenthood locations if they wanted to keep their exemption, and a Nebraska veteran who got hassled in an IRS audit over his donations to his church once he began donating to conservative causes.

John Eastman, a constitutional law professor and former Dean at Chapman University in California, posted an article at USA Today explaining an IRS abuse that took place during the debate on homosexual marriage in California in 2012.

Professor Eastman explains:

My organization was not the only conservative-linked political group or business that appears to have faced shady actions from IRS employees. ProPublica reported this week that the IRS handed over to them confidential documents of nine conservative organizations whose applications for non-profit status were still pending. Among them: Crossroads GPS, a key group backing Mitt Romney‘s presidential campaign.

Our case was particularly egregious because the IRS leak of confidential information fed directly into an ongoing political battle. For months before March 2012, the pro-gay marriage HRC had been demanding that my group, NOM, publicly identify its major donors, something that NOM and many other non-profits refuse to do. The reason is simple. In the past, gay marriage advocates have used such information to launch campaigns of intimidation against traditional marriage supporters.

Just as gay marriage proponents were demanding the information, the IRS appears to have illegally given them exactly what they were looking for. The tax return released by the HRC contained the names and addresses of dozens of major donors to NOM. And there’s little doubt where the documents came from. The tax returns contained internal coding added by the IRS after the returns were originally submitted.

For the IRS to leak any organization’s tax return to its political opponents is an outrageous breach of ethics and, if proven, constitutes a felony. Every organization — liberal and conservative — should shudder at the idea of the IRS playing politics with its confidential tax return information. But the situation here is even more egregious because the head of the HRC was at the time serving as a national co-chair of President Obama’s re-election campaign.

On Tuesday the House Ways and Means Committee will hold hearings to allow the victims of IRS targeting to testify. During the next two weeks, the House Oversight Committee will be interviewing the ‘low level employees’ in Cincinnati who have been scapegoated for these crimes. It will be interesting to hear what they say about who was directing their activities. Keep in mind that targeting specific groups and releasing tax information is a crime. It may be an interesting week.Enhanced by Zemanta

The Key To Benghazi

There is one very significant piece of information about the attack on Benghazi and what happened during the night of September 11, 2012, that has not yet been revealed–“Who gave the order for the Special Forces that would have come to the rescue of those at the annex in Benghazi to stand down?”

The Blaze posted a story about that command today.

The article reports:

Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya and the highest ranking official in the country at the time of the Benghazi attacks, testified before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday that Lt. Col. Gibson was “furious” after receiving a stand down order on the night of Sept. 11, 2012.

Hicks quoted Gibson as saying, “This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.”

But who exactly is Lt. Col. Gibson, and is he the key to figuring out who specifically gave the stand down order on that fateful night? That’s what a lot of people will likely want to find out in the coming days.

…Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who traveled to Benghazi after the attack to investigate, got emotional during the Wednesday hearing after Hicks explained that Special Forces were prevented from responding to the terror attack as Americans were under siege. The attack claimed the lives of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, State Department official Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

Why were the Special Forces told to stand down? Some spokesmen have stated that they would not have been able to get to Benghazi on time. The battle lasted for more than nine hours, how did they know that they wouldn’t get there on time?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are The Benghazi Hearings Earthshaking?

Tomorrow the hearings in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will begin at 11:30 am. The witnesses will be:

Mr. Mark Thompson
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism
Mr. Gregory Hicks
Foreign Service Officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission/Chargé d’Affairs in Libya
US Department of State
Mr. Eric Nordstrom
Diplomatic Security Officer and former Regional Security Officer in Libya
US Department of State

In true Washington form, a lot of the expected testimony has already been leaked out (can’t anyone in that city keep a secret?).

There is a lot of damaging information that has already come out, but most of it was not new to people who were willing to look past the mainstream media. The significant part of what is happening now is that much of the media that blindly supports President Obama has begun to cover the story. Sharyl Attkisson at CBS has been covering the story from the beginning and posted a story at CBS News yesterday which claimed that Special Forces were barred from going to help when Benghazi was attacked. The article includes excerpts from Gregory Hicks’ interview with congressional investigators on the House Oversight Committee in April. Please follow the link above to read the interview.

Benghazi was mishandled from the start. That area of Libya has a history of radical Islamist terrorists and the annex at Benghazi should have either been guarded like Fort Knox or shut down. Decreasing security before the September 11 attacks was foolish and dangerous. The goal of the Obama Administration may have been to give the perception that the war on terror ended with the killing of Osama Bin Ladan, but they were very foolish to let their guard down in Libya. Had the Special Forces been allowed to go into Benghazi, we might have saved Ambassador Stevens, but the ensuing news reports would have been a nightmare for the Obama Presidential Campaign. That fact may have been a major part of their calculations in how they responded to the incident, altering the talking points, and lying about the some of the details. .

So what happens next? I don’t know. I don’t want to see President Obama destroyed by this. He is guilty of lying, incompetence, and a bunch of other things, but impeachment would be a serious mistake on the part of the Republicans. Even if it were deserved, it would never pass the Senate, and even if it did pass it would give America Joe Biden as President. Either way, there is no happy outcome. The good that could come out of this is that Congress will continue to hold the President’s feet to the fire when he is lying and will begin to limit some of his more unconstitutional actions. It would also be nice to see the American press begin to cover this President objectively, but I really don’t believe in unicorns.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes It’s Hard To Imagine How Some People Think

Yesterday the Washington Examiner reported that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has suggested that military pay be cut in order to help with the budget cuts facing the Pentagon due to sequestration. This suggestion comes after President Obama signed an executive order raising the salary of Vice President Joe Biden and other federal officials.

The article reports:

“The President’s pay hike even increases the salary for federal employees who receive poor performance reviews from their own supervisors,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said when a group of lawmakers proposed legislation to reverse the pay increase. “As President Obama continues to say one thing and do another on deficit spending, it is appropriate for Congress to challenge his unilateral decision to spend $11 billion on non-merit based pay raises for federal workers.”

Secretary Panetta suggested that military salaries be limited to a one percent increase in 2014.

This is simply disgusting.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Appearance vs Security

Katie Pavlich at Townhall.com posted an article today about some of the recent comments made about the attack on the American Embassy in Benghazi.

The article explains:

Last week during congressional testimony from State Department officials who were on the ground in Libya, we heard over and over again that more security for the consulate in Benghazi was requested but denied. We also heard repeatedly from Democrats, including Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings, claiming a lack of funding was at fault for less security in Benghazi during the time of the attack on 9/11 that left four Americans dead. State Department officials said funding had nothing to do with the situation and now, Chairman Darrell Issa has revealed the State Department is sitting on $2 billion for consulate security, but won’t spend it.

From a common sense perspective, this makes no sense, but the rationale is explained later in the article:

Issa (Rep. Darrell Issa , Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) claims the State Department will not spend the already approved funds because they didn’t want to the appearance of needing increased security.

“The fact is, they [the State Department.] are making the decision not to put the security in because they don’t want the presence of security,” Issa said. “That is not how you do security.”

Four people are dead because the Obama Administration valued appearances more than they valued security.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Disturbing

There are three major stories on the Internet today dealing with the attack on the American embassy in Libya and the death of American Ambassador Chris Stevens. The stories are at the Washington ExaminerBreitbart.com, and The Daily Beast.

The Washington Examiner reports:

“In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee (House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi,” Issa and Chaffetz added (my emphasis). “The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The committee noted 13 “security threats” in Benghazi, including an attempt to assassinate the British ambassador to Libya.

Breitbart lists the attacks prior to September 11:

  • April 6, 2012 – An IED is thrown over the consulate fence in Benghazi.
  • April 11, 2012 – A gun battle 4km from the Benghazi consulate.
  • April 25, 2012 – A US Embassy guard in Tripoli is detained at a militia checkpoint.
  • April 26, 2012 – A fistfight escalates into a gunfight at a Benghazi Medical University and a US Foreign Service Officer in attendance is evacuated.
  • April 27, 2012 – Two South African contractors are kidnapped in Benghazi, questioned and released.
  • May 1, 2012 – Deputy Commander of the local guard force in Tripoli is carjacked and beaten.
  • May 22, 2012 – RPG rounds are fired at the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi.
  • June 2012 – A pro-Gaddafi Facebook page posts photos of Ambassador Stevens making his morning run in the city of Tripoli and made a threat toward the Ambassador.
  • June 6, 2012 – An IED is left at the gate of the US consulate in Benghazi.
  • June 10, 2012 – RPG is fired at the convoy carrying the British Ambassador in broad daylight as he is nearing the British consulate in Benghazi. No one is killed but the British later close the consulate.
  • Late June, 2012 – Another attack on the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi, this one in daylight. The Red Cross pulls out leaving the US consulate the last western outpost in the city.
  • August 6, 2012 – Attempted carjacking of a vehicle with US diplomatic plates in Tripoli.
  • Weeks prior to Sept. 11, 2012 – Libyan guards at the Benghazi consulate are “warned by their family members to quit their jobs” because of rumors of a “impending attack.”

The Daily Beast reports:

Security deteriorated significantly in June. On June 10, a man fired a rocket-propelled grenade in broad daylight into a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya. Later that month, the Red Cross was attacked again. By the end of June, the British Consulate and the Red Cross closed their facilities in Benghazi. By the start of July, the U.S. Consulate was one of the only Western targets left in the city.

“This was not a safe country on its way to a normalized situation. It was a very volatile situation,” Chaffetz told The Daily Beast.

The House Oversight Committee is expected to hold a hearing on Oct. 10 on the threats leading up to the attack.

Someone made some serious mistakes here in evaluating the risk to our Ambassador and other embassy employees. It seems as if common sense would have either increased the security at the embassy or at least temporarily removed the embassy from Libya.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Common Sense Applied To Government

Fox News reported yesterday that a bill has passed the House of Representative which would fire federal employees who have not paid their income taxes.

The article reports:

It passed by a vote of 263 to 114 and will be sent to the Senate.

The article further states:

Those on a plan to repay back taxes or in negotiations with the IRS would be exempt from the proposed change. IRS employees already can be terminated for non-payment of federal income taxes.

In April 2011, the bill was passed out of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of which Chaffetz is a member.

The bill would include those seeking federal contracts and grants, but exempts uniformed military personnel. In addition, federal agencies would be required to give 60 days notice before taking personnel action.

Current IRS data shows that 100,000 civilian government employees owed $1 billion in unpaid federal income taxes in 2009. Rather than raise taxes on everyone, shouldn’t we be concerned about collecting taxes already in existence from those who owe them?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Letter Behind The Contempt Of Congress Charge

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story explaining exactly what document Congress is seeking from Attorney General Eric Holder that he is unwilling to give them.

The article reports:

During the June 24 broadcast of Fox News Sunday, House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa cited the email as a “good example” of a specific document his committee knows Holder is hiding from Congress.

“The ATF director, Kenneth Melson, sent an e-mail. And he had said to us in sworn testimony that, in fact, he had concerns,” Issa said. “And we want to see that e-mail because that’s an example where he was saying, if we believe his sworn testimony, that guns walked. And he said it shortly after February 4, and [on] July 4. When he told us that, we began asking for that document.”

But the details of it surfaced first when Grassley mentioned it for the first time publicly during a June 12 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where Holder was testifying.

“He [Melson] immediately sent an email warning others, ‘back off the letter to Sen. Grassley in light of the information in the affidavits,’” Grassley explained.

It seems as if there has been some serious untruth telling before Congress during the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious. Congress is well within its authority and responsibility to investigate what happened in Operation Fast and Furious that resulted in the deaths of two Border Patrol agents and many Mexicans. It would be nice if the Justice Department would co-operate with the investigation. Obviously, they will not. A contempt citation may be the only logical next step for the Congressional committee investigating Fast and Furious. The Executive Branch does not seem to be willing to provide the information requested when asked nicely.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday Night’s Document Dump

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article on the latest Friday night document dump by the White House.

The article reports:

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has subpoenaed 80,000 pages of documents concerning Fast and Furious. Holder has only provided about 7,000 pages. He has, however, given all 80,000 to his internal investigator — DOJ’s Office of Inspector General.

Attorney General Holder has no problem letting the foxes within the Department of Justice guard the chicken coop, he is just concerned that if the House Committee sees the documents, they might actually do something about what they contain.

Terry Frieden of CNN reported that of the hundreds (not thousands) of pages produced by the Justice Department, few of them are actually related to Fast and Furious. Most of the documents released deal with an incident in 2007, which the Democrats on the Committee are attempting to use to change the subject.

The article reports:

According to congressional Democrats on the House oversight committee, in the “Hernandez case” ATF agents, working with Mexican police, planned to track illegal weapons as they left the United States all the way to their final destination. But Mexican police reported they never saw the vehicle that ATF agents had followed to the border.
 
It is time for the Justice Department and the White House to come clean and release the whole mess to the House Committee. The American people are entitled to know what the truth is regarding Operation Fast and Furious. How many Americans and Mexicans have to be murdered before Operation Fast and Furious is investigated and those responsible dealt with?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Sort Of Logic Almost Earned Me An F In Geometry

The Daily Caller posted an article on some of the recent testimony of  U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Mr. Holder was testifying on the subject of Operation Fast and Furious, but his testimony included the following statement:

This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we’ve seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico.

This is an amazing statement. It is becoming very obvious that the Obama Administration (including Eric Holder) purposely allowed large numbers of guns to flow into Mexico illegally. Now the Attorney General is saying that stricter gun laws would help our relationship with Mexico and reduce crime in Mexico. Wait a minute! The guns that went into Mexico went in illegally–more laws won’t do any good if no one is willing to follow them (particularly the government). The problem with gun laws is that only law-abiding citizens follow them–criminals don’t. Adding more gun laws simply disarms the general population making them more vulnerable to assault by those with illegal guns. Maybe the answer is better enforcement of the laws we currently have.
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes It’s What They Don’t Say

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air noted in a post today that Patrick J. Cunningham, the chief of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona, has said that he will seek Fifth Amendment protection when testifying before Congress.

Representative Darrell Issa, who is chairman of the House Oversight Committee conducting the investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, made the following statement in response to Mr. Cunningham’s claim that he would plead the Fifth Amendment:

 “The assertion of the fifth amendment by a senior Justice official is a significant indictment of the Department’s integrity in Operation Fast and Furious. The former head of the ATF has previously told the committee that the Justice Department is managing its response to Operation Fast and Furious in a manner designed to protect its political appointees.  This is the first time anyone has asserted their fifth amendment right in this investigation and heightens concerns that the Justice Department’s motivation for refusing to hand over subpoenaed materials is a desire to shield responsible officials from criminal charges and other embarrassment.

“Coming a year after revelations about reckless conduct in Operation Fast and Furious were first brought to light, the assertion of the fifth amendment also raises questions about whether President Obama and Attorney General Holder have made a serious and adequate response to allegations raised by whistleblowers.  Did Attorney General Holder really not know a senior Justice Department official fears criminal prosecution or is this just another example of him hiding important facts?  The committee will continue to demand answers.”

Unfortunately, Chicago politics has come to Washington, D. C. The investigation into Fast and Furious is moving ahead–but very slowly. President Obama’s Department of Justice is a political tool being wielded by the administration. The only way to end that is to vote this administration out of office.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Investigation Of Operation Fast And Furious Continues

Greta Van Susteren, host of the Fox News progr...

Image via Wikipedia

Fox News reported yesterday on an interview Darrell Issa gave Greta Van Susteren on her television show recently. Representative Issa stated that he is aware that Congress is being gamed by the Justice Department, but that Congress will finish its investigation of Operation Fast And Furious.

The Justice Department has recently shuffled its staff in response to the criticism regarding the operation.

The article reports:

Issa weighed in on the shakeup at the Department of Justice, which involved the demotion of ATF boss Ken Melson, hoping that some new blood might help the investigation move forward. He is hopeful that under a new U.S. attorney it can begin to go after those who were involved in the scheme. While Melson was cooperative and helpful during the investigation according to Issa, there was a need to have someone with independent eyes get to the bottom of Operation Fast and Furious.

There are some major problems with what went on in Operation Fast And Furious. I hope Congress can determine who knew what and when they knew it. This scandal is the kind of thing that causes Americans to lose faith in their government. That is not something we need right now.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is The Executive Branch Of Government Above The Law ?

Fred Upton

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday the Washington Examiner posted an editorial about the need for more aggressive action by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in reining in some of the power grabs by the Obama administration. President Obama has frequently used bureaucratic decrees to initiate policies rejected by Congress and the public.

Representative Fred Upton (R-Mich) heads the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Representative Upton has requested documents from the Department of Energy concerning its $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra Corp. So far the Energy Department and the Office of Management Budget have defied a congressional subpoena and refused to turn over documents.

Representative Darrell Issa heads the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Representative Issa has asked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for documents concerning their actions when Boeing attempted to open a plant in South Carolina (a right-to-work state).

So far, many of the documents that have been requested have not been produced by the Obama administration. It is time for the Republicans in the House of Representatives to develop a spine and insist that these documents be made available to the appropriate committees.

Enhanced by Zemanta