Fast and Furious Part Deux

Posted on March 31, 2014March 31, 2014 by Denise Simon

Contempt, Oversight hearing, more contempt. The original story of Fast and Furious has been litigated and yet there is no solution or consequence, when in fact another operation has since occurred named Operation Fearless. At the core of these two operations is the Department of Justice, ATF and hired operatives.

Darrell Issa: Reprimand of ‘Fast and Furious’ official justifies Eric Holder contempt lawsuit

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa believes new disciplinary action against a government operative in the “Fast and Furious” gun running scandal reinforces a Congressional contempt charge against Attorney General Eric Holder.

Issa, R-Calif., said former Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke “undoubtedly deserved” the reprimand he received from the Arizona State Bar for leaking information to the press about the gun-running operation. Issa said it also justifies the GOP-led lawsuit against Holder for information relating to the matter.

“Dennis Burke’s disciplinary agreement with the Arizona State Bar makes clear his belief that Eric Holder’s Justice Department was more interested in politically protecting itself than giving Congress full information about what happened in Operation Fast and Furious,” Issa said on Monday.

Burke was reprimanded last week by the Arizona Bar for leaking classified Fast and Furious documents to two media outlets.

Republican lawmakers are entangled with Holder in a court case stemming from a June 2012 House vote to hold him in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents and emails related to the gun-trafficking case.

Both sides are preparing to present arguments before a federal judge, who will then issue a judgement in the case. So far, the judge has rejected efforts by the Justice Department to dismiss the House lawsuit.

“These documents will shed light on the nature of the Department’s false denials of improper conduct and its response to Congress, including misconduct of which Dennis Burke was aware, that Attorney General Holder refused to discuss with Congress,” Issa said.

The Fast and Furious operation was run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to try to trace gun sales to Mexican drug cartels. The program, which was based out of Phoenix between 2009 and 2011, when Burke headed the Attorney General’s office there, ended up allowing more than 1,400 guns to be smuggled over the Mexican border and one of them was used to kill a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

Burke told the Arizona Bar and congressional investigators in an earlier interview that he leaked the Justice Department information to the media to provide more transparency about the matter.

But Issa said Monday he believes Burke gave out the information to reveal who inside the government had originally blown the whistle on the deeply flawed operation.

“His actions to selectively leak a single document supporting a misleading narrative, though a common tactic in the Obama administration, was a cowardly and self-serving action intended to smear a whistleblower,” Issa said.

Now we move on to Operation Fearless

The Committee first became aware of Operation Fearless, a storefront operation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from media reports in January 2013. These reports made clear that Operation Fearless was fundamentally mismanaged, evidenced by the fact that nearly $40,000 in merchandise and three guns were stolen from ATF agents during the operation, including a fully-automatic rifle. After months of delay, ATF officials finally briefed congressional staff on April 15, 2013, representing that such storefront operations were limited to the single instance in Milwaukee. Subsequent media reports, however, revealed that the ATF used these same storefront stings across the country. In one case, the ATF exploited a mentally disabled man to work at the storefront. In another, the ATF had a mentally disabled man tattoo a squid smoking a joint on his neck.

The Committee’s Subpoena Requires ATF to Provide Documents Including:

· Communications relating to Operation Fearless Distributing and the Monitored Case Program at ATF.

· Operational plans and relevant Reports of Investigation for undercover storefront operations conducted around the country.

· Documents relating to authorization for ATF agents to sell weapons during these operations.

· ATF policies for conducting undercover storefront operations.

· Relevant Reports of Investigation, for undercover storefront operations conducted between January 1, 2010 and March 19, 2014, in any of the following cities:

o Milwaukee, Wisconsin

o Portland, Oregon

o Wichita, Kansas

o Albuquerque, New Mexico

o Pensacola, Florida

o Atlanta, Georgia

_________________________________________

Some things concocted by government and then approved are not only disgusting but deadly.

Secrecy and Protection Applied to FOIA Requests

Posted on March 31, 2014March 31, 2014 by Denise Simon

Sadly, yet once again, another tool for citizens seeking truth and or investigative journalists has been firewalled and stonewalled by government operatives.

FOIA exemptions provide ample cover for bureaucrats hiding agency secrets, transparency advocates say

Black columns run vertically down 700 pages, devoid of any information about the federal workers who spent thousands of hours doing union work while on the government payroll.

This is what the U.S. Department of Agriculture considers public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

In the name of protecting employees’ privacy, USDA withheld their names, duty stations, job titles, pay grades and salaries. It even deleted names of the unions benefiting from the hours spent by these USDA workers who continued to draw full pay and benefits, courtesy of the taxpayers.

The level of secrecy is a stark example of the failings of FOIA, according to open government advocates. Agency bureaucrats are free to broadly interpret the nine exemptions in FOIA that allow them to withhold information about government employees and the documents they produce.

Interpretations vary about what information should be disclosed, despite directives from President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder that there should always be a “presumption of openness” in weighing what to release.

The only recourse against an agency determined to keep its secrets is a costly lawsuit that can drag on for years.

“There are very strong incentives for agency officers to not release data, but there aren’t any incentives on the other side to release data,” said Ginger McCall, director of the open government program at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a nonprofit group that advocates for transparency.

“There’s a real culture of secrecy within the agencies, and that is something that needs to be addressed,” McCall said.

A FOIA reform bill unanimously passed the House in February. It would put into law the presumption of transparency currently embodied in proclamations by the president and attorney general. But it would not change the FOIA exemptions that allow documents requested under FOIA to be withheld.

The USDA invoked the “personal privacy” exemption for federal employees to withhold data from the Washington Examiner.

Other FOIA exemptions cover things like national defense or foreign policy secrets, disciplinary actions, information about gas and oil wells and inter-agency memorandums.

FOIA reformers say the changes proposed in the House bill are positive, but without limiting the exemptions that can be invoked under FOIA, they are not likely to break the culture of secrecy at federal agencies.

“If we are really going to see the agencies apply the exemptions any differently we actually have to address some problems with the exemptions,” said Amy Bennett, assistant director of OpenTheGovernment, another nonprofit transparency group.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a sponsor of the bill, acknowledged the problem with FOIA lies in partly in the exemptions, which are left intact in the legislation.

Issa is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and is co-sponsoring the FOIA bill with Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee.

Putting the presumption favoring disclosure in the law will shift the burden to the agencies to show releasing requested information will cause specific harm, Issa said told the Examiner.

“FOIA exemptions are being abused,” Issa said. “Information should only be withheld if an agency reasonably believes it could cause specific, identifiable harm — not just because it is embarrassing or politically inconvenient.

“The bipartisan FOIA Oversight and Implementation Act will codify the ‘presumption of openness’ that the administration is fond of praising but does not practice,” Issa said.

“Along with other reforms that will improve agency compliance with FOIA, the ‘presumption of openness’ will combat the high number of inappropriate or unjustified redactions that prevent transparency,” he said.

In November 2012, the Examiner filed FOIA requests with 17 of the largest federal agencies seeking information about employees released from their regular jobs to do union work under “official time.”

The 3.4 million hours spent by union representatives cost taxpayers about $155.6 million in 2011, the latest year for which figures are available from the Office of Personnel Management.

The Examiner sought the name, title, duty station, pay grade, salary and hours spent for each agency employee released on official time, as well as the name of the union that benefited. None of that information is in the annual OPM report.

Several large agencies, including USDA, were unable to comply. The Examiner published a four-part series, “Too Big to Manage,” in February.

Most of the agencies that provided data did not invoke the privacy exemption, and released what information they had. A few, including the Department of Homeland Security, claimed the privacy exemption to withhold the names of employees, but provided the rest of the information.

The USDA finally responded to the FOIA request in mid-March 2014. FOIA Officer Alexis Graves claimed releasing employee and union data sought by the Examiner would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Graves also said there is “minimal public interest, if any,” in the information.

The Examiner will appeal.

The USDA’s response is especially frustrating because of the lack of information available on the use of official time, said Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla., sponsor of a bill to mandate annual disclosure of basic information about the program.

Ross is pressuring OPM to update its latest report showing data from 2011.

“If these agencies, and the USDA in particular, have nothing to hide, then they should have no problem providing timely information on how their employees spend their time during work hours,” Ross said.

By releasing bits of irrelevant information, USDA officials will be able to claim in their annual FOIA tracking reports that they made a partial release to the Examiner, rather than an outright denial, McCall said.

“They do it to game the stats,” she said.

The wide range of responses to the Examiner request, from full disclosure to the USDA’s redactions, shows there is no consistency in how FOIA officers interpret the exemptions, said John Wonderlich, policy director at the Sunlight Foundation.

“That suggests the biggest variable in FOIA is agency willingness to comply,” Wonderlich said. “That’s not what it’s supposed to be.”

The proclamation of openness by Obama on his first full day in office is similar to declarations made by previous presidents, transparency advocates say.

But like other presidents, Obama has failed to break the secretive culture within federal bureaucracy and has adopted his own practices and policies that limit the release of information he sees fit to keep secret, they say.

An investigation by the Associated Press published March 16 found the Obama administration in 2013 censored government files or outright denied access to them under FOIA more often than ever .

The administration cited more legal exceptions it said justified withholding materials and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy, the AP analysis found.

Click here to see more.

Benghazi Bosa Nova

Posted on March 9, 2013March 9, 2013 by Denise Simon

Sadly, this current administration has worked diligently to obscure and impede the truth on the murders of four Americans in Bemnghazi. Security Environment Threat Lists (SETL) published by the State Department twice a year provides for a clear condition of areas around the world and Libya with particular emphasis on Benghazi was a true hot zone yet no offensive action was taken with regard to elevating security. In an effort to provide additional known facts on Benghazi as the media refuses to do so, below is an update of known facts.

1. All survivors of the Benghazi terror attack that required medical treatment and or still do are in treatment facilities that include Walter Reid or other locations under alias names.
2. After the Brits closed their presence in Benghazi where their SAS forces and Ml6 personnel were/are part of activities in Libya, continued to perform operations in joint efforts with the U.S. The Brits also left with for safekeeping their fast response weapons and gear at the CIA safehouse. The Brits, the French and the U.S. had long been providing lethal and non-lethal equipment to the Libyan rebels as well as on the ground training and conflict assistance. The laser systems used to point to targets for identification from the air assets were UK issued laser systems and not that of what the U.S. issues.
3. The mission post in Benghazi notified per procedure and protocol all officials of an imminent threat/attack even the day of the attack.
4. The interagency including the CIA ‘press-office’ were responsible for altering all the talking points that were used by the administration on the ‘why’ the attack occurred including who coordinated the attack and the reason for it.
5. Six months after the attack, still no subpoena has been issued for and to any of the survivors of the attack nor has any been issued to James Clapper. The ‘sitrep’ reports required by those with knowledge of the Benghazi attack have not been released. Interviews to this date have not been performed by agencies of the Red Cross, the Brits or other organizations that had a footprint or relationship in Libya to gain historical knowledge of anti-West militia activities. Government contractors hired by the State Department and the personnel on site working for or at the behest of the CIA have not been interviewed.
6. There has been no published summary of those that participated in the attack by the FBI or other investigating agencies as they related to Ansar al Sharia or those background connections of the membership of connected AQ militias.
7. Interviews have not been conducted with Libyan leadership by our investigating agencies.
8. Live feed videos of 9-11 in Benghazi summaries have not been made available nor have associated communications that include emails, text messages, or critical action alert exchanges.
9. No summary has been provided on the origination of the weapons, theft or smuggling that were part of Qaddafi’s arsenal or that of what the U.S. or contractors provided including State Department authorized weapons contractors including Turi Defense Systems.
10. Moktar Belmoktar of AQIM had phone call exchanges with those participating in the Benghazi attack. Belmoktar has allegedly been killed in the last week. This phone exchange is important as it points directly to al Qaeda and the immediate identification of those responsible for the attack.
11. It remains below radar that the contractors hired by the State Department that include Blue Mountain hired the February 17 Martyr Brigade to tend security at the compound. Not only were background checks not perform, but the contracts were no bullet contracts. Due to the pay scale and working conditions, many if not most of the February 17 Martyr Brigade were on strike the day of the attack.
12. USAID personnel were also working out of the mission post, the quantity of staff is unknown and to date, no one from USAID has been interviewed.
13. The State Department from the outset also lied with regard to hiring outside contract firms for security at the mission post in Benghazi, saying none had been hired.

14. Little to nothing is said with regard to the two U.S. destroyers off the coast of Tripoli at the time of the attack as this is especially important as it relates to connected communications during the night and day of the attack.

Veterans to Be Dis-Armed

Posted on February 22, 2013February 22, 2013 by Denise Simon

Some months ago, it was revealed that the Wounded Warriors Project while performing noble causes and doing great work on behalf of long-term injured soldiers had an anti-gun agenda as noted with the matter of not appearing on a radio show.

Sadly, PTSD is one of the top areas where our active troops and veterans suffer so much so that suicide and criminal actions have become an epidemic unto itself. We cant know the exact numbers however those treated at the Veterans Administration, yet those treated exceed 250,000 or more than 30%. Treatment of PTSD has not received enough attention much less has the treatment been for the most part effective. In the case of the former Marine Eddie Ray Routh who killed Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield, Routh was released from PTSD treatment only two days before that fateful day against adamant demands from his family.

Now it has been established there are issues with returning veterans and their plight on PTSD, however, it does beg the question, how many returning veterans are thrown under the bus with regard to their mental capacity when in fact, they are healthy and completely functional? A label has been attached to returning veterans along with many other citizens of the likelihood there is a homegrown terror threat in all of us as written and published by the Department of Homeland Security without so much as a whimper and reaction from dedicated rational patriotic Americans across the land.

Now, in the past months it has been a marquis topic to step up the quest to enact more serious gun legislation which affects legal and sane gun owners in future hopes it will reduce killings on soft targets such as those at Virginia Tech, the Aurora movie theater, Sandy Hook Elementary school and the Sheik church to mention a few when, legal gun owners follow the law and have not been found to be a part of these murders. Yet, when it comes to veterans, they continue to be at the core of the mission to keep firearms out of the hands of those trained and skilled to use them in high threat circumstances even in our homeland.

In recent days, in has come to our attention that veterans are receiving letters that prohibit veterans from transporting, purchasing, possessing or receiving firearms all without some formal investigation to the rationale for these demands by the Department of Veteran Affairs. The actual letter can be read here.

Just what is the Department of Veteran Affairs using for to disarm veterans? Well, there is a well coordinated document that has been uncovered that address all the bases that Veteran Administrations across the country to use to affect veterans owning firearms.

It is time now for all retired military and active soldiers to have their voices heard, perhaps this can be a start of that dialogue. We grieve for those that no longer walk with us due to having given their lives in a combat theater and certainly those at home that have fallen at the hands of those who are victims of deranged gunmen. We must have an active debate on the effective treatment of PTSD and the obscure decisions by the Department of Defense via the Department of Veteran Affairs to disarm veterans.

Mandates at the agency level and lawmakers have become judge and jury on all citizens and they are drunk with the power of the pen and their agendas.

Sequestration: Entitlements vs. National Security

Posted on February 18, 2013February 18, 2013 by Denise Simon

Much has been mentioned in the last 18 months regarding the far and wide devastation of Sequestration that was the brain child of Barack Obama and Jack Lew in the White House. To further the support for the government cuts, this mission was meant to hurt as it was brought to Harry Reid to gain support and support Reid gave. This answers the question on why the Senate would not take up law and measures passed but the House as Harry Reid is ‘all-in’ with the White House, leaving the people’s work and voices both on the floor and silent.

A Super Committee was created to work through the process to avoid Sequestration where again the measure failed. The White House and the lobby groups have been on a loud and vocal quest to blame Republicans and the House of Representatives for what looms as Sequestration takes affect on March 1, 2013. The House has worked diligently to pass laws that stop the devastating cuts most especially those to defense while none of the measure by the House have been provided attention or vote by the Senate.

Lets take a look at what Sequester impacts on both sides. This is not a complete list and the depth of the cuts are not explained as that can be determined by a review of the associated links provided.

What gets cut:
TSA
FDA food inspectors
Head-Start
Defense
Parks Service
National Guard
Border Patrol
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Secret Service
FEMA
Air Federal Marshalls
FAA
Special Education Teachers
Center for Disease Control
NASA
Security and Exchange Commission
Foreign aid with particular emphasis on Israel and Mexico (130 countries affected)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (nuclear weapons)
What is exempt

Social Security
Railroad employees retirement
Veteran’s Administration benefits
Unemployment
Tribal and Indian Trust Accounts
Child nutrition
Children’s Heath Insurance
Pell Grants
Medicaid
SNAP, food stamps
Highway Safety Grants
Motor Carrier Safety Operations
Federal pay
Child Support Enforcement
FDIC
Farm Credits
Tennessee Valley Authority
In a snapshot assessment of what stays and what goes, it is clear that programs related to National Security and Foreign Affairs are getting the wave off in Sequester while domestic programs geared to funding the indigent remain. In short, the dangerous world will be even more dangerous and education and healthcare remains protected. We have yet to understand the large numbers of those that will be unemployed and what our enemies will take advantage of regarding our homeland.

Analysis: Impact of sequestration on non-defense discretionary spending

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42050.pdf