Gowdy Prevents Cummings From Leaking Benghazi Testimony

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

Sheesh…. leaking purposely? To save Hillary? Permission granted for Cummings to leak testimony? Has Cummings considered the impact of leaks to media to other witnesses?

Judge for yourself.

Benghazi Republicans limit Democrats’ access to witness records

WaPo: Republicans on the House Select Committee on Benghazi are placing new restrictions on Democrats’ access to key documents out of fear they could be made public before the panel concludes its investigation.

The move arrives amid growing speculation about when Republicans will release their final report about the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks and what conclusions it will draw about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is solidifying her position as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Under new rules communicated Wednesday by Republicans, Democratic lawmakers and staff will no longer be given their own physical and digital copies of witness interview transcripts. Instead, they will only be able to access to hard copies of the transcripts inside GOP offices during business hours.

Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) argued the arrangement became necessary after panel Democrats led by ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) threatened to unilaterally release transcripts from interviews with key witnesses, including White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former CIA director David Petraeus.

“Democrats have threatened to leak more transcripts and therefore I have no choice but to protect past witnesses, future witnesses, confidential material and the integrity of the investigation by allowing the Democrats equitable access but not control,” Gowdy said in a statement.

“Once they stated their intention to misuse transcripts, I could not in good faith allow them to do so. Mr. Cummings likes to frequently lecture people how ‘we’re better than this,’ but his actions and the actions of his staff with regards to this investigation unfortunately prove otherwise.”

Cummings accused Republicans of breaking House rules and working to time disclosures in order to maximize harm to Clinton in the election.

“Democrats on the Select Committee will not agree to conditions that prevent us from putting out the facts that witnesses have told the Committee in order to rebut the conspiracy theories about Benghazi,” Cummings said in a statement.

“Republicans are so desperate to keep us from sharing these facts with the public, they denied Democrats any access to some of these witness transcripts for weeks. Republicans are writing a secret, partisan report that they plan to make public shortly before the election – and they are violating House Rules in order to try to silence Democrats from putting out the facts before then.”

The conflict represents yet another stalemate for the dysfunctional select committee and its leaders, Gowdy and Cummings. And the rancor is only expected to build as the investigation approaches its two-year anniversary in May.

Republicans would not provide a deadline for their final report, arguing the Obama administration would merely stonewall on further document and interview requests until that date. Instead, Gowdy has said he hopes for completion as soon as possible “before summer.”

The question remains whether that timetable includes a window for the CIA to complete a classification review of the report, which could take several months. Democrats argue that, adding time for the review, the schedule would put the release of the report just before the general election in November.

Cummings said his side must have full access to the transcripts in order to conduct its work, including efforts to counteract what Democrats see as a Republican campaign to unfairly target Clinton. Aides described the limits on their access to documents as unprecedented and another sign of the GOP’s desire to manipulate the investigation.

“By limiting Democratic access to these transcripts, you impair our ability to share the evidence supporting our fact-based analysis with the public, essentially quieting any dissent from your report from the start,” Cummings wrote to Gowdy on Tuesday.

Gowdy defended his decision.

“I have consulted with the House Parliamentarian and I am confident this arrangement complies with the letter and intent of House rules,” he wrote back on Wednesday.

The process for sharing documents in a congressional investigation is usually straightforward.

Under normal circumstances, the stenographer recording the closed-door interviews would pass along transcripts to the majority — in this case, the Republicans — who would then pass them to Democrats.

This is how the panel functioned until mid-February, when Democrats threatened in a comment to the Washington Post to release transcripts in order to rebut the GOP’s claims of “significant breakthroughs” in the investigation. After that, according to aides from both sides, Republicans withheld transcripts from interviews as they took place.

The new rules for access were not communicated until Republican and Democratic staffers spoke on Wednesday. Aides to Gowdy said he spoke to Cummings on the House floor, offering free access to transcripts if Cummings promised not to release them.

“He would not give me that assurance,” Gowdy said in a statement.

About that Obama SCOTUS Nominee

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

None of the names have the record or reputation of Justice Scalia. Changing the balance of the Supreme Court is in fact in jeopardy. If all the Justices had the resolve and dedication to the historical spirit of the Constitution as did Scalia. If they did….final opinions and decisions would have been quite different and America would not be angry with a branch of government.

Family of Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee Donated Only to Democrats

Wife and daughter made contributions to DNC, Elizabeth Warren

FreeBeacon: The family of Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s pick to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, has donated only to Democratic campaigns.

Garland, the current Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, does not appear to have ever donated to political parties, candidates, or causes.

However, his wife and daughter have contributed only to Democrats.

Merrick married his wife, Lynn Rosenman, in 1987. In September 1992, Lynn made a $200 donation to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Services Corporation.

One month after the donation, Merrick provided assistance to Bill Clinton for a presidential debate. This information appeared on a questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1995, the Washington Free Beaconreported Thursday.

“I provided volunteer assistance on a Presidential Debate for President Clinton in October 1992 and for Michael Dukakis in October 1988,” Garland wrote of his political activity. “I did some volunteer work for Walter Mondale’s presidential campaign in 1983-84. As a college student, I worked two summers for the campaign of my then-congressman, Abner Mikva, in 1972 and 1974.”

Merrick’s daughter, Rebecca, has also made at least one donation to a Democratic politician.

Rebecca made a $500 contribution to Elizabeth for Massachusetts, the campaign committee of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), in December 2011.

The New York Timeswrote that if Garland is confirmed, it would result in the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.

Gun rights proponents have said that Garland should not be confirmed because of his record opposing gun rights as a federal judge, the Free Beaconreported Wednesday.

The Beacon also reported that Garland generally sides with labor regulators at the expense of businesses.

Juanita Duggan, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, said that her group has “great concerns” about Garland’s record of siding with government regulators.

***** Others on Obama’s short list…..donors

4 Out of 5 Obama SCOTUS Nominees Obama Donors

TruthRevolt: President Obama has whittled down his list of potential Supreme Court nominees to five — four of whom have donated to his own political campaigns.

According to the Free Beacon, the five federal judges to be interviewed for the position include:

Sri Srinivasan (who has donated $4,250 to Obama), Jane Kelly ($1,500 to Obama), Paul Watford ($1,000 to Obama), Ketanji Brown Jackson ($450 to Obama), and Merrick Garland, who has not donated to Obama.

None of the judges are major political donors and the contributions made to Obama account for the majority of each judge’s political giving. The donation from Jackson is the only federal political contribution she made that was large enough to be included in election filings.

Jackson’s donation, according to FB, can be explained by the fact that she worked as an attorney for the Obama 2008 campaign:

On her official questionnaire filed with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee she disclosed that she “was an election poll monitor for both the primary and general elections on behalf of Lawyers for Change, Obama for America Presidential Campaign.”

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the judiciary committee, reaffirmed the senate’s vow that none of the president’s nominees will be confirmed:

“Everybody knows any nominee submitted in the middle of this presidential campaign isn’t getting confirmed. Everybody. The White House knows it. Senate Democrats know it. Republicans know it. Even the press knows it,” Grassley said during a committee hearing on Thursday.

Still, one wonders what Obama thinks is to be gained by putting forth candidates who have financially contributed to his past campaigns.

***** Additional items from the National Law Journal:

Garland, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 1997 and chief judge since 2013, didn’t earn any income on top of his judicial salary in 2014, according to the most recent financial disclosure report that he filed last year. He didn’t report any outside income the previous two years.

If he’s confirmed to the Supreme Court, Garland would get a pay bump. As of 2016, federal appeals judge earned $215,400. Associates justices earned $249,300.

Related: Read Garland’s financial reports filed in 2013, 2014 and 2015

His reimbursed travel from 2012 to 2014 was limited to one or two trips annually to Harvard Law School, his alma mater, and Yale Law School. He participated in moot courts and career forums.

Garland reported no gifts, no financial agreements and no financial liabilities. He serves on the board of directors of the Historical Society of the D.C. Circuit, but he holds no other positions with nonprofits, private companies or other organizations.

Garland’s financial holdings include a mix of bank accounts, trusts, brokerage accounts and IRAs. Judges don’t report the precise value of their accounts, stocks and other assets, but instead list a range. They must report their own investments as well as those of a spouse and any dependent children, and the reports don’t specify which holdings are joint or individual.

He is also very PRO-labor: In nearly two decades on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Merrick Garland has rarely ruled against the National Labor Relations Board. But when he has overturned NLRB’s decisions, departing from his typical deference to federal agencies, he has done so to the benefit of labor unions.

The month before Scalia’s death, the high court heard arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that could decide whether public-sector employees can be required to pay union fees.

After arguments in January, the U.S. Supreme Court was seen as leaning 5-4 against labor. But Garland’s appointment to the court would likely flip the court. And if Garland has an opportunity to rule on the case, his vote could give a victory to the California Teachers Association and confidence to public-sector unions concerned that the decision could jeopardize future revenue from dues.

Rating Congressional Members, Scores on Protecting Taxpayers

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

Credit where credit is due….

2015 Congressional Ratings

Since 1989, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) has examined roll call votes to help identify which members of Congress have defended taxpayer interests and which have backed down on their promises of fiscal responsibility. The Ratings separate the praiseworthy from the profligate by evaluating important tax, spending, transparency, and accountability measures. CCAGW applauds those members of Congress who stood up for taxpayers and ignored the temptations of satisfying local or special interests. However, those who supported a big-government agenda should be prepared to face the consequences for their spendthrift behavior.

CCAGW’s 2015 Congressional Ratings, for the first session of the 114th Congress, scored 100 votes in the House of Representatives and 35 votes in the Senate. By comparison, CCAGW rated 85 votes in the House of Representatives and 13 votes in the Senate in the second session of the 113th Congress.

CCAGW rates members on a 0-100% scale. Members are placed in the following categories: 0-19% Hostile; 20-39% Unfriendly; 40-59% Lukewarm; 60-79% Friendly; 80-99% Taxpayer Hero; and 100% Taxpayer Super Hero.

HOUSE AND SENATE BREAKDOWN

In 2015, 17 lawmakers (15 senators and two representatives) earned the coveted title of Taxpayer Super Hero by achieving the highest possible score of 100 percent: Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), David Perdue (R-Ga.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and David Vitter (R-La.), as well as Reps. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.).

In 2014, 17 lawmakers (nine senators and eight representatives) received a perfect score.

There are 36 Taxpayer Heroes in the Senate, an increase of 57 percent from the 23 Taxpayer Heroes in 2014. In 2015, there are 152 Taxpayer Heroes in the House of Representatives, two more than the 150 Taxpayer Heroes in 2014.

On the other end of the spectrum, 26 representatives had a score of zero and 25 senators had a score of zero. In 2014, one representative had a score of zero and 30 senators had a score of zero.

The first session of the 114th Congress was the first time since 2007 that the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. As a result, there were many more victories on behalf of taxpayers than in prior years, but numerous amendments to cut wasteful spending even further were defeated.

VICTORIES

House

Repeal of Obamacare. H.R. 596, which would repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, passed by a vote of 239-186.

Elimination of Duplicative Climate Change Programs. During consideration of H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Ca.) offered an amendment that would eliminate a requirement for the Government Accountability Office to identify certain overlapping climate science-related initiatives. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 187-236.

Repeal of the Medical Device Tax. H.R. 160, the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2015, which would repeal the 2.3 percent medical device tax included in Obamacare, passed by a vote of 280-140.

Congressional Approval of “Major Rules.” H.R. 427, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2015, which would require Congress to approve all regulatory proposals with an economic impact greater than $100 million (“major rules”), passed by a vote of 243-165.

Senate

Elimination of the Federal Estate Tax. During consideration of S. Con. Res. 11, the fiscal year (FY) 2016 Budget Resolution, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) offered an amendment to eliminate the federal estate tax. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 54-46.

Solar Panel Rebates. During consideration of S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered an amendment to establish a rebate program for individuals and businesses for the purchase and installation of solar panels on residential and commercial properties. The amendment failed by a vote of 40-58.

Obamacare for Members of Congress. During consideration of S. Con. Res. 11, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) offered an amendment to compel all members of Congress, the President, Vice President, and all political appointees to obtain their health insurance on the individual healthcare exchanges under Obamacare. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 52-46.

LOSSES

House

Prohibiting Federal Employment for Delinquent Tax Debt. H.R. 1563, the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act, would make existing and future federal employees with “delinquent tax debt” ineligible for employment with the federal government. The bill was rejected by a vote of 266-160 (284 votes were needed for passage).

Across-the-Board Cuts to Appropriations Bills. There were seven amendments in the Ratings to make across-the-board spending reductions in appropriations bills, but they all failed. For example, during consideration of H.R. 2028, the FY 2016 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, an amendment offered by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to cut 1 percent across the board was rejected by a vote of 159-248.

Essential Air Service (EAS). During consideration of H.R. 2577, the FY 2016 Transportation and Housing & Urban Development Appropriations bill, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Ca.) offered an amendment to eliminate funding for the EAS. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 166-255.

Export-Import Bank Reauthorization. The Export-Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act, H.R. 597, passed in the House by a vote of 313-118. This vote, along with several amendments related to the Export-Import Bank, are included in the Ratings, as CCAGW has long opposed this corporate welfare program.

Senate

Keystone XL Pipeline Veto Override. After the House and Senate voted to approve the Keystone project, the Senate failed to override the president’s veto by a vote of 62-37, five votes short of the necessary two-thirds majority.

Repeal the Individual Mandate in Obamacare. During consideration of H.R. 2, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) offered an amendment to repeal the individual mandate in Obamacare. The amendment failed by a vote of 54-45 (60 votes were needed for passage).

Repeal Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). During consideration of H.R. 1314, Trade Promotion Authority, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) offered an amendment to eliminate the extension of the TAA program. The amendment failed by a vote of 35-63.

FURTHER ANALYSIS

CCAGW also analyzed ratings based on party affiliation and House membership in the Republican Study Committee.

The averages were: Senate Republicans – 93 percent, up 8 percentage points from 85 percent in 2014; Senate Democrats, including Independents – 5 percent, unchanged from 2014; House Republicans – 82 percent, down 2 percentage points from 84 percent in 2014; House Democrats – 4 percent, down 5 percentage points from 9 percent in 2014; House Republican Study Committee – 86 percent, down 1 percentage point from 87 percent in 2014.

CCAGW congratulates the members who stood by taxpayers and championed fiscal responsibility throughout the first session of the 114th Congress and encourages the constituents of the non-Heroes to demand better results in the 2016 election and beyond.

ICE Director Insensitive to Death, Enforcing Law

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

Is there an agency director, secretary or anyone within the Obama administration that is sensitive to their failures of law and policy which results in death? How about Barack Obama himself or his national security council or even the Department of Homeland Security that is without dispute complicit in the death of innocents? This administration cant even determine what genocide means, they have lawyers looking at cases, law and evidence. Scary right? No worries, these matters are all ‘learning experiences’.

The Obama administration is remarkably slow to list organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror organization if at all. Further, drug cartels which have created war zones in Mexico and at our southern border are NOT listed as terror organizations even with Congress calling on this to be done.

ICE Director Gives Shocking Excuse For Failure To Detain Killer Illegal Alien [VIDEO]

Ross/DC: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director Sarah Saldana gave a baffling — and seemingly inaccurate — explanation during a Senate hearing on Tuesday for why federal immigration agents failed to detain an illegal alien who killed a 21-year-old Iowa woman in a drunken street race in Omaha in January.

ICE ignored a detainer request made by the Omaha police department last month for 19-year-old Eswin Mejia, Saldana said, because his victim, Sarah Root, had “not passed away” at the time the illegal alien drunk driver bailed out of jail.

That comment appears to be inaccurate since Root died hours after the Jan. 31 crash, in which Mejia was street racing with a .241 blood-alcohol level — three times the legal limit.

Mejia, a Honduran national, left jail on Feb. 5 after posting $5,000 bail. He is now on the run.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse asked Saldana why ICE did not respond to the Omaha police department’s request to detain Mejia after he posted his bail.

According to the Omaha World-Herald, Root’s father contacted an Omaha police accident investigator expressing his concern with a county judge’s Feb. 4 decision to set a $50,000 bond for Mejia. The illegal alien’s flight risk was also of concern for Root’s father. Mejia had a record for various traffic infractions and for failure to appear in court. ICE never detained him after those run-ins with the law.

The police investigator contacted ICE requesting an immigration hold for Mejia based on Root’s father’s concerns.

But ICE denied the initial request, and so the investigator and her lieutenant placed a call to an ICE supervisor. Their call was never returned, however, deputy Omaha police chief Dave Baker told the World-Herald.

Saldana gave conflicting excuses for why ICE failed to detain Mejia. During one part of her testimony she claimed that the agency did not have enough time to respond to the Omaha police department’s request. In another part, she said that ICE field officers should have used better judgement in exercising prosecutorial discretion.

“We tried to act,” Saldana told Sasse at one point. “But I believe there was a matter of hours between the time that we were contacted and the actual release.”

“It is very hard for us to get to every inquiry that is made by law enforcement,” she added.

Saldana said later in her testimony that ICE field officers can use prosecutorial discretion to detain illegal aliens if they believe that the person “presents a public safety threat.”

“In this case Sarah Root is dead,” Sasse pointed out. “What if someone kills a U.S. citizen? That doesn’t meet the threshold?”

Saldana responded with a confusing if not inaccurate answer.

“That was after the fact, sir,” she said.

“I understand that that person was injured and had not, when that four hour period of time, seriously injured, but had not passed away until later.”

It is unclear what Saldana meant by that statement. Root died on Jan. 31. Mejia bonded out of jail a week later.

ICE did not respond to a request for comment seeking clarification.

According to Sasse and various news reports, ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer said last month that the case “did not meet ICE’s enforcement priorities” under President Obama’s Nov. 2014 enforcement priority policy because Mejia “had no prior significant misdemeanor or felony conviction record.”

ICE does not necessarily detain illegal aliens who have pending felony charges, apparently even in cases of felony vehicular homicide.

Obama’s enforcement priority executive action, which has come under intense criticism, places a priority on deporting illegal aliens with felony records, significant misdemeanor convictions, gang ties and those who pose terrorist threats.

He de-prioritized illegal aliens with convictions for drunk driving and lesser assault charges, including even domestic assault.

“It is a judgement that is being exercised by the person based on what they see at the time,” Saldana said of prosecutorial discretion, adding that in the Root case it “could have been exercised a different way.”

“That’s us looking back,” she continued. “I want to look forward so that we don’t have that situation arise again.”

Fast and Furious Weapons, Continue to Surface

Posted on March 17, 2016March 17, 2016 by Denise Simon

‘Fast and Furious’ weapon linked to shootout in Mexico

USAToday: A new accounting of guns that were allowed to be trafficked to Mexico as part of a botched U.S. firearms investigation shows that one of the weapons was used last year in a deadly shootout that left three Mexican police officers dead.

A Justice Department summary provided to two Republican congressional committee chairmen Tuesday found that a WASR-10 rifle, purchased six years before in the U.S., was one of three rifles fired in the July 27 assault in the town of Valle de Zaragoza. It was not immediately known which weapon caused the officers’ fatal wounds.

Nevertheless, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives officials traced the WASR rifle to a Nov. 12, 2009, transaction that was part of the flawed federal gun trafficking operation, known as “Operation Fast and Furious.”

“ATF and the (Justice) Department deeply regret that firearms associated with Operation Fast and Furious have been used by criminals in the commission of violent crimes, particularly crimes resulting the death of civilians and law enforcement officers,’’ Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik said in a Tuesday letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa and House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz of Utah.

“ATF accepts full responsibility for the flawed execution of Fast and Furious, and will continue to support Mexican law enforcement in efforts to recover and identify associated firearms.’’

As of January, according to the Justice Department letter, 885 firearms purchased by targets of the ATF operation have been recovered. Of that number, 415 were found in the U.S. and 470 “appear to have been recovered in Mexico.’’

The same letter confirmed prior reports that one of 19 weapons —a .50-caliber rifle —recovered in the January raid in Mexico that resulted in the re-capture of drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman also was traced to the ATF operation.

**** Is there an end it sight? Not so much
For years, the United States has pushed countries battling powerful drug cartels, like Mexico, to decapitate the groups by killing or arresting their leaders. The pinnacle of that strategy was the capture of Mexico’s most powerful trafficker, Joaquín Guzmán Loera, better known as El Chapo, who escaped in spectacular fashion last month from a maximum-security prison.

And while the arrests of kingpins make for splashy headlines, the result has been a fragmenting of the cartels and spikes in violence in places like Chilapa, a city of about 31,000, as smaller groups fight for control. Like a hydra, it seems that each time the government cuts down a cartel, multiple other groups, sometimes even more vicious, spring up to take its place.

“In Mexico, this has been a copy of the American anti-terrorism strategy of high-value targets,” said Raúl Benítez Manaut, a professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico who specializes in security issues. “What we have seen with the strategy of high-value targets is that al-Qaida has been diminished, but a monster appeared called the Islamic State. With the cartels, it has been similar.”

While the large cartels are like monopolies involved in the production, transportation, distribution and sale of drugs, experts say, the smaller groups often lack international reach and only control a portion of the drug supply chain.

They also frequently resort to other criminal activities to boost their income, like kidnapping, car theft, protection rackets and human trafficking. And while the big cartels have the resources to buy off government officials at the national level, the smaller gangs generally focus on the local and state levels, often with disastrous consequences for communities.

That was abundantly clear in a case that stunned the nation last year, when 43 students disappeared in Iguala, a city a short distance from Chilapa.