WASHINGTON MERRY-GO-ROUND - Government Crimes and Corruption
November 7, 2012
After loss, Romney slammed as ‘weak moderate’ by Tea Party Patriots
A national tea party organization is slamming Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney for being a “weak, Beltway elite candidate who failed to campaign forcefully on America’s founding principles — and lost.”
“What we got was a weak moderate candidate, hand-picked by the Beltway elites and country-club establishment wing of the Republican Party,” Tea Party Patriots National Coordinator Jenny Beth Martin said. “The presidential loss is unequivocally on them.”
The rebuke of Romney from Martin came just minutes after the networks called the presidential race for President Barack Obama. It’s the strongest criticism the group has leveled at Romney.
Now that Romney has lost, the group apparently has no qualms about criticizing him.
“We wanted a fighter like Ronald Reagan who boldly championed America’s founding principles, who inspired millions of independents and ‘Reagan Democrats’ to join us, and who fought his leftist opponents on the idea that America, as founded, was a ‘Shining city upon a hill,’” Martin added.
Martin said the tea party movement is “not going away,” saying that tea partiers “will turn our attention back to Congress, to fight the battles that lie ahead including balancing the budget, repealing Obamacare, cutting the debt, holding the line on the debt ceiling, and the many other issues that will arise to threaten America.”
“With the catastrophic loss of the Republican elite’s hand-picked candidate — the tea party is the last best hope America has to restore America’s founding principles,” she said.
Source
November 6, 2012
Benghazi scandal may well turn the election tide
Much was made (and continues to be made) about President Barack Obama’s role in taking out Osama bin Laden. In reality, his role was more like that of a participant in a big game safari who is led to his prey and handed an elephant gun to execute the coup de grace. The difference on the safari, however, is that the participant is actually exposed to some danger and has to undergo the discomfort of traipsing through the wilds of Africa.
Killing bin Laden was set up in advance and relied on the excellence of our country’s military and intelligence assets. Obama’s role was no more than that of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt when Japanese Admiral Yamamoto’s plane was shot down a few years after Pearl Harbor.
His State Department ignored Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ pleadings for more security;
It was reported that the White House watched as the attack occurred and clearly knew from the start that it had to be a planned terrorist operation;
The government refused to send help and didn’t even want the CIA personnel on the ground to attempt to help; and,
Most egregiously, highly potent military assets within two hours of the Benghazi consulate were not placed on alert status and were held back with the ridiculous claim that we never send anyone into harm’s way unless we have absolute certainty. It is hard to believe that decision would have been made if the president or secretary of state had been under fire at the consulate.
This is what we get with an amateur commander in chief. And I haven’t even touched on the disastrous economic performance and lack of political leadership for the past four years. Can we really afford another four years?
MISSION VIEJO, Dennis Leroy: On the Sunday talk shows, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated (roughly) that we don’t send our military into harm’s way unless we know a great deal about the situation. He knew this much: the mission at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was pleading for help. And I submit that that is exactly what the military does; it goes into harm’s way to protect and save Americans.
Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines “to the shores of Tripoli” in Libya to save American sailors. America did not back down in 1805, in 1941 (World War II) or in 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis), but now we must wait while our ambassador and others are being killed. The difference between those days of American exceptionalism and now is the attitude in Washington about what America really is. Politics trumps everything.
The morning after, the president makes a little speech and then goes off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser. How sad for America. The emperor has no clothes.
COSTA MESA, Kenneth Lindberg: Weeks ago, over a seven-hour period, the defenders of our consulate in Libya asked for help three times. The calls were received by persons in high places. The help was refused, and the men were left to die.
The public has a right to know the details, but they met a stone wall. Now the White House has scheduled an inquiry to begin after the election. If this inquiry ever happens, this cover-up will make Watergate look like chicken feed.
CERRITOS, Bruce Milroy: What is wrong with this picture? An administration can “release” information about the Osama bin Laden raid that is favorable to the administration, although this classified information endangered special operations and the safety of special operations troops, but it can lie about a situation (Benghazi) that reflects negatively on the administration.
ANAHEIM, Kerry Condon, President, Anaheim Police Association: I recently viewed two political mailers for Anaheim City Council candidate John Leos by the Orange County Employees Association Independent Expenditure Committee. These two mailers show photographs of Mr. Leos with firefighters and another with an Anaheim police officer. The mailers insinuate that Leos has Anaheim public safety support when he does not have the endorsement of the Anaheim Police Association or the Anaheim Firefighters Association for his 2012 candidacy for Anaheim City Council.
Leos has publicly called for Anaheim to have local government transparency, but I guess this does not pertain to him or his campaign committee.
NEWPORT BEACH, Judy B. Rosener, Professor emerita, Paul Merage School of Business, UCI: The O.C. League of Women Voters supports the principle that the functioning of government should be transparent. This nonpartisan organization also calls for full public discussion of issues on the ballot with accessible and understandable information made available to voters. These principles have not been honored by the Newport Beach City Council’s placement of Measure EE on the Nov. 6 ballot, and the League of Women Voters asks for a No vote.
The measure’s amendment allows the City Council to adopt legislative acts (ordinances) at special meetings with inadequate notice to the public. It proposes changes which relax conflict-of-interest restrictions on the Council and staff at the expense of the people.
Most important, it includes 38 changes to the way the city operates, written in five pages in very small type, which had very little citizen input. This is hardly a way to inform citizens of what the amendment includes, and what the changes mean. Please vote No on Measure EE.
LAKE FOREST, Dan Lee: It appears letter-writer Richard Green needs reminding about how the fiscal disaster played out under the Obama regime [“Economically unpatriotic,” Oct. 30]. It is well documented that the stimulus provided no “shovel-ready jobs.” All it accomplished was to fund many green companies that have since gone bankrupt and “gave” union control to General Motors at the expense of the stockholders.
The GOP gave several jobs bills to the Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would not even bring them up for a vote. The Senate has not passed a budget for almost four years. Why is that? The GOP had no hand in that Democratic maneuver. The Democrats controlled Congress during the first two Obama years. So, Mr. Green, place the blame squarely on this administration and the Democrats. Remember that Nov. 6.
Source
Killing bin Laden was set up in advance and relied on the excellence of our country’s military and intelligence assets. Obama’s role was no more than that of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt when Japanese Admiral Yamamoto’s plane was shot down a few years after Pearl Harbor.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, left, accompanied by Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, gestures during their joint news conference at the Pentagon, Thursday, Oct. 25, 2012. Panetta said the U.S. military did not intervene during the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month because it was over before the U.S. has sufficient information on which to act.The recent fiasco at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a different story and displayed what the commander in chief is or isn’t capable of when pressured by an unplanned event. In this situation (the “3 a.m. call” as Hillary Clinton once described it) Obama failed miserably in every respect:
It was reported that the White House watched as the attack occurred and clearly knew from the start that it had to be a planned terrorist operation;
The government refused to send help and didn’t even want the CIA personnel on the ground to attempt to help; and,
Most egregiously, highly potent military assets within two hours of the Benghazi consulate were not placed on alert status and were held back with the ridiculous claim that we never send anyone into harm’s way unless we have absolute certainty. It is hard to believe that decision would have been made if the president or secretary of state had been under fire at the consulate.
This is what we get with an amateur commander in chief. And I haven’t even touched on the disastrous economic performance and lack of political leadership for the past four years. Can we really afford another four years?
Thomas Jefferson sent the Marines “to the shores of Tripoli” in Libya to save American sailors. America did not back down in 1805, in 1941 (World War II) or in 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis), but now we must wait while our ambassador and others are being killed. The difference between those days of American exceptionalism and now is the attitude in Washington about what America really is. Politics trumps everything.
The morning after, the president makes a little speech and then goes off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser. How sad for America. The emperor has no clothes.
The public has a right to know the details, but they met a stone wall. Now the White House has scheduled an inquiry to begin after the election. If this inquiry ever happens, this cover-up will make Watergate look like chicken feed.
ANAHEIM, Kerry Condon, President, Anaheim Police Association: I recently viewed two political mailers for Anaheim City Council candidate John Leos by the Orange County Employees Association Independent Expenditure Committee. These two mailers show photographs of Mr. Leos with firefighters and another with an Anaheim police officer. The mailers insinuate that Leos has Anaheim public safety support when he does not have the endorsement of the Anaheim Police Association or the Anaheim Firefighters Association for his 2012 candidacy for Anaheim City Council.
Leos has publicly called for Anaheim to have local government transparency, but I guess this does not pertain to him or his campaign committee.
NEWPORT BEACH, Judy B. Rosener, Professor emerita, Paul Merage School of Business, UCI: The O.C. League of Women Voters supports the principle that the functioning of government should be transparent. This nonpartisan organization also calls for full public discussion of issues on the ballot with accessible and understandable information made available to voters. These principles have not been honored by the Newport Beach City Council’s placement of Measure EE on the Nov. 6 ballot, and the League of Women Voters asks for a No vote.
The measure’s amendment allows the City Council to adopt legislative acts (ordinances) at special meetings with inadequate notice to the public. It proposes changes which relax conflict-of-interest restrictions on the Council and staff at the expense of the people.
Most important, it includes 38 changes to the way the city operates, written in five pages in very small type, which had very little citizen input. This is hardly a way to inform citizens of what the amendment includes, and what the changes mean. Please vote No on Measure EE.
LAKE FOREST, Dan Lee: It appears letter-writer Richard Green needs reminding about how the fiscal disaster played out under the Obama regime [“Economically unpatriotic,” Oct. 30]. It is well documented that the stimulus provided no “shovel-ready jobs.” All it accomplished was to fund many green companies that have since gone bankrupt and “gave” union control to General Motors at the expense of the stockholders.
The GOP gave several jobs bills to the Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would not even bring them up for a vote. The Senate has not passed a budget for almost four years. Why is that? The GOP had no hand in that Democratic maneuver. The Democrats controlled Congress during the first two Obama years. So, Mr. Green, place the blame squarely on this administration and the Democrats. Remember that Nov. 6.
Source
November 5, 2012
The 10 most interesting ballot initiative battles to watch on Tuesday
Voting for president, congressman, senator, governor, county councilman, alderman, sheriff and dogcatcher apparently isn’t enough to think about Tuesday. Voters in dozens of states will also be faced with ballot initiative and amendment questions running the gamut from guns to gay marriage, from “Frankenfoods” to photo IDs.
Sure, four states have initiatives teed up to counter Obamacare, but aren’t you a bit tired of hearing about the president’s health care law by now? There are ten other ballot measures worth watching, and these wont bore you to tears.
#10: Perhaps the most unusual measure is The Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act, on the ballot as Measure B in Los Angeles County, California. Voters will decide whether actors in pornographic movies made in Southern California should have to wear condoms and practice safe sex while the cameras roll. Measure B is a response to the outbreak of sexually transmitted diseases among California’s adult film “actors” and “actresses.”
#9: North Dakota produces a lot of cattle, and those folks aren’t messing around. Measure 3 would forever enshrine farmers and ranchers as a protected class by adding a whole new section to the state constitution. “The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state,” it would read. “No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices.” Take that, PETA.
#8: Minnesota voters will decide whether to require every voter to show a photo ID at the polls. Democrats have claimed similar requirements in other states were efforts to depress turnout among minority and low-income voters. Some even say voter ID laws can prevent elderly voters from going to the polls if they no longer have driver’s licenses. But conservatives counter that the best way to make sure no one cheats on Election Day is to require IDs at check-in. If you have to show photo ID to get on an airplane or rent a car, they say, voting should be even more secure.
#7: A proposal in Missouri would more than quintuple the state’s cigarette tax to 90 cents per pack, up from a lowest-in-the-nation 17 cents. New York leads the field with a whopping $4.35 tax for every pack of smokes. And that’s on top of a $1.01 federal tax. If you’re lighting up in New York City, there’s also a cigarette tax levied by the city — another $1.50 — adding up to $6.86 in taxes per pack for smokers in the Big Apple. That’s 34 cents to the government for every cigarette.
#6: Proposition 37 in California would require food marketers to label genetically modified foods. It would set up a lawsuit-based enforcement mechanism like the “Proposition 65″ toxics right-to-know law already employs, even though there’s no evidence so-called “frankenfoods” are actually unsafe to eat. (You probably ate some today.) While the measure is ahead in the polls, some fear it would raise grocery bills and create deceptive labeling schemes.
#5: In Louisiana, voters will decide whether to add the right to acquire, transport, carry, transfer, and use firearms to the constitutional right to bear arms. If approved, Louisiana ‘s current gun restrictions could be scrapped in favor of a policy that forces state and local governments to have a specific and compelling reason to limit gun rights. Universities and bars would be able to have gun-free zones, but the burden would be on the anti-Second Amendment side of the argument to prove why new firearms restrictions are necessary.
#4: There are several ballot questions about marijuana on statewide ballots this year, with Colorado’s Amendment 64 being perhaps the most significant. It would amend the Colorado Constitution to license and regulate growing and selling pot. it would make it legal for anyone over 21 to have an ounce of finished weed for their personal use — and six marijuana plants, with some restrictions. The state would get to tax Mary Jane, however, with the first $40 million every year going to a school construction fund. Also, the legislature would be required to pass legislation concerning the growth, processing, and sale of industrial hemp.
#3: Four states have measures on the ballot specifically about protecting citizens’ right to go hunting and fishing. This is largely a preemptive strike against the mega-rich Humane Society of the United States, whose president has said in the past that he would ban all sport hunting if he could. All four measures — in Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska and Wyoming — would amend state constitutions, making it harder for animal rights groups to have their way later on.
#2: Gay marriage history could be made in a few states Tuesday. Maine is asking voters a straight-up question: Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples? Minnesotans will be faced with a constitutional amendment establishing one-man, one-woman couples as the only legal definition of marriage. And Maryland’s question is unusual: Will voters accept a “civil marriage” recognition for gays and lesbians if churches can’t be forced to perform the ceremonies?
#1: Nine U.S. states don’t have personal income taxes, but only New Hampshire has “Live Free or Die” as its state motto. The Granite State will have a ballot measure Tuesday that would make its no-income-tax policy a permanent thing. The magic language reads, “No new tax shall be levied, directly or indirectly, upon a person’s income, from whatever source it is derived.”
Source
November 2, 2012
Feds Let Mexican Cartel Hit Men Kill in U.S., Senior Lawman Told Stratfor
The U.S. government allowed Mexican drug cartel hit men working as “confidential informants” for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to murder people inside the United States, an American federal law enforcement supervisor told the private intelligence firm Stratfor in e-mails released by WikiLeaks. ICE neither confirmed nor denied the allegations when contacted by The New American.
The explosive leaked documents containing the claims were part of a massive batch of e-mails stolen by hackers from the Texas-based intelligence-gathering firm. Among other startling allegations, official sources in the Mexican and U.S. governments told the company that American special-operations forces were in Mexico under the guise of fighting the drug war.
Additionally, a U.S.-based Mexican diplomat and other sources claimed that Washington, D.C., was working with certain favored drug cartels — especially Sinaloa — in an effort to put smaller criminal organizations out of business. The e-mails echoed allegations made in numerous reports and statements by officials, drug-cartel operatives, and other sources, indicating that the U.S. government was deeply involved in the narcotics trade.
Perhaps the most astounding information, however, had to do with the U.S. government allegedly allowing Mexican cartel hit men across the border into the United States to murder targets. A Stratfor source identified in the documents as “US714,” whom the firm described as a “US law enforcement officer with direct oversight of border investigations,” made that explosive accusation in an e-mail dated April of last year.
“Regarding ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] screwing up informants: They [ICE] were handling big hit men from Juarez and letting them kill in the U.S.,” explained the federal law enforcement supervisor, who in a separate e-mail also said American troops were already in Mexico engaged in joint operations with Mexican forces.
Instead of expressing shock about the major allegations against ICE, a Stratfor employee responded by mentioning that the intelligence-gathering outfit had already written about the issue, pointing to a 2009 piece published online entitled “Confidential Informants: A Double-Edged Sword.” In that article, Stratfor highlighted the story of a confidential ICE informant, Ruben Rodriguez Dorado, who was involved in the murder of yet another confidential ICE source in Texas.
When asked by The New American about the federal law enforcement supervisor’s allegations in the correspondence with Stratfor, ICE refused to either confirm or deny the accusations. Instead, ICE spokesman Brandon Montgomery with the Department of Homeland Security offered a statement explaining the importance of confidential informants to criminal investigations.
“Confidential Informants (CI) are an extremely valuable and necessary part of law enforcement efforts to disrupt and dismantle criminal organizations. One of the most effective ways to do this is by turning insiders within these organizations and utilizing their information as CIs,” Montgomery explained. “Insiders can provide information that cannot be obtained through any other means.”
According to Montgomery, ICE will substitute an undercover federal agent for its confidential informant as soon as possible to ensure that the investigation is carried out by trained law enforcement professionals. “ICE initiates a CI through a regulated and controlled process and ICE takes significant steps, including training of ICE agents and audits of CI files when working with CIs,” the spokesman concluded.
Analysts focused on the Mexican drug war and the roles of U.S. officials, meanwhile, were not surprised by the most recent allegations leveled against ICE either. In fact, as noted by multiple analysts, it would not be the first time that the U.S. government has been involved in eerily similar scandals.
“Though Stratfor source US714’s revelation may seem too dark to be true, Narco News has already documented, via the multi-year House of Death investigative series, that ICE, with the approval of US prosecutors, allowed one of its informants to participate in multiple murders inside Mexico in order to make a drug case,” wrote investigative reporter Bill Conroy, one of the premier journalists covering the broader drug war.
The so-called “House of Death” scandal surrounded another ICE informant, Guillermo “Lalo” Ramirez Peyro, who was simultaneously working with the Juarez cartel. In that case, federal officials knew their paid informant was involved in torture and multiple murders, yet continued to give him what numerous analysts and other officials described as a “license to kill.”
When the truth eventually came out, the federal government fired the customs agent, Raul Bencomo, who was “handling” the murderous CI. But according to Bencomo, he was simply made into a scapegoat to protect higher-ranking officials at ICE and their bosses all the way into the heart of the federal government who knew exactly what was happening.
"He [CI ‘Lalo’] would report a murder, and either we heard it on a phone, nobody told us to stop doing the case," Bencomo told NPR in a 2010 interview after being fired over the scandal. "We were told to continue, so for them to say that they didn't know about it, that is a total lie."
Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council (LEOAC) chief Andy Ramirez told The New American that there were some differences between the “House of Death” scandal and the more recent allegations surrounding ICE. For one, the informant was not killing in the United States — those murders took place at a property in Mexico.
When that scandal began to unravel, though, a cover-up began almost immediately, said Ramirez, who tried to get lawmakers to investigate. “Lalo was locked away with an attempt to deport him to Mexico that lasted several years until we got Congress involved in Lalo's case,” he explained. “But the ‘hey’ here is DOJ and DHS knew and knew the Mexican government knew. Mexico ultimately wanted border and immigration policies changed by Junior Bush's Administration almost immediately.”
According to Ramirez, such facts have become “common” considering what he described as “mismanagement” by DHS, to which ICE answers, as well as the Department of Justice. “CIs are used for what they can gain info-wise and then hung out to dry without thought, just as our Border Patrol Agents are,” Ramirez said.
But there is a reason not much has been done to investigate the problems, let alone hold anyone accountable. “Congress has ignored the criminality of these cases in order to protect their presidents as titular party heads,” said Ramirez, who regularly speaks out against abuses under both parties. “I know because I reported the House of Death case personally to the Hill and was ignored by what up to that point were ‘friends’.”
While working with confidential informants is hazardous by its very nature — they tend to be hardened criminals, often have ulterior motives, and can sometimes be serving as “double agents” — the questions being raised must be addressed. Was ICE deliberately allowing cartel hit men to murder in the United States? What sort of investigation, giving ICE the benefit of the doubt, could possibly justify such a scheme?
Even more importantly, perhaps, are accusations that the U.S. federal government is actually at the heart of the drug trade itself — allegations made by top officials and analysts on both sides of the border as well as by criminal operatives. The Obama administration continues to stonewall congressional investigations into DEA drug-money laundering, ATF gun running in Fast and Furious, and more. The CIA, meanwhile, has also been accused of deep involvement in the drug trade for decades, and even recently.
Whether or not the whole truth will ever emerge about the federal government’s nefarious activities surrounding the drug wars remains unclear. But from what is already known, the picture that emerges is highly disturbing, according to analysts — at least that much is clear. Activists say it is past time for Congress to find out what exactly is going on and hold those responsible for criminal activity to account.
Source
The explosive leaked documents containing the claims were part of a massive batch of e-mails stolen by hackers from the Texas-based intelligence-gathering firm. Among other startling allegations, official sources in the Mexican and U.S. governments told the company that American special-operations forces were in Mexico under the guise of fighting the drug war.
Additionally, a U.S.-based Mexican diplomat and other sources claimed that Washington, D.C., was working with certain favored drug cartels — especially Sinaloa — in an effort to put smaller criminal organizations out of business. The e-mails echoed allegations made in numerous reports and statements by officials, drug-cartel operatives, and other sources, indicating that the U.S. government was deeply involved in the narcotics trade.
Perhaps the most astounding information, however, had to do with the U.S. government allegedly allowing Mexican cartel hit men across the border into the United States to murder targets. A Stratfor source identified in the documents as “US714,” whom the firm described as a “US law enforcement officer with direct oversight of border investigations,” made that explosive accusation in an e-mail dated April of last year.
“Regarding ICE [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] screwing up informants: They [ICE] were handling big hit men from Juarez and letting them kill in the U.S.,” explained the federal law enforcement supervisor, who in a separate e-mail also said American troops were already in Mexico engaged in joint operations with Mexican forces.
Instead of expressing shock about the major allegations against ICE, a Stratfor employee responded by mentioning that the intelligence-gathering outfit had already written about the issue, pointing to a 2009 piece published online entitled “Confidential Informants: A Double-Edged Sword.” In that article, Stratfor highlighted the story of a confidential ICE informant, Ruben Rodriguez Dorado, who was involved in the murder of yet another confidential ICE source in Texas.
When asked by The New American about the federal law enforcement supervisor’s allegations in the correspondence with Stratfor, ICE refused to either confirm or deny the accusations. Instead, ICE spokesman Brandon Montgomery with the Department of Homeland Security offered a statement explaining the importance of confidential informants to criminal investigations.
“Confidential Informants (CI) are an extremely valuable and necessary part of law enforcement efforts to disrupt and dismantle criminal organizations. One of the most effective ways to do this is by turning insiders within these organizations and utilizing their information as CIs,” Montgomery explained. “Insiders can provide information that cannot be obtained through any other means.”
According to Montgomery, ICE will substitute an undercover federal agent for its confidential informant as soon as possible to ensure that the investigation is carried out by trained law enforcement professionals. “ICE initiates a CI through a regulated and controlled process and ICE takes significant steps, including training of ICE agents and audits of CI files when working with CIs,” the spokesman concluded.
Analysts focused on the Mexican drug war and the roles of U.S. officials, meanwhile, were not surprised by the most recent allegations leveled against ICE either. In fact, as noted by multiple analysts, it would not be the first time that the U.S. government has been involved in eerily similar scandals.
“Though Stratfor source US714’s revelation may seem too dark to be true, Narco News has already documented, via the multi-year House of Death investigative series, that ICE, with the approval of US prosecutors, allowed one of its informants to participate in multiple murders inside Mexico in order to make a drug case,” wrote investigative reporter Bill Conroy, one of the premier journalists covering the broader drug war.
The so-called “House of Death” scandal surrounded another ICE informant, Guillermo “Lalo” Ramirez Peyro, who was simultaneously working with the Juarez cartel. In that case, federal officials knew their paid informant was involved in torture and multiple murders, yet continued to give him what numerous analysts and other officials described as a “license to kill.”
When the truth eventually came out, the federal government fired the customs agent, Raul Bencomo, who was “handling” the murderous CI. But according to Bencomo, he was simply made into a scapegoat to protect higher-ranking officials at ICE and their bosses all the way into the heart of the federal government who knew exactly what was happening.
"He [CI ‘Lalo’] would report a murder, and either we heard it on a phone, nobody told us to stop doing the case," Bencomo told NPR in a 2010 interview after being fired over the scandal. "We were told to continue, so for them to say that they didn't know about it, that is a total lie."
Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council (LEOAC) chief Andy Ramirez told The New American that there were some differences between the “House of Death” scandal and the more recent allegations surrounding ICE. For one, the informant was not killing in the United States — those murders took place at a property in Mexico.
When that scandal began to unravel, though, a cover-up began almost immediately, said Ramirez, who tried to get lawmakers to investigate. “Lalo was locked away with an attempt to deport him to Mexico that lasted several years until we got Congress involved in Lalo's case,” he explained. “But the ‘hey’ here is DOJ and DHS knew and knew the Mexican government knew. Mexico ultimately wanted border and immigration policies changed by Junior Bush's Administration almost immediately.”
According to Ramirez, such facts have become “common” considering what he described as “mismanagement” by DHS, to which ICE answers, as well as the Department of Justice. “CIs are used for what they can gain info-wise and then hung out to dry without thought, just as our Border Patrol Agents are,” Ramirez said.
But there is a reason not much has been done to investigate the problems, let alone hold anyone accountable. “Congress has ignored the criminality of these cases in order to protect their presidents as titular party heads,” said Ramirez, who regularly speaks out against abuses under both parties. “I know because I reported the House of Death case personally to the Hill and was ignored by what up to that point were ‘friends’.”
While working with confidential informants is hazardous by its very nature — they tend to be hardened criminals, often have ulterior motives, and can sometimes be serving as “double agents” — the questions being raised must be addressed. Was ICE deliberately allowing cartel hit men to murder in the United States? What sort of investigation, giving ICE the benefit of the doubt, could possibly justify such a scheme?
Even more importantly, perhaps, are accusations that the U.S. federal government is actually at the heart of the drug trade itself — allegations made by top officials and analysts on both sides of the border as well as by criminal operatives. The Obama administration continues to stonewall congressional investigations into DEA drug-money laundering, ATF gun running in Fast and Furious, and more. The CIA, meanwhile, has also been accused of deep involvement in the drug trade for decades, and even recently.
Whether or not the whole truth will ever emerge about the federal government’s nefarious activities surrounding the drug wars remains unclear. But from what is already known, the picture that emerges is highly disturbing, according to analysts — at least that much is clear. Activists say it is past time for Congress to find out what exactly is going on and hold those responsible for criminal activity to account.
Source
November 1, 2012
What was Obama told at the September 10, 2012, NSC meeting on ‘9/11 threats’?
On the White House Web site, the president’s calendar for September 10, 2012 — the day before the Benghazi, Libya, attack — is blank and and the daily press guidance says “The President has no public events scheduled.”
But the president did have an important meeting that day. In an e-mail exchange over President Obama’s record of skipping his daily intelligence meetings, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor wrote me the following:
● What was the president told in that briefing about “9/11 threats and mitigation efforts” in Libya?
● The New York Times reports that “In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were ‘Al Qaeda-leaning.’ ” Was the president briefed on those reports at the NSC principals meeting?
● The Times further reports that “a week before Mr. Stevens died, the American Embassy warned that Libyan officials had declared a ‘state of maximum alert’ in Benghazi.” Was the president told of this assessment by Libyan officials of the state of security in Benghazi at the 9/10 meeting?
● U.S. diplomats in Libya made numerous requests for additional security. The president claims he was not “personally aware” of those requests.Well, was there any discussion of those requests in the NSC principals committee meeting on September 10th?
If the NSC Principals Committee did not discuss Libya as part of their briefing on “9/11 threats and mitigation efforts,” then it would seem to be an example of gross negligence. If they did discuss Libya, then Americans deserve to know what they told the president about the security situation in that country one day before our ambassador was killed. And if the president was in fact briefed on the growing al-Qaeda threat in Benghazi a day before the attack, it would further call into question the administration’s efforts to blame the attack on a YouTube video.
The only way to answer these questions is for the administration to release the records relating to the September 10 NSC meeting — including any briefing slides or papers prepared for the meeting. Those records will tell us a great deal about what the president knew — and when he knew it.
Source
But the president did have an important meeting that day. In an e-mail exchange over President Obama’s record of skipping his daily intelligence meetings, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor wrote me the following:
I’d also note that this focus on just the PDB and not the countless other NSC meetings the President has each week really misses the point. For example, the President had a briefing with the Principals Committee to review 9/11 threats and mitigation efforts on September 10th. Seems like a relevant data point for you[r] piece. [Emphasis added].The fact that “the President had a briefing with the Principals Committee to review 9/11 threats and mitigation efforts on September 10th” raises a whole host of new questions:
● What was the president told in that briefing about “9/11 threats and mitigation efforts” in Libya?
● The New York Times reports that “In the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the Obama administration received intelligence reports that Islamic extremist groups were operating training camps in the mountains near the Libyan city and that some of the fighters were ‘Al Qaeda-leaning.’ ” Was the president briefed on those reports at the NSC principals meeting?
● The Times further reports that “a week before Mr. Stevens died, the American Embassy warned that Libyan officials had declared a ‘state of maximum alert’ in Benghazi.” Was the president told of this assessment by Libyan officials of the state of security in Benghazi at the 9/10 meeting?
● U.S. diplomats in Libya made numerous requests for additional security. The president claims he was not “personally aware” of those requests.Well, was there any discussion of those requests in the NSC principals committee meeting on September 10th?
If the NSC Principals Committee did not discuss Libya as part of their briefing on “9/11 threats and mitigation efforts,” then it would seem to be an example of gross negligence. If they did discuss Libya, then Americans deserve to know what they told the president about the security situation in that country one day before our ambassador was killed. And if the president was in fact briefed on the growing al-Qaeda threat in Benghazi a day before the attack, it would further call into question the administration’s efforts to blame the attack on a YouTube video.
The only way to answer these questions is for the administration to release the records relating to the September 10 NSC meeting — including any briefing slides or papers prepared for the meeting. Those records will tell us a great deal about what the president knew — and when he knew it.
Source
October 31, 2012
Congress, not Obama, has power to change election day
As I reported yesterday, a White House reporter asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney whether President Obama would “change election day” due to potentially catastrophic damage from Hurricane Sandy.
The president, however, doesn’t have that power, as Congress sets the law defining the date of the election. I spoke with Professor Stephen Huefner at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law who explained that the power to change or extend the election lies in the hands of Congress.
“The bottom line is that Congress sets the date for the states to conduct the election of presidential electors,” Huefner explained, noting that the election date has already been set for November 6th. “Congress would be free to change that date but that seems a pretty remote prospect at this point that they would reconvene and change the date.”
Huefner added that if Congress did change the date, each state would have to adjust their existing laws to comply with a theoretical change.
Individual states have some power to extend the voting hours beyond election day – with provisional ballots. That power varies from state-to-state. For example, a governor or election official might be able to adjust the voting hours as they deem necessary. Should a state official choose to move the election, it is likely that it would have to be ratified by the State legislature.
State laws, however, were written to comply with federal law. If state officials attempted to adjust the schedule, it is likely that it would be challenged in court under the federal provision.
At this point, it is extremely unlikely that the election date will be changed. Virginia, for example, has plans to provide emergency power for polling locations, in the unlikely scenario that power hasn’t been restored by next week. The Virginia board of Elections has authority to move a polling location, if authorities deem it unsafe.
October 30, 2012
AUTO BAILOUT BOMBSHELL: Fiat Says Chrysler, Jeep Production May Move to Italy
Coming hot on the heels of speculation that some Jeep production may be moved to China comes a bombshell from a Bloomberg report. Fiat is now considering moving Chrysler and Jeep production to Italy.
According to the piece, "To counter the severe slump in European sales, (Fiat CEO Sergio) Marchionne is considering building Chrysler models in Italy, including Jeeps, for export to North America. The Italian government is evaluating tax rebates on export goods to help Fiat. Marchionne may announce details of his plan as soon as Oct. 30, the people said."
So, let's be real clear here, we are talking about vehicles that will be built in Italy and exported to America. The evidence is clear that Fiat is looking at ways to move production of vehicles from the US to elsewhere, whether it be China or Italy, costing American jobs. This is becoming indisputable, despite outcries from certain parties to the contrary.
Mitt Romney has rightfully criticized the Obama Administration for handing over Chrysler to the Italians and now leaving the fate of American workers in the hands of Fiat management. Fiat is not a healthy company and the auto industry is in as great a risk as ever. The insistence that all is well by those with political motivations does not mask the danger. More jobs are at risk of being lost and more taxpayer money may be lost as well.
Let's face it, the auto bailouts were not well thought out. Perhaps General Motors' CEO, Dan Akerson, said it best when he said, "The good thing about our bankruptcy is that it took only 39 days. The bad news is that bankruptcy took only 39 days. If we had been there longer, people would have asked these questions and looked at these things."
The whole auto industry bailout process was rushed through with the wrong primary motivation of protecting the politically powerful UAW's interests. The Obama Administration never considered that giving Chrysler to Fiat was not a great idea and could eventually hurt the same UAW workers it was trying to protect.
Manufacturers like Chrysler and GM are at a competitive disadvantage due to UAW obligations that were not properly addressed in the bankruptcy process. The industry is more competitive than ever and the government does not seem to be the best innovators to lead the sector to real health. This truth is very likely to become more apparent when the political season ends.
Source
According to the piece, "To counter the severe slump in European sales, (Fiat CEO Sergio) Marchionne is considering building Chrysler models in Italy, including Jeeps, for export to North America. The Italian government is evaluating tax rebates on export goods to help Fiat. Marchionne may announce details of his plan as soon as Oct. 30, the people said."
So, let's be real clear here, we are talking about vehicles that will be built in Italy and exported to America. The evidence is clear that Fiat is looking at ways to move production of vehicles from the US to elsewhere, whether it be China or Italy, costing American jobs. This is becoming indisputable, despite outcries from certain parties to the contrary.
Mitt Romney has rightfully criticized the Obama Administration for handing over Chrysler to the Italians and now leaving the fate of American workers in the hands of Fiat management. Fiat is not a healthy company and the auto industry is in as great a risk as ever. The insistence that all is well by those with political motivations does not mask the danger. More jobs are at risk of being lost and more taxpayer money may be lost as well.
Let's face it, the auto bailouts were not well thought out. Perhaps General Motors' CEO, Dan Akerson, said it best when he said, "The good thing about our bankruptcy is that it took only 39 days. The bad news is that bankruptcy took only 39 days. If we had been there longer, people would have asked these questions and looked at these things."
The whole auto industry bailout process was rushed through with the wrong primary motivation of protecting the politically powerful UAW's interests. The Obama Administration never considered that giving Chrysler to Fiat was not a great idea and could eventually hurt the same UAW workers it was trying to protect.
Manufacturers like Chrysler and GM are at a competitive disadvantage due to UAW obligations that were not properly addressed in the bankruptcy process. The industry is more competitive than ever and the government does not seem to be the best innovators to lead the sector to real health. This truth is very likely to become more apparent when the political season ends.
Source
October 29, 2012
State Dept: Texas can’t arrest international election observers
International election observers planning to visit Texas polling places have “full immunity” from being arrested in the United States, the State Department said when discussing a letter from the Texas Attorney General.
“I’m not going to get into any kind of hypothetical situations or predict where this is going to go other than to say we have every expectation that this will be worked out and to state the fact, which is that under U.S. law they are eligible for immunities,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. Reporters tried to get her to state explicitly that Texas could not arrest election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), but Nuland would only reiterate that OSCE observers have full immunity.
Attorney General Greg Abbott, R-Texas, warned OSCE that it “may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance,” as The Hill noted.
Nuland dismissed Abbott’s observation that OSCE consulted with Project Vote, a group that was affiliated with ACORN before that now-discredited organization collapsed under the weight of voter fraud charges.
“[I]f there are concerns that Texas authorities have, they have an opportunity through the direct dialogue that’s now going on in Texas with OSCE observers to take up their concerns,” she said. “But the mandate of the OSCE is designed to be absolutely and completely impartial, and that’s what we plan on when we participate and that’s what we’d expect here.”
October 26, 2012
Obama Scandals Around Libya Attack Keep Growing
With explosive new revelations emerging almost weekly, Obama administration scandals surrounding the deadly September 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya and the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens continue to mount. Most recently, official e-mails showed the White House was informed that it was a potential terrorist strike hours after the assault began, exposing alarming contradictions in the false and evolving narrative peddled by President Obama and multiple top officials for days.
According to documents obtained by multiple news organizations, the State Department issued an alert just hours following the start of the attack noting that an al-Qaeda-linked terror group had claimed responsibility for it. The White House, the FBI, the Pentagon, and other government agencies were all copied on the alerts.
"Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack," read the title of one e-mail sent out as the deadly assault was still underway. "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli." The Islamist group in question has known ties to al-Qaeda and was deeply involved in the Obama-backed war on Libya.
Two other e-mailed alerts sent out during the siege also suggested that the incident was anything but a protest gone awry. One of the e-mails, headlined "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack," noted that the American Embassy in Tripoli “reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well." The message also noted that a local militia was providing security support.
"An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi," State Department spokesman Mark Toner was quoted as saying in response to the latest revelations. "Once we have the board's comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters."
Separately, the Central Intelligence Agency station chief in Libya reported within 24 hours of the diplomatic attack that evidence pointed to Islamic militants, not protesters, U.S. officials told the Associated Press. The CIA assessment was compiled from statements by eyewitnesses and was sent to Washington, D.C., almost immediately.
Despite all of that, numerous top officials falsely insisted for a week that the deadly attack was simply the result of a protest over a crude YouTube video depicting the Islamic Prophet Mohammed as a murderous pedophile. White House spokesman Jay Carney and the administration’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, both parroted the false narrative over and over again — at least until the lie was exposed.
Like with the glaring contradictions in the Obama administration’s claims surrounding the assassination of Osama bin Laden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blamed "fog of war" for the wildly inaccurate early statements about the Libya attack. However, the resulting scandal has sparked serious suspicions among lawmakers and analysts, many of whom believe political considerations took precedence over the truth in administration pronouncements about the terror strike.
Last week, two Republican leaders in Congress sent a scathing letter to the president demanding real answers about the tragedy. Among other points, the congressmen suggested that the lax security at the American post might have been a political ploy — essentially, a public-relations gimmick to conceal the fiasco in Libya left in the wake of Obama’s lawless and devastating war, which empowered Islamic extremists while leaving the nation in ruins.
"We have been told repeatedly that the administration did this to effectuate a policy of 'normalization' in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war. These actions not only resulted in extreme vulnerability, but also undermined Ambassador Stevens and the diplomatic mission," Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said in the letter, pointing out that budgetary constraints had nothing to do with the decision. "The normalization process, which began in November 2011, appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse."
Other evidence released this month showed that Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Libya and even Washington, D.C., were well aware of the dangers. In fact, Stevens was practically begging for more security as he warned the administration that Islamic extremism was exploding in the area as assaults on Western targets became increasingly brazen. With four Americans dead, lawmakers now want answers.
"The American people have a right to know why the administration withdrew security resources over the objections of embassy officials and why their government did not heed the warnings of Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues,” the two congressmen wrote. "Whether based on political concerns or bureaucratic neglect, the actions of this administration contributed to an inadequate and ineffective security posture in Libya as it emerged from civil war."
Before the latest revelations, multiple reports also indicated that the Islamist rebels and al-Qaeda leaders armed and financed by the Obama administration to overthrow the Gadhafi regime might even be implicated in the killing. Some intelligence officials cited in news reports, for example, have pointed the finger at Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu, a former detainee in Guantanamo Bay who was released in Libya and became what analysts described as a U.S. government “ally of sorts” in the bid to overthrow Gadhafi.
Sources cited by WorldNetDaily Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein, meanwhile, said Ambassador Stevens was using the compound in Benghazi to work with assorted Arab dictatorships in an effort to recruit jihadists. The Islamist recruits were supposed to help Western powers and Sunni Muslim dictatorships in the fight against the secular Bashir al Assad dictatorship in Syria — a similar strategy to the scheme used to unseat Gadhafi in Libya.
“Ambassador Stevens was directly involved in arming the rebels,” WND’s Klein reported, citing Egyptian security officials who claimed Stevens played a “central role” in recruiting Islamists to wage “Jihad” in Syria against the ruling despot. According to Klein’s sources, the U.S. ambassador also served as a key contact with the Saudi Arabian regime to coordinate the recruitment of Islamist fighters. The jihadists recruited from Libya and broader North Africa were reportedly sent to Syria through Turkey.
Questions and concerns have also been raised in recent days about how and why the U.S. government could fail so miserably to rescue its personnel during an attack that lasted for at least six hours. According to news reports, an American drone was flying overhead and teams of U.S. military personnel were stationed all over the region — easily within a few hours distance from Benghazi. Nothing was done.
While the political furor continues to grow, Democrats, President Obama, and Ambassador Stevens’ father have all called for an end to the politicization of the tragedy. Critics counter that getting to the truth is not about politics, it is about accountability and preventing similar disasters in the future. For now, however, it seems that the outcry will keep escalating, at least until all of the facts are out. Republicans have already called for the resignations of multiple officials as the fallout intensifies.
What has become clear to analysts as new information emerges is that the administration’s unconstitutional policy on Libya — war, arming terrorists, regime change based on falsehoods, and an astounding lack of security for unknown reasons — has been a terrible failure. Whether anything will be learned from the tragedy remains to be seen. But with a similar course of action currently being pursued in Syria, Obama appears to be asking for more of the same.
Source
According to documents obtained by multiple news organizations, the State Department issued an alert just hours following the start of the attack noting that an al-Qaeda-linked terror group had claimed responsibility for it. The White House, the FBI, the Pentagon, and other government agencies were all copied on the alerts.
"Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack," read the title of one e-mail sent out as the deadly assault was still underway. "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli." The Islamist group in question has known ties to al-Qaeda and was deeply involved in the Obama-backed war on Libya.
Two other e-mailed alerts sent out during the siege also suggested that the incident was anything but a protest gone awry. One of the e-mails, headlined "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack," noted that the American Embassy in Tripoli “reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well." The message also noted that a local militia was providing security support.
"An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi," State Department spokesman Mark Toner was quoted as saying in response to the latest revelations. "Once we have the board's comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters."
Separately, the Central Intelligence Agency station chief in Libya reported within 24 hours of the diplomatic attack that evidence pointed to Islamic militants, not protesters, U.S. officials told the Associated Press. The CIA assessment was compiled from statements by eyewitnesses and was sent to Washington, D.C., almost immediately.
Despite all of that, numerous top officials falsely insisted for a week that the deadly attack was simply the result of a protest over a crude YouTube video depicting the Islamic Prophet Mohammed as a murderous pedophile. White House spokesman Jay Carney and the administration’s ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, both parroted the false narrative over and over again — at least until the lie was exposed.
Like with the glaring contradictions in the Obama administration’s claims surrounding the assassination of Osama bin Laden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blamed "fog of war" for the wildly inaccurate early statements about the Libya attack. However, the resulting scandal has sparked serious suspicions among lawmakers and analysts, many of whom believe political considerations took precedence over the truth in administration pronouncements about the terror strike.
Last week, two Republican leaders in Congress sent a scathing letter to the president demanding real answers about the tragedy. Among other points, the congressmen suggested that the lax security at the American post might have been a political ploy — essentially, a public-relations gimmick to conceal the fiasco in Libya left in the wake of Obama’s lawless and devastating war, which empowered Islamic extremists while leaving the nation in ruins.
"We have been told repeatedly that the administration did this to effectuate a policy of 'normalization' in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war. These actions not only resulted in extreme vulnerability, but also undermined Ambassador Stevens and the diplomatic mission," Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said in the letter, pointing out that budgetary constraints had nothing to do with the decision. "The normalization process, which began in November 2011, appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse."
Other evidence released this month showed that Ambassador Stevens and other U.S. personnel in Libya and even Washington, D.C., were well aware of the dangers. In fact, Stevens was practically begging for more security as he warned the administration that Islamic extremism was exploding in the area as assaults on Western targets became increasingly brazen. With four Americans dead, lawmakers now want answers.
"The American people have a right to know why the administration withdrew security resources over the objections of embassy officials and why their government did not heed the warnings of Ambassador Stevens and his colleagues,” the two congressmen wrote. "Whether based on political concerns or bureaucratic neglect, the actions of this administration contributed to an inadequate and ineffective security posture in Libya as it emerged from civil war."
Before the latest revelations, multiple reports also indicated that the Islamist rebels and al-Qaeda leaders armed and financed by the Obama administration to overthrow the Gadhafi regime might even be implicated in the killing. Some intelligence officials cited in news reports, for example, have pointed the finger at Abu Sufian Ibrahim Ahmed Hamuda bin Qumu, a former detainee in Guantanamo Bay who was released in Libya and became what analysts described as a U.S. government “ally of sorts” in the bid to overthrow Gadhafi.
Sources cited by WorldNetDaily Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein, meanwhile, said Ambassador Stevens was using the compound in Benghazi to work with assorted Arab dictatorships in an effort to recruit jihadists. The Islamist recruits were supposed to help Western powers and Sunni Muslim dictatorships in the fight against the secular Bashir al Assad dictatorship in Syria — a similar strategy to the scheme used to unseat Gadhafi in Libya.
“Ambassador Stevens was directly involved in arming the rebels,” WND’s Klein reported, citing Egyptian security officials who claimed Stevens played a “central role” in recruiting Islamists to wage “Jihad” in Syria against the ruling despot. According to Klein’s sources, the U.S. ambassador also served as a key contact with the Saudi Arabian regime to coordinate the recruitment of Islamist fighters. The jihadists recruited from Libya and broader North Africa were reportedly sent to Syria through Turkey.
Questions and concerns have also been raised in recent days about how and why the U.S. government could fail so miserably to rescue its personnel during an attack that lasted for at least six hours. According to news reports, an American drone was flying overhead and teams of U.S. military personnel were stationed all over the region — easily within a few hours distance from Benghazi. Nothing was done.
While the political furor continues to grow, Democrats, President Obama, and Ambassador Stevens’ father have all called for an end to the politicization of the tragedy. Critics counter that getting to the truth is not about politics, it is about accountability and preventing similar disasters in the future. For now, however, it seems that the outcry will keep escalating, at least until all of the facts are out. Republicans have already called for the resignations of multiple officials as the fallout intensifies.
What has become clear to analysts as new information emerges is that the administration’s unconstitutional policy on Libya — war, arming terrorists, regime change based on falsehoods, and an astounding lack of security for unknown reasons — has been a terrible failure. Whether anything will be learned from the tragedy remains to be seen. But with a similar course of action currently being pursued in Syria, Obama appears to be asking for more of the same.
Source
October 25, 2012
Fast and Furious whistleblower John Dodson sues Time, alleges Fortune libeled him
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives special agent John Dodson is suing Time, Inc., The Daily Caller has learned, alleging that its Fortune Magazine libeled him in an article it ran this summer. Dodson is the ATF agent who blew the whistle on Fast and Furious, exposing the failures of the operation to the American people.
The article, authored by Katherine Eban, claims that a “Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust.” The article was headlined “The Truth about the Fast and Furious Scandal.”
In his libel lawsuit complaint, obtained by TheDC, Dodson said that “predicate is false and deceptive in that it leads readers to erroneously believe that it is the only accurate account of these events.”
Dodson also alleges “the article is fictitious in the sense that it contains facts that Defendant knew to be false prior to publication. Further, the contentions made in the article have been eviscerated in the public domain.”
“[T]he article generally concerns the United States Justice Department’s ‘gun walking’ operation known as ‘Fast and Furious,’ which allowed firearms to end up in the possession of Mexican drug cartels,” Dodson said in the lawsuit. “Despite the admitted and unquestioned Justice Department directive to implement this program, known to Defendant prior to publication, the Defendant nonetheless characterized the ‘public case’ of this program as being ‘….. replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies.’”
Specifically, Dodson alleges that Eban – and therefore, Time – “falsely reported that the Plaintiff initiated gun walking activity based on a grudge he had with his superior.”
Dodson said the accurate way to report that would have been to characterize him as “an ATF agent stationed in Phoenix, Arizona,” who was “following a department directive.”
Dodson said the article also placed him “in a false light by describing him as showing up to work in flip-flops, unprepared, without safety equipment or back up plans, and essentially accusing him of being incapable and unfit in his chosen line of profession, federal law enforcement.”
“He is described in the article as a ‘renegade,’” Dodson said of the way he was depicted. “The article, read as a whole, communicates that Plaintiff is unfit for his profession, a law breaker and motivated by personal grudges as opposed to his oath to follow the law.”
Dodson said the article falsely portrayed him as “lazy” and incorrectly claimed he “did not want to work weekends.”
Dodson also said the “article communicated that he took leave from work without a plan in place to interdict the guns that ‘walked.’ In contrast, the Plaintiff had in fact protested and objected to the program within his chain of command.”
In the complaint, Dodson said Time was “negligent, grossly negligent, willful and wanton in publishing the said statements referenced herein” and “purposely avoided the truth, including but not limited to, failing to interview the major witness in the case, the Plaintiff himself, especially when the Plaintiff offered to be interviewed and provided the author the proper protocol for arranging the interview through Plaintiff’s employer.”
Dodson also alleges that Time “published these false statements
with actual knowledge of their falsity because, for example, congressional staffers informed Defendant through its author prior to publication that the article’s premise was flawed” meaning the article ran “with a reckless disregard for the truth.”
Dodson is suing for damages “in excess of $75,000.00.”
Spokespersons for Time, Inc., haven’t responded to TheDC’s request for comment on the lawsuit. The docket report for Dodson’s case on PACER.gov shows no official response from Time. A summons ordering Time to respond “within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it)” is dated Oct. 15, 2012. It’s unclear if the summons has been served on Time already or if it’s en route.
Through his lawyer, Dodson asked Fortune editor Andrew Serwer to retract the article, arguing the Justice Department’s Inspector General report on Fast and Furious proved Eban’s article was “demonstrably false in many respects.”
Eban disagreed, and then doubled down on her original article. She argued the IG report “appear[s] to corroborate a number of Fortune’s findings: that there was no conspiracy to walk guns, no higher-up plan to do so and that walking guns was not the goal of the investigation, but rather a response to ‘legal and tactical’ circumstances on the ground, as the report states.”
“The facts presented by Fortune do not appear to be in dispute, but on this point the Inspector General has drawn a different conclusion from them,” Eban added.
She and her editors have refused to retract the article.
Dodson did not respond to The Daily Caller’s request for comment.
Source
The article, authored by Katherine Eban, claims that a “Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust.” The article was headlined “The Truth about the Fast and Furious Scandal.”
In his libel lawsuit complaint, obtained by TheDC, Dodson said that “predicate is false and deceptive in that it leads readers to erroneously believe that it is the only accurate account of these events.”
Dodson also alleges “the article is fictitious in the sense that it contains facts that Defendant knew to be false prior to publication. Further, the contentions made in the article have been eviscerated in the public domain.”
“[T]he article generally concerns the United States Justice Department’s ‘gun walking’ operation known as ‘Fast and Furious,’ which allowed firearms to end up in the possession of Mexican drug cartels,” Dodson said in the lawsuit. “Despite the admitted and unquestioned Justice Department directive to implement this program, known to Defendant prior to publication, the Defendant nonetheless characterized the ‘public case’ of this program as being ‘….. replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies.’”
Specifically, Dodson alleges that Eban – and therefore, Time – “falsely reported that the Plaintiff initiated gun walking activity based on a grudge he had with his superior.”
Dodson said the accurate way to report that would have been to characterize him as “an ATF agent stationed in Phoenix, Arizona,” who was “following a department directive.”
Dodson said the article also placed him “in a false light by describing him as showing up to work in flip-flops, unprepared, without safety equipment or back up plans, and essentially accusing him of being incapable and unfit in his chosen line of profession, federal law enforcement.”
“He is described in the article as a ‘renegade,’” Dodson said of the way he was depicted. “The article, read as a whole, communicates that Plaintiff is unfit for his profession, a law breaker and motivated by personal grudges as opposed to his oath to follow the law.”
Dodson said the article falsely portrayed him as “lazy” and incorrectly claimed he “did not want to work weekends.”
Dodson also said the “article communicated that he took leave from work without a plan in place to interdict the guns that ‘walked.’ In contrast, the Plaintiff had in fact protested and objected to the program within his chain of command.”
In the complaint, Dodson said Time was “negligent, grossly negligent, willful and wanton in publishing the said statements referenced herein” and “purposely avoided the truth, including but not limited to, failing to interview the major witness in the case, the Plaintiff himself, especially when the Plaintiff offered to be interviewed and provided the author the proper protocol for arranging the interview through Plaintiff’s employer.”
Dodson also alleges that Time “published these false statements
with actual knowledge of their falsity because, for example, congressional staffers informed Defendant through its author prior to publication that the article’s premise was flawed” meaning the article ran “with a reckless disregard for the truth.”Dodson is suing for damages “in excess of $75,000.00.”
Spokespersons for Time, Inc., haven’t responded to TheDC’s request for comment on the lawsuit. The docket report for Dodson’s case on PACER.gov shows no official response from Time. A summons ordering Time to respond “within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it)” is dated Oct. 15, 2012. It’s unclear if the summons has been served on Time already or if it’s en route.
Through his lawyer, Dodson asked Fortune editor Andrew Serwer to retract the article, arguing the Justice Department’s Inspector General
report on Fast and Furious proved Eban’s article was “demonstrably false in many respects.”Eban disagreed, and then doubled down on her original article. She argued the IG report “appear[s] to corroborate a number of Fortune’s findings: that there was no conspiracy to walk guns, no higher-up plan to do so and that walking
guns was not the goal of the investigation, but rather a response to ‘legal and tactical’ circumstances on the ground, as the report states.”“The facts presented by Fortune do not appear to be in dispute, but on this point the Inspector General has drawn a different conclusion from them,” Eban added.
She and her editors have refused to retract the article.
Dodson did not respond to The Daily Caller’s request for comment.
Source
October 24, 2012
Another Scandal by Obama Adminstration
Amidst ongoing questions concerning the potential cover-ups by the Obama Administration of Fast and Furious and the Benghazi attack, another scandal is coming back to light for the White House. The U.S. Secret Service made the news last April when a number of agents were suspended after being accused of consorting with prostitutes while in Cartagena, Columbia for the Summit of the Americas attended by President Obama. As he did with the latest scandals surrounding his administration, the President called for an investigation into the incident:
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) stated on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that “wheel-up parties when the president leaves,” were not unheard of, but these kinds of activities before the President even arrives on the scene was news to him. Political Analyst David Gergen, who has worked for four Presidents, also confirmed that incidents such as the prostitution scandal were known to happen. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) called for White House personnel who were also in Cartagena at the time to account for their activities as well. The day after Lieberman’s statements, White House Secretary Jay Carney stated:
Later, after the Secret Service completed their internal investigation and reported to the Senate committee on it, the Department of Justice (DOJ), according to a memo released today by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), refused to work with the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General (DHS OIG) to complete an independent investigation.
Additionally, when the DHS OIG completed their report and gave it to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano September 26th, she failed to take any actions to follow up on it.
As the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Sen. Ron Johnson was able to review the DHS OIG report and expressed concerns about discrepancies between public statements by administration officials and information contained within the report. He also found that Secret Service agents involved in the scandal may still be on the government’s payroll. When Johnson’s office requested additional information regarding what they’d found, DHS, the DOJ and the White House ignored their inquiries.
The inspection by Johnson has revealed that prior to Sullivan’s testimony before the Congressional committee, the Secret Service director was informed of previous incidents by Secret Service agents involving prostitution. Further, although Sullivan testified that the names of the prostitutes had been run through U.S. national security and law enforcement databases and hadn’t raised any red flags, the inspector general’s report claimed otherwise. In fact, two of the women’s names had initially been found to be potential security concerns and one is still being investigated. According to a FoxNews.com source, Sullivan blatantly lied to Congress in his testimony. Sullivan has also potentially misled Congress in his written responses and conspired with those around him to “manipulate, falsify, or edit records to downplay past problems.”
The DHS OIG report also uncovered hotel records that seem to indicate, contrary to White House Secretary Carney’s statement, that one officer with the Department of Defense and one member of the White House staff and/or advance team checked prostitutes into their rooms in Cartagena. Unfortunately, because the DOJ wouldn’t cooperate with the DHS OIG, the investigation was limited in assessing whether additional White House personnel were involved in the scandal. In his letter to White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew, Johnson assessed:
Source
What happened here in Colombia is being investigated by the director of the Secret Service,” Obama said. “I expect that investigation to be thorough and I expect it to be rigorous,” the president told reporters in his first public reaction to the controversy. If it turns out that some of the allegations that have been made in the press are confirmed, then of course I’ll be angry.In the days following, the news from officials was (as we’ve come to expect) conflicting.
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) stated on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that “wheel-up parties when the president leaves,” were not unheard of, but these kinds of activities before the President even arrives on the scene was news to him. Political Analyst David Gergen, who has worked for four Presidents, also confirmed that incidents such as the prostitution scandal were known to happen. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) called for White House personnel who were also in Cartagena at the time to account for their activities as well. The day after Lieberman’s statements, White House Secretary Jay Carney stated:
There have been no specific, credible allegations of misconduct by anyone on the White House advance team or the White House staff. Nevertheless, out of due diligence, the White House Counsel’s office has conducted a review of the White House advance team, and in concluding that review, came to the conclusion that there’s no indication that any member of the White House advance team engaged in any improper conduct or behavior. So, simply out of due diligence, over the last several days that review was conducted, and it produced no indication of any misconduct.As reported by Jake Tapper of ABC News, Secret Service director Mark Sullivan testified soon after in May before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the disgraceful behavior of the Secret Service members was “not part of our culture” and “we have not found this type of behavior was exhibited by any of these individuals before.” Still, members of the Senate investigating the incident persisted that the current scandal was just the newest in a pattern of behavior exhibited consistently behind the scenes in the Secret Service agency. Sen. Lieberman maintained that allegations and complaints of sexual misconduct aimed at Secret Service employees had been made 64 times in the last 5 years.
Later, after the Secret Service completed their internal investigation and reported to the Senate committee on it, the Department of Justice (DOJ), according to a memo released today by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), refused to work with the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General (DHS OIG) to complete an independent investigation.
Additionally, when the DHS OIG completed their report and gave it to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano September 26th, she failed to take any actions to follow up on it.
As the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Sen. Ron Johnson was able to review the DHS OIG report and expressed concerns about discrepancies between public statements by administration officials and information contained within the report. He also found that Secret Service agents involved in the scandal may still be on the government’s payroll. When Johnson’s office requested additional information regarding what they’d found, DHS, the DOJ and the White House ignored their inquiries.
The inspection by Johnson has revealed that prior to Sullivan’s testimony before the Congressional committee, the Secret Service director was informed of previous incidents by Secret Service agents involving prostitution. Further, although Sullivan testified that the names of the prostitutes had been run through U.S. national security and law enforcement databases and hadn’t raised any red flags, the inspector general’s report claimed otherwise. In fact, two of the women’s names had initially been found to be potential security concerns and one is still being investigated. According to a FoxNews.com source, Sullivan blatantly lied to Congress in his testimony. Sullivan has also potentially misled Congress in his written responses and conspired with those around him to “manipulate, falsify, or edit records to downplay past problems.”
The DHS OIG report also uncovered hotel records that seem to indicate, contrary to White House Secretary Carney’s statement, that one officer with the Department of Defense and one member of the White House staff and/or advance team checked prostitutes into their rooms in Cartagena. Unfortunately, because the DOJ wouldn’t cooperate with the DHS OIG, the investigation was limited in assessing whether additional White House personnel were involved in the scandal. In his letter to White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew, Johnson assessed:
The national security risks associated with this type of misconduct threaten the very safety of the President of the United States and creates and environment where sensitive information may be stolen, accessed, or otherwise extracted from U.S. personnel. Further, this type of disappointing behavior creates an opportunity for blackmail.Former undercover FBI operative Brandon Darby, who has worked in both counterterrorism and human trafficking investigations, has expressed concerns previously about cases of prostitution being covered up within the FBI, with help from the DOJ. Darby stated to RedState:
The men and women of the FBI and DOJ as a whole are great patriots. The politically appointed leadership has exhibited a tendency under Eric Holder to neglect the needs of trafficked women and minors, for that matter, involving cases of sex and prostitution.For the past month, the DOJ has claimed they are “busy” and have been unable to provide an attorney to receive the report from DHS. Considering the information from Darby, however, it may be the case that the DOJ is fine allowing this scandal to go unreported until after the election.
Source
October 23, 2012
Schieffer asks no questions about border security, Operation Fast and Furious
Moderator Bob Schieffer did not ask President Obama or Republican nominee Mitt Romney any questions about U.S. border security during the third presidential debate Monday night.
According to the Justice Department, Mexican drug cartels operate broadly across the United States. (RELATED: DOJ says Mexican cartels operating in over 1,000 U.S. cities)
That level of cartel activity inside the U.S. marks a 300 percent increase since 2008.
During the second debate, Romney mentioned the botched gunrunning program — Operation Fast and Furious — a failed program designed to track drug cartel members receiving illicit guns from the United States.
It resulted in the death of U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry and more than 300 Mexicans.
(RELATED VIDEO: Obama slammed on Fast and Furious in Spanish-language TV interview: Shouldn’t you “fire” Holder?)
No questions were about the operation or other issues related to the U.S.-Mexico border.
Source
According to the Justice Department, Mexican drug cartels operate broadly across the United States. (RELATED: DOJ says Mexican cartels operating in over 1,000 U.S. cities)
That level of cartel activity inside the U.S. marks a 300 percent increase since 2008.
During the second debate, Romney mentioned the botched gunrunning program — Operation Fast and Furious — a failed program designed to track drug cartel members receiving illicit guns from the United States.
It resulted in the death of U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry and more than 300 Mexicans.
(RELATED VIDEO: Obama slammed on Fast and Furious in Spanish-language TV interview: Shouldn’t you “fire” Holder?)
No questions were about the operation or other issues related to the U.S.-Mexico border.
Source
October 22, 2012
President Obama's Other Libya Scandal
As presidential debaters clash over the meaning of a Rose Garden general reference to "acts of terror," and whether that phrase was applied to the murder of our ambassador to Libya and three of his colleagues, and with a debate moderator throwing a "life line" to one of the candidates, it's interesting to note something else said in the secure environs of the White House complex the bright morning after that night of flame and death in Benghazi.
It's almost like Poe's short story, The Purloined Letter. The critical evidence is in plain sight. The day after the murders of the Americans, President Obama promised to cooperate with our presumed friends in the new Libyan regime in Tripoli. Here's what he said:
"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats… And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people." --Rose Garden Statement, September 12, 2012
The "make no mistake" phrase has been poll-tested, no doubt, to suggest the speaker is most resolute, most firm. In this context, however, the phrase is as vacuous as Bill Clinton's definition of "is" is, or Joe Biden's definition of "we."
The candid world has already seen just how cooperative this new Libyan regime is. The New York Times inadvertently showed us the spots of this leopard in its story on the reported death of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi back in May:
"Tripoli's new leaders refused to return him. But, under international pressure, they signaled a willingness to get to the bottom of the Lockerbie case, still unresolved after nearly a quarter of a century of struggle among nations and investigations that spanned the globe, touching on Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians and Libyans."
The Times then reported how Tripoli's new rulers had declined to help the U.S. bring closure to the investigation into the bombing of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Recall, these are rulers whom President Obama helped to put in power. For them, he ordered NATO airstrikes against the dictatorship of Col. Muammar Khaddafi. For them, he has requested another $250 million in foreign aid.
Suddenly, the man who was imprisoned in Scotland, but who later infamously was released from jail and flown home to a rapturous reception in Tripoli, has turned up dead. How convenient.
It is this same Libyan gang that President Obama says he will work with to get to the bottom of the murders in Benghazi. Don't hold your breath. We've been waiting 24 years for the "international community" to bring to justice the killers of 270 passengers of the doomed jet liner and bystanders on the ground in Lockerbie. With the supposed death of Megrahi, we will probably count PanAm 103 as a cold case and not pursue it further.
Libya is a burning issue. The case of the PanAm jet that fell in flames from the skies cries out for justice. Why should we give a penny in aid to a so-called government in Tripoli that stonewalled our efforts to bring Megrahi to justice?
That same Tripoli government was duty-bound under international law to protect our diplomats and State Department employees. We saw on September 11th -- of all days -- how indifferent this Libyan bunch was to the safety of our American personnel.
"Working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats" is one of the weakest excuses in history. We already know how much this Libyan regime cares about American lives.
They do care, of course, about another $250 million in American aid. Not a penny of that money should be given unconditionally to people who have already shown their indifference to human lives -- ours and others.
The final presidential debate is scheduled for next week. Let us see whether CBS' Bob Schieffer will raise this burning Libyan issue with the candidates.
Source
It's almost like Poe's short story, The Purloined Letter. The critical evidence is in plain sight. The day after the murders of the Americans, President Obama promised to cooperate with our presumed friends in the new Libyan regime in Tripoli. Here's what he said:
"The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats… And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people." --Rose Garden Statement, September 12, 2012
The "make no mistake" phrase has been poll-tested, no doubt, to suggest the speaker is most resolute, most firm. In this context, however, the phrase is as vacuous as Bill Clinton's definition of "is" is, or Joe Biden's definition of "we."
The candid world has already seen just how cooperative this new Libyan regime is. The New York Times inadvertently showed us the spots of this leopard in its story on the reported death of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi back in May:
"Tripoli's new leaders refused to return him. But, under international pressure, they signaled a willingness to get to the bottom of the Lockerbie case, still unresolved after nearly a quarter of a century of struggle among nations and investigations that spanned the globe, touching on Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians and Libyans."
The Times then reported how Tripoli's new rulers had declined to help the U.S. bring closure to the investigation into the bombing of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. Recall, these are rulers whom President Obama helped to put in power. For them, he ordered NATO airstrikes against the dictatorship of Col. Muammar Khaddafi. For them, he has requested another $250 million in foreign aid.
Suddenly, the man who was imprisoned in Scotland, but who later infamously was released from jail and flown home to a rapturous reception in Tripoli, has turned up dead. How convenient.
It is this same Libyan gang that President Obama says he will work with to get to the bottom of the murders in Benghazi. Don't hold your breath. We've been waiting 24 years for the "international community" to bring to justice the killers of 270 passengers of the doomed jet liner and bystanders on the ground in Lockerbie. With the supposed death of Megrahi, we will probably count PanAm 103 as a cold case and not pursue it further.
Libya is a burning issue. The case of the PanAm jet that fell in flames from the skies cries out for justice. Why should we give a penny in aid to a so-called government in Tripoli that stonewalled our efforts to bring Megrahi to justice?
That same Tripoli government was duty-bound under international law to protect our diplomats and State Department employees. We saw on September 11th -- of all days -- how indifferent this Libyan bunch was to the safety of our American personnel.
"Working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats" is one of the weakest excuses in history. We already know how much this Libyan regime cares about American lives.
They do care, of course, about another $250 million in American aid. Not a penny of that money should be given unconditionally to people who have already shown their indifference to human lives -- ours and others.
The final presidential debate is scheduled for next week. Let us see whether CBS' Bob Schieffer will raise this burning Libyan issue with the candidates.
Source
October 19, 2012
Obama-backed, bankrupt Solyndra sues Chinese solar companies
The infamous bankrupt solar manufacturer Solyndra is now suing three U.S.-based Chinese solar companies, arguing that these companies used predatory pricing to undermine American competition.
Solyndra is asking for $1.5 billion in compensation from Chinese solar companies Suntech, Trina Solar Ltd, and Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., now saying that these firms came to the U.S. to destroy domestic solar manufacturers.
“[W]e just received notice of this complaint, but from our initial review, these are unwarranted and misguided claims from a company that has a clear history of failed technology and achievements,” said Robert Petrina, managing director at Yingli Green Energy Americas.
Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the government may recoup next to nothing from the failed solar company — only projected to get back 19 percent on $142.8 million of the loan and likely nothing on the remaining amount.
However, all of Solyndra’s creditors could be made whole from the $1.5 billion lawsuit, said Solyndra attorney Debra Grassgreen.
Solyndra received a $535 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy in 2009, after which, President Obama hailed the company as “leading the way” and the company represented one of the “true engines of economic growth.”
“It is time to rev up the American innovation machine and reclaim our lead on clean energy,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu when the loan was announced. “This investment is part of a broad, aggressive effort to spark a new industrial revolution that will put Americans to work, end our dependence on foreign oil and cut carbon pollution.”
Despite warnings early on from DOE staff that the solar company would run out of cash by September 2011, the loan moved forward with the loan, and in August 2011, the Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, laying off 1,100 workers.
The failure sparked an 18-month investigation led by House Republicans which suggested that that administration officials knew Solyndra was risky since the beginning and rushed the loan through for political purposes.
“One year after Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, we continue to learn the ugly truth of Solyndra’s sweetheart restructuring deal,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Republican Fred Upton of Michigan and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Republican Cliff Stearns of Florida.
“Our investigation showed White House officials ignored numerous red flags in the pursuit of fawning headlines, and taxpayers are sadly paying the price,’ the Congressmen continued. “Our No More Solyndras Act will put an end to DOE’s mismanaged loan guarantee program once and for all, a program the Obama administration was unprepared to lead.”
The House passed the No More Solyndras Act last month which would program an increase oversight and curtail the DOE loan guarantee program. However, the Senate is expected to ignore the bill altogether.
Source
Solyndra is asking for $1.5 billion in compensation from Chinese solar companies Suntech, Trina Solar Ltd, and Yingli Green
Energy Holding Co., now saying that these firms came to the U.S. to destroy domestic solar manufacturers.“[W]e just received notice of this complaint, but from our initial review, these are unwarranted and misguided claims from a company that has a clear history of failed technology and achievements,” said Robert Petrina, managing director at Yingli Green Energy Americas.
Bloomberg Businessweek reports that the government may recoup next to nothing from the failed solar company — only projected to get back 19 percent on $142.8 million of the loan and likely nothing on the remaining amount.
However, all of Solyndra’s creditors could be made whole from the $1.5 billion lawsuit, said Solyndra attorney Debra Grassgreen.
Solyndra received a $535 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy
in 2009, after which, President Obama hailed the company as “leading the way” and the company represented one of the “true engines of economic growth.”“It is time to rev up the American innovation machine and reclaim our lead on clean energy,” said Energy Secretary Steven Chu when the loan was announced. “This investment
is part of a broad, aggressive effort to spark a new industrial revolution that will put Americans to work, end our dependence on foreign oil and cut carbon pollution.”Despite warnings early on from DOE staff that the solar company would run out of cash by September 2011, the loan moved forward with the loan, and in August 2011, the Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, laying off 1,100 workers.
The failure sparked an 18-month investigation led by House Republicans which suggested that that administration officials knew Solyndra was risky since the beginning and rushed the loan through for political purposes.
“One year after Solyndra filed for bankruptcy, we continue to learn the ugly truth of Solyndra’s sweetheart restructuring deal
,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Republican Fred Upton of Michigan and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Republican Cliff Stearns of Florida.“Our investigation showed White House officials ignored numerous red flags in the pursuit of fawning headlines, and taxpayers are sadly paying the price,’ the Congressmen continued. “Our No More Solyndras Act will put an end to DOE’s mismanaged loan guarantee program once and for all, a program the Obama administration was unprepared to lead.”
The House passed the No More Solyndras Act last month which would program an increase oversight and curtail the DOE loan guarantee program. However, the Senate is expected to ignore the bill altogether.
Source
October 18, 2012
AG Holder Demands U.S. Court Allow Fast and Furious Coverup
As lawmakers seek to use federal courts to force disgraced Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department to hand over documents on the deadly Fast and Furious gun-running scandal, the Obama administration filed a motion this week claiming that the judicial branch has no power to interfere. According to the Department of Justice, a ruling in favor of Congress and its oversight authority would violate so-called “executive privilege.” But lawmakers are not buying it.
While he is currently abusing his position to shield himself from prosecution, Holder famously became the first attorney general in U.S. history to be held in civil and criminal contempt of Congress in late June on a bipartisan vote. Lawmakers were upset over the administration’s ongoing coverup in which it refused to provide subpoenaed documents on Fast and Furious, the now-infamous federal scheme that put thousands of high-powered American weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
“Disputes of this sort have arisen regularly since the founding,” the Justice Department claimed in the legal brief filed late Monday, asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the lawsuit. “For just as long, these disputes have been resolved between the political branches through a constitutionally grounded system of negotiation, accommodation and self-help.” The filing also claimed the courts lack jurisdiction in the case.
The administration has unlawfully refused to hand over thousands of documents related to the scandal, repeatedly defying congressional subpoenas and flouting the authority of Congress. When it became clear that lawmakers would not back down in the effort to uncover the details of Fast and Furious, however, President Obama stepped in and claimed “executive privilege” to justify the coverup.
Congress responded with contempt charges and over 120 members of the House and Senate demanded Holder’s resignation. When that failed, lawmakers filed suit in federal court. Now the administration claims that even the judiciary does not have the authority to force the executive branch’s hand. Lawmakers trying to carry out their oversight responsibilities, though, say the Justice Department’s argument is absurd on its face.
“The Obama Administration’s argument should trouble Americans who believe the President and the federal government are not above the law,” said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has been leading the charge for accountability. “In perpetuating a cover-up, through false and misleading statements that even the Justice Department’s own Inspector General found troubling, the Obama administration argued for months that it did not have to meet its legal obligations to a lawfully issued congressional subpoena.”
Incredibly, after purporting to have the authority to defy the American people’s elected representatives, the Obama administration is currently claiming that it is also above the courts, too. In other words, the executive branch is above the law, above Congress, above the courts, and accountable to nobody. Rep. Issa, however, says that reasoning will not fly.
“Now, the Department is advancing arguments — already rejected by the federal judiciary — that our court system does not have jurisdiction to ensure accountability either,” Issa explained. “The American people deserve to know the full truth about what happened in Operation Fast and Furious and why top justice officials stood behind false denials of reckless conduct.”
The new DOJ brief does acknowledge that federal courts ruled just four years ago in Committee on Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers that Congress could indeed compel executive branch officials to cooperate with congressional investigations. However, the Justice Department argued that the decision in that case was allegedly leading the country down the wrong path by getting courts involved in what the administration claims is essentially a “political” dispute.
The deadly federal gun-trafficking program was exposed over a year ago when brave whistleblowers within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stepped forward. Since then, the scheme has become a massive international scandal. And as the Obama administration continues its half-baked efforts to conceal the truth, outrage over the blood-drenched plot has only grown louder.
Some of the Fast and Furious guns were recovered at the murder scenes of U.S. federal law enforcement officers such as Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Others were used to massacre Mexican teenagers. The Obama administration’s operation was supposedly aimed at targeting two “drug lords” who already worked for the FBI, official documents later revealed. Resulting violence, meanwhile, was exploited by the top officials to push for more restrictions on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.
Despite contempt charges and the escalating nationwide uproar over the scandal, the coverup, and the official lies told by top officials throughout the investigation, however, the Justice Department, which originally responded to the gun-trafficking accusations with lies, still refuses to cooperate. If the judicial branch were to force the administration to come clean, "countless other suits by Congress are sure to follow, given the volume of document requests issued by the dozens of congressional committees that perform oversight functions," according to the federal court filing this week.
It was not immediately clear why the potential for more transparency and oversight of the executive branch going forward was a proper reason to dismiss the suit. If anything, critics of the increasing level of government secrecy say more lawsuits from Congress demanding accountability would be a positive development — somebody has to hold the administration accountable, after all. The Justice Department, however, apparently disagrees.
“The combination of robust alternative remedies and the historical absence of involvement by the judiciary have provided incentive for both branches to work in earnest through the process of negotiation, accommodation and ultimate resolution,” the DOJ filing claimed. “That process would unravel if courts were available to dictate what information may be demanded or withheld. Judicial intervention would move the branches toward litigation, not accommodation, and would dramatically alter the separation of powers.”
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz recently released the results of his investigation into the scandal as well. While blasted by critics as a “joke” and a “whitewash,” the final report concluded by recommending that more than a dozen senior DOJ and ATF officials be considered for disciplinary measures.
However, according to the investigation, evidence that Holder knew his top officials were sending weapons to cartels was not found, though Horowitz did acknowledge that White House officials refused to cooperate with the investigation. Experts say the truth about the deadly scheme remains concealed, but that the operation must have been known to the White House and senior officials including Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others.
The Department of Justice, however, does not want the courts or Congress to intervene in the matter, raising even more suspicions among critics — especially considering the growing amount of evidence suggesting that Fast and Furious was part of a far more sinister plan than the administration has admitted thus far. "Judicial restraint, not judicial intervention, is warranted," the latest DOJ court brief argues.
The current case is being handled by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, a recent Obama appointee. A ruling on the dispute is not expected until after the election, though even then it is likely to be appealed. Analysts say the outcome is difficult to predict, but lawmakers believe they are standing on solid ground. Activists hope the prosecutions, if warranted, can begin once all of the facts eventually emerge.
Source
October 17, 2012
Secret Service director suspected of lying to Congress about prostitution scandal
An investigation for the agency that oversees the U.S. Secret Service suggests Director Mark Sullivan lied during his congressional testimony in the Colombia prostitution scandal that ensnared 13 of his agents, multiple law enforcement officials and congressional sources tell FoxNews.com.
Investigators with the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) have completed their investigative report, which will be referred to the Department of Justice along with a memorandum of activity that lists potential criminal actions. The report indicates Sullivan may have obstructed Congress by lying about the criminal associations of prostitutes involved in the scandal. The report also alleges Sullivan may have manipulated a report requested by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the sources said.
DHS OIG uncovered the evidence -- including specific incidents of alleged perjury, making false statements and impeding Congress -- during their ongoing probe into the scandal surrounding agents' misconduct prior to President Obama's trip to Cartagena, Colombia last April, sources told FoxNews.com. Sources said Sullivan may have violated statute 18 USC § 1505 -- obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees -- and investigators are now handing the case over to federal prosecutors in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section.
DHS OIG has been in talks with Justice Department prosecutors in the Public Integrity Section for months, and met with them late last week about the potential charges against Sullivan, sources said.
The OIG, however, declined to discuss details of its investigation.
"The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General is conducting an ongoing investigation, requested by Congress, of the United States Secret Service regarding its actions during a presidential visit to Cartagena, Colombia, earlier this year," Charles Edwards, acting inspector general, said in a written statement. "The department and the Secret Service have cooperated with the OIG’s investigation thus far. However, as a matter of policy, the OIG does not discuss its ongoing investigations."
Sullivan has retained private counsel in the case. Joshua Hochberg, a former DOJ Public Integrity Section deputy chief-turned-white-collar defense attorney, specializes in defending public officials and CEOs charged with corruption. Hochberg was with Sullivan at his Aug. 2 interview with DHS OIG investigators, sources said. Hochberg also led the DOJ investigation of the failed energy company Enron and was head of DOJ's Fraud unit before joining a private firm.
Reached for comment, Hochberg denied the allegations.
"I've confirmed the public integrity section at DOJ does not have an open investigation. Mr. Sullivan did not in any way obstruct Congress," Hochberg told FoxNews.com.
Sources said DOJ may not yet have an official open case on Sullivan because DHS OIG has not completed handing over a final report. The Justice Department will decide if the case will be prosecuted only after evaluating the DHS OIG report.
Multiple sources tell FoxNews.com that DHS OIG officials have been in talks with Justice Department officials for months about the possible charges against Sullivan. DHS OIG also notified the FBI, as is protocol, when it uncovered evidence early on in the investigation that Sullivan may have violated federal law.
Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan, in response to inquiries from FoxNews.com, defended the agency's handling of the Colombia probe.
"Director Mark Sullivan and the Secret Service have conducted a fair and thorough investigation resulting from the Cartagena incident. The agency response to those with oversight responsibility has been timely and truthful. We will continue to respond to the DHS-OIG and Congressional inquiries in that manner," Donovan said in a statement. "We will not respond specifically to anonymous allegations that have lingered since the beginning of this investigation that are either without merit, grossly inaccurate or blatantly false."
During the May 23 hearing before the Senate committee, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, asked Sullivan: "Have you now been able to definitively conclude that the women were not associated with -- that they were not foreign agents? That they did not work for drug cartels? That they were not involved in human trafficking? That they were not working for FARC, for example, or other terrorist groups?"
Sullivan replied: "One of the first things we did, Senator, was to get the names of all the women. We had their country identification number. We provided those names and identifiers to some of our various partners out there who could verify for us if there was any connection with any type of criminal activity or criminal organization as well as any type of intelligence concerns that we may have.
"All of the information that we have received back has concluded that there was no connection either from a counterintelligence perspective or a criminal perspective."
Multiple high-ranking law enforcement officials close to the investigation told FoxNews.com that at the time of his testimony, Sullivan knew the intelligence community had found one confirmed hit -- meaning one of the prostitutes hired by a member of the Secret Service showed up in a CIA database of known criminals -- and one partial, unconfirmed, hit.
A search of the names of the prostitutes in a CIA database came back with a hit, which was confirmed before the May 23 hearing.
"He lied, absolutely he lied to Congress. He knew it, he knew what he was saying was a lie," said a law enforcement official close to the investigation.
"One hit was the CIA hit, the prostitute in question was tied to a drug cartel for laundering money," a law enforcement official close to the investigation told FoxNews.com.
"Sullivan had direct evidence of the hit," the source said.
"The night before his May 23 testimony before the Homeland Committee, he knew but he lied and said there was no hit and nothing was compromised."
At the time of his testimony, sources say Sullivan also knew of a partial hit, meaning a name in an intelligence database matched the name of one of the women who were checked into a Cartagena hotel by a member of the Secret Service. Investigators later determined after the May 23 hearing that the prostitute signed in by the Secret Service agent was not the same woman found to have ties to a criminal group, but simply shared the same name. But sources said at the time Sullivan testified before Congress he knew there was a potential second hit on a second prostitute that was still in the process of being confirmed, and therefore lied about this second possible association. It was only after the hearing that they learned the partial hit was ruled out.
Sources said Sullivan could not have known when he testified if this partial hit could be confirmed or ruled out.
These investigative findings are part of DHS OIG's ongoing and wide-ranging probe into the overall culture of Secret Service to DOJ prosecutors. The full report is not expected to be released for months.
In addition to his alleged perjury, Sullivan is suspected of misleading Congress in his responses to written questions for the record submitted by lawmakers, including Rep. Peter King of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Other potential charges stem from allegations that Sullivan conspired with his top deputies to manipulate, falsify or edit records to downplay past problems in a report compiled for the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which requested a report on the agency's last three years of disciplinary actions taken against its employees.
The report was referenced several times during the May 23 hearing.
Multiple high-ranking officials within the Secret Service said Sullivan and other top Secret Service officials also conspired to manipulate other internal investigations, including a probe into whether members of the Secret Service had hired prostitutes before a March 2011 presidential trip to El Salvador. The investigation was ordered after a news report from South America alleged that Secret Service agents had hired prostitutes and visited strip clubs in advance of President Obama's visit.
But a recently retired senior executive with Secret Service shot down these allegations, and defended Sullivan, his longtime friend and colleague. He also said Sullivan would never lie, let alone commit perjury before Congress.
"I don't know anyone who is more honest, more trustworthy, with more of a conscience than Mark," said the recently retired senior executive. "Mark Sullivan is an altar boy."
The retired official also said the internal El Salvador investigation uncovered absolutely no wrongdoing on the part of the Secret Service.
"No one in the history of the Secret Service has ever gotten a prostitute before Colombia," he insisted.
Sullivan was appointed director of the Secret Service in May 2006. The Arlington, Mass., native began his career with the agency in 1983 as a special agent in the Detroit Field Office. During his 28 years with the agency, he has served as deputy assistant director in the Office of Protective Operations; deputy special agent in charge of the Vice Presidential Protective Division and deputy assistant director, Office of Human Resources and Training.
The Cartagena prostitution scandal isn't Sullivan's first. In December 2009, he was called to testify before Congress about security failings that allowed uninvited guests Tareq and Michaele Salahi to crash an official state dinner at the White House. Sullivan took responsibility for the breach, saying: "This is our fault and our fault alone."
Source
Investigators with the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) have completed their investigative report, which will be referred to the Department of Justice along with a memorandum of activity that lists potential criminal actions. The report indicates Sullivan may have obstructed Congress by lying about the criminal associations of prostitutes involved in the scandal. The report also alleges Sullivan may have manipulated a report requested by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the sources said.
DHS OIG uncovered the evidence -- including specific incidents of alleged perjury, making false statements and impeding Congress -- during their ongoing probe into the scandal surrounding agents' misconduct prior to President Obama's trip to Cartagena, Colombia last April, sources told FoxNews.com. Sources said Sullivan may have violated statute 18 USC § 1505 -- obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees -- and investigators are now handing the case over to federal prosecutors in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section.
DHS OIG has been in talks with Justice Department prosecutors in the Public Integrity Section for months, and met with them late last week about the potential charges against Sullivan, sources said.
The OIG, however, declined to discuss details of its investigation.
"The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General is conducting an ongoing investigation, requested by Congress, of the United States Secret Service regarding its actions during a presidential visit to Cartagena, Colombia, earlier this year," Charles Edwards, acting inspector general, said in a written statement. "The department and the Secret Service have cooperated with the OIG’s investigation thus far. However, as a matter of policy, the OIG does not discuss its ongoing investigations."
Sullivan has retained private counsel in the case. Joshua Hochberg, a former DOJ Public Integrity Section deputy chief-turned-white-collar defense attorney, specializes in defending public officials and CEOs charged with corruption. Hochberg was with Sullivan at his Aug. 2 interview with DHS OIG investigators, sources said. Hochberg also led the DOJ investigation of the failed energy company Enron and was head of DOJ's Fraud unit before joining a private firm.
Reached for comment, Hochberg denied the allegations.
"I've confirmed the public integrity section at DOJ does not have an open investigation. Mr. Sullivan did not in any way obstruct Congress," Hochberg told FoxNews.com.
Sources said DOJ may not yet have an official open case on Sullivan because DHS OIG has not completed handing over a final report. The Justice Department will decide if the case will be prosecuted only after evaluating the DHS OIG report.
Multiple sources tell FoxNews.com that DHS OIG officials have been in talks with Justice Department officials for months about the possible charges against Sullivan. DHS OIG also notified the FBI, as is protocol, when it uncovered evidence early on in the investigation that Sullivan may have violated federal law.
Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan, in response to inquiries from FoxNews.com, defended the agency's handling of the Colombia probe.
"Director Mark Sullivan and the Secret Service have conducted a fair and thorough investigation resulting from the Cartagena incident. The agency response to those with oversight responsibility has been timely and truthful. We will continue to respond to the DHS-OIG and Congressional inquiries in that manner," Donovan said in a statement. "We will not respond specifically to anonymous allegations that have lingered since the beginning of this investigation that are either without merit, grossly inaccurate or blatantly false."
During the May 23 hearing before the Senate committee, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, asked Sullivan: "Have you now been able to definitively conclude that the women were not associated with -- that they were not foreign agents? That they did not work for drug cartels? That they were not involved in human trafficking? That they were not working for FARC, for example, or other terrorist groups?"
Sullivan replied: "One of the first things we did, Senator, was to get the names of all the women. We had their country identification number. We provided those names and identifiers to some of our various partners out there who could verify for us if there was any connection with any type of criminal activity or criminal organization as well as any type of intelligence concerns that we may have.
"All of the information that we have received back has concluded that there was no connection either from a counterintelligence perspective or a criminal perspective."
Multiple high-ranking law enforcement officials close to the investigation told FoxNews.com that at the time of his testimony, Sullivan knew the intelligence community had found one confirmed hit -- meaning one of the prostitutes hired by a member of the Secret Service showed up in a CIA database of known criminals -- and one partial, unconfirmed, hit.
A search of the names of the prostitutes in a CIA database came back with a hit, which was confirmed before the May 23 hearing.
"He lied, absolutely he lied to Congress. He knew it, he knew what he was saying was a lie," said a law enforcement official close to the investigation.
"One hit was the CIA hit, the prostitute in question was tied to a drug cartel for laundering money," a law enforcement official close to the investigation told FoxNews.com.
"Sullivan had direct evidence of the hit," the source said.
"The night before his May 23 testimony before the Homeland Committee, he knew but he lied and said there was no hit and nothing was compromised."
At the time of his testimony, sources say Sullivan also knew of a partial hit, meaning a name in an intelligence database matched the name of one of the women who were checked into a Cartagena hotel by a member of the Secret Service. Investigators later determined after the May 23 hearing that the prostitute signed in by the Secret Service agent was not the same woman found to have ties to a criminal group, but simply shared the same name. But sources said at the time Sullivan testified before Congress he knew there was a potential second hit on a second prostitute that was still in the process of being confirmed, and therefore lied about this second possible association. It was only after the hearing that they learned the partial hit was ruled out.
Sources said Sullivan could not have known when he testified if this partial hit could be confirmed or ruled out.
These investigative findings are part of DHS OIG's ongoing and wide-ranging probe into the overall culture of Secret Service to DOJ prosecutors. The full report is not expected to be released for months.
In addition to his alleged perjury, Sullivan is suspected of misleading Congress in his responses to written questions for the record submitted by lawmakers, including Rep. Peter King of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Other potential charges stem from allegations that Sullivan conspired with his top deputies to manipulate, falsify or edit records to downplay past problems in a report compiled for the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which requested a report on the agency's last three years of disciplinary actions taken against its employees.
The report was referenced several times during the May 23 hearing.
Multiple high-ranking officials within the Secret Service said Sullivan and other top Secret Service officials also conspired to manipulate other internal investigations, including a probe into whether members of the Secret Service had hired prostitutes before a March 2011 presidential trip to El Salvador. The investigation was ordered after a news report from South America alleged that Secret Service agents had hired prostitutes and visited strip clubs in advance of President Obama's visit.
But a recently retired senior executive with Secret Service shot down these allegations, and defended Sullivan, his longtime friend and colleague. He also said Sullivan would never lie, let alone commit perjury before Congress.
"I don't know anyone who is more honest, more trustworthy, with more of a conscience than Mark," said the recently retired senior executive. "Mark Sullivan is an altar boy."
The retired official also said the internal El Salvador investigation uncovered absolutely no wrongdoing on the part of the Secret Service.
"No one in the history of the Secret Service has ever gotten a prostitute before Colombia," he insisted.
Sullivan was appointed director of the Secret Service in May 2006. The Arlington, Mass., native began his career with the agency in 1983 as a special agent in the Detroit Field Office. During his 28 years with the agency, he has served as deputy assistant director in the Office of Protective Operations; deputy special agent in charge of the Vice Presidential Protective Division and deputy assistant director, Office of Human Resources and Training.
The Cartagena prostitution scandal isn't Sullivan's first. In December 2009, he was called to testify before Congress about security failings that allowed uninvited guests Tareq and Michaele Salahi to crash an official state dinner at the White House. Sullivan took responsibility for the breach, saying: "This is our fault and our fault alone."
Source
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)