A murderer went on a rampage on an American sidewalk this week killing multiple victims. You might not have heard too much about this tragedy for a couple of reasons. First, it was in Guam, which is nevertheless American soil where the American flag flies. The second reason you might not have heard too much about it was because of the weapons the mass murderer used – a car and a knife.
From the Pacific News Center:
Guam Police Spokesman Officer A.J. Balajadia says that the incident began around 10:20 pm when a man, driving a blue 2007 Toyota Yaris, drove up onto the side-walk in front of the “Globe” nightclub and continued down the sidewalk, knocking people aside, until he drove his vehicle into the ABC Store in front of Hard Rock Cafe and Outrigger Hotel.
At that point, witnesses say the man leapt out of his vehicle, armed with a knife, and began randomly stabbing people.
Three victims have died, including a 29 year old mother shielding her baby. This terrible story illustrates that murderous evil comes in many forms. Sometimes guns are the weapons of choice. Sometimes a Toyota Yaris and a knife are. The perpetrator was then attacked by bystanders. Hence this mugshot:
Chad DeSoto was charged with multiple felony counts, including three for murder. You can see video of the aftermath and capture here at the Pacific Daily News.
The video above must be seen. In fact, poll worker and Obama activist Meloweese Richardson voted more than twice, and she admits as much on camera. She also says that she voted for Obama and registered “thousands” of voters for him. The Hamilton County (OH) board of elections has issued 28 subpoenas involving double voting and general voter fraud in the 2012 Presidential election. Richardson admits to voting for herself, her daughter and other family members. She is also a poll official in her Ohio neighborhood.
These are not just violations of Ohio law, these are federal felonies enforced by the United States Department of Justice. Where is U.S. Attorney Carter Stewart? Has he sent FBI agents yet to Meloweese Richardson’s house to get a statement? 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(e) makes it a felony punishable by a fine of $10,000 or five years in prison for anyone to vote twice in a federal election. Richardson admits on camera she violated this law, multiple times – all for President Obama. Will her political loyalty mean that Carter Stewart doesn’t send the FBI so quickly, and waits until the state proceedings play out?
It shouldn’t. The vote fraud deniers and enablers are corrupting the sanctity of American elections. Academics like Justin Levitt at Loyola School of Law have ridiculed those of us who care about voter fraud, saying it is as rare as Sasquatch.
Well Sasquatch is roaming around Ohio. This is the same sort of behavior which occurred in Noxubee County Mississippi in the case of United States v. Ike Brown that I discuss in detail in my book Injustice – double voting, poll worker collusion, absentee fraud, false voting at the polls. Her double voting sounds like Carrie Kate Windham’s behavior in Mississippi. Windham was a Democrat Party official that cast votes illegally for other people. In that case, many in the Justice Department didn’t want to do anything about it either. They were willing to give Brown a pass because of who he was and who the victims were. Meanwhile, the sanctity of our elections corrode.
It seems to keep on going, and a whole bunch of “experts” on elections write books and blogs minimizing the criminal behavior. Could it be because they and Richardson are allied politically? Whatever the reason, the vote fraud deniers do a disservice to the Rule of Law they profess to support. We’ll see how seriously Eric Holder deals with admitted voter fraud by an Obama activist. Will she be charged in federal court? Will Meloweese Richardson even be interviewed by the FBI? Stay tuned.
The Justice Department’s Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez will speak tonight at 6 p.m. at the University of Baltimore School of Law.
Perez is behind the attack on voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina, as well as a whole range of radical hires and policies at Holder’s Civil Rights Division. They include suing local schools to force children to be allowed to dress as transvestites as well as forcing other schools to give Muslim teachers up to three weeks off to make a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia. (All covered at the previous links and all over the web).
The press release from the University of Baltimore states:
Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division will speak at the University of Baltimore School of Law on Wednesday, Jan. 23, in a discussion entitled “Protecting Democracy’s Fundamental Civil Right: The Right to Vote.” The event, beginning at 6 p.m., is free and open to the public. It will take place in the law school’s Venable Baetjer Howard Moot Court Room, located in the lobby of the building at 1415 Maryland Ave.
Perez’s division, often called the “conscience of the federal government,” is charged with enforcing civil rights laws that ensure equal access to opportunity and full participation in our democracy.
The “conscience of the federal government” has become a laugh line. The “conscience” Division has been accused of committing perjury and theft, and harassing reporters covering DOJ actions. It also has been sanctioned over $4,100,000 for bringing merit-less cases, including in Georgia redistricting as well as the cost shift in the South Carolina voter ID lawsuit. Even Perez has been accused of committing perjury.
If the Justice Department Civil Rights Division is the “conscience” of the federal government, we’re in big trouble.
Behold the Washington Post’s Ann Marimow shilling for disgraced Justice Department lawyer Jason Weinstien – one of the few to suffer any consequences for the murderous Fast and Furious scandal (italics are all mine; editorializing is all Marimow’s):
Although Weinstein had no role in devising the tactics and had no supervisory authority over Fast and Furious, he had signed documents that helped the agents proceed with their operation.
On Capitol Hill, the investigation had taken on predictable and intractable political dynamics. Democrats concluded that no high-level officials at the Justice Department, including Weinstein, were to blame for the “gun-walking” scheme; Republicans accused Weinstein of knowingly abetting the flawed operation.
Weinstien was the Deputy Assistant Attorney General who resigned because of his role in preparing false statements to Congress and overseeing aspects of the bloody gun running mess concocted by the Holder Justice Department. But that doesn’t matter, you see, to the Washington Post, because Weinstein is smart.
Weinstein came to Washington as a teenager in 1982 to compete in the National Spelling Bee, having won the regional championship in San Antonio. The son of a hospital administrator and a nurse, he was a high achiever from the get-go. He also was captain of the math and debate teams in high school. Then he was off to Princeton, where he became student body president and led campaigns to build a new student center. . . . Weinstein — a brilliant student, gifted lawyer and methodical prosecutor — had spent a career steeped in nuance.
But smarts aren’t the only reason the Washington Post and Marimow heap so much praise on Weinstein, there are more predictable reasons. He did what the Post also did through much of the 1970′s - wage a campaign against the CIA. Weinstein campaigned “to stop the Central Intelligence Agency from recruiting on campus until it changed its policy that prevented gays and lesbians from being hired.”
There is no better and faster way to earn credibility among Marimow’s crowd than bashing the CIA, except maybe bashing George W. Bush.
Marimow never places a bit of blame on Weinstein. Instead we are served up excuses, and potato skins.
At the Elephant and Castle pub across Pennsylvania Avenue from the Justice Department, about 75 former co-workers gathered one brisk evening days after Thanksgiving to toast Weinstein. Breuer served as master of ceremonies, several in attendance said.
As guests munched on potato skins and wings at a cash bar, there were lengthy, upbeat tributes to Weinstein’s work.
Many of Weinstein’s former colleagues — federal law enforcement agents, prosecutors and other lawyers — say they are distraught about his public-service career being cut short. The portrayal of Weinstein on the Hill and in the inspector general report is at odds with the person they know.
“This bears no resemblance to the Jason that I know and what he would have done and what I’ve seen him do over and over again,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrea Smith, who prosecuted a notorious hitman with Weinstein in Baltimore. “He’s one of those people who instinctively always knows right from wrong.”
After he resigned, it took Weinstein two weeks to return e-mails and phone messages from former colleagues. He took the time to clean out the garage and get a haircut. He’s looking for a job.
“In a thousand years, you don’t expect this phase of your career to end this way,” Weinstein said. “But there’s a badge of honor for surviving these things, and I’m determined to earn it.”
I’ll leave someone like Fast and Furious guru Katie Pavlich to detail the extent of the lies in Marimow’s story. (Hey Ann, did you call Katie or ANY other expert source to get an opposing view?) But today’s Post gives you a fresh example how the left protects their own inside the beltway. And any of you spending a red cent on the Washington Post are helping them do it.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial in the case against New Orleans police officers brought by Eric Holder’s Justice Department in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Hans von Spakovsky has written about the perjury and outlandish misconduct by Department of Justice attorneys in a New Orleans police prosecution here (“The Justice Department’s Hurricane Strength Misconduct“), and I have blogged briefly about it here. We both covered how the mainstream media ignored the misconduct of DOJ lawyers for weeks until the U.S. Attorney in New Orleans resigned over the scandal, even though he had little to do with the lies and perjury of the DOJ line attorneys. The DOJ lawyers conducted a secret public relations campaign, leaking secret information and blogging about the case using phony names.
The New Orleans police officers were accused by Eric Holder’s Justice Department of using excessive force in the wake of widespread civil unrest and looting in New Orleans after the hurricane. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed some of the conviction of Officers David Warren and Greg McRae and ordered a new trial. From the AP:
U.S. District Judge Lance Africk sentenced Warren to more than 25 years in prison for shooting Glover outside a strip mall. Africk sentenced McRae to more than 17 years in prison.
The 5th Circuit also upheld Africk’s decision to order a new trial for a third former officer, Travis McCabe, who was convicted of writing a false report on the shooting. Africk said he believes jurors probably would have acquitted McCabe if they had seen evidence that surfaced after the trial – a different copy of the report that McCabe is accused of doctoring.
Jurors acquitted two other former officers who were charged with participating in a cover-up of Glover’s killing.
More on the DOJ misconduct:
Convictions in another high-profile case also could be in jeopardy.
Five former officers convicted in the shootings of unarmed residents on a New Orleans bridge in Katrina’s aftermath have asked a judge to order a new trial, claiming prosecutors engaged in a “secret public relations campaign” against them. In a filing last month, a judge said their request is “still a longshot in terms of relief” but isn’t frivolous and merits further inquiry.
Warren was a rookie patrol officer when Katrina struck. He was guarding a police substation at the mall less than a week after the storm’s landfall when Glover and a friend pulled up in a truck.
Warren testified that Glover and the friend ran toward a gate that would have given them access to the building and ignored commands to stop. Warren said he thought Glover had a gun and posed a threat when he shot him with an assault rifle from a second-floor balcony. Prosecutors said Glover wasn’t armed.
So far, Eric Holder’s Justice Department has allowed one of the responsible lawyers, Jan Mann, to quietly retire. Mann participated in secret blogging about the criminal trial and knowingly acquiesced while false statements about the activity were made to the court.
Shun A. Griffith, the President of the Student Bar Association at the Charleston (SC) School of Law has been arrested for stalking in South Carolina. Fits News, a South Carolina-centric blog, reports:
An outspoken liberal, Griffin recently used his student leadership post to launch a jihad against fast food chain Chick-fil-A over its owners’ views on homosexuality.
The Charleston School of Law was most notably in the news previously in the last decade because of a shakedown by the American Bar Association regarding accreditation policy. The ABA accreditation committee withheld accreditation of the law school over the course of seven long years until such time as it adopted race-centric policies relating to admissions, and more.
The Tatler has learned that South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is almost certain to appoint former South Carolina Republican Party Chair and former S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster to fill the unexpired term of retiring Senator Jim DeMint. McMaster was a prominent supporter of Haley in a contentious GOP primary. Haley has reportedly already informed key South Carolina politicians of her decision.
Yesterday I blogged that Haley should appoint Congressman Joe Wilson to this post, or in the alternative, Tea Party favorite Rep. Tim Scott. A Republican in Washington in 2012 must have experience with the organized Left that now dominates the Democrat Party. It isn’t 1995 anymore, and any politician not familiar with the militancy that is driving Democrat policies in Washington in 2012 will have a steep learning curve. Wilson and Scott have experienced it firsthand and would have made excellent U.S. senators. South Carolina is [thankfully] far removed from the sort of militancy that characterizes Democrat politics in Washington.
McMaster is a conservative South Carolina Republican in the Carroll Campbell mold (the South Carolina governor who served from 1987-1995). He has extensive experience working in the Republican Party trenches. Ronald Reagan appointed McMaster to be the United States attorney for South Carolina (upon Strom Thurmond’s recommendation). He led a revolution of sorts in the 1990s, taking over the state party apparatus as chairman and dislodging a number of more moderate party staff. He has won statewide elections and lost statewide elections, including to former U.S. Senator Fritz Hollings. He won the election for South Carolina attorney general in 2002.
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley should appoint Representative Joe Wilson as Senator Jim DeMint’s replacement. (See Bridget Johnson on DeMint’s departure.) Most Americans remember that Rep. Wilson was the first to vocally stand up to Obama’s healthcare plan in the House (albeit in unique circumstances.) Wilson hails from Lexington County, a hotbed of Tea Party activism. Wilson also mixes a movement conservative’s worldview with a temperament that will make him an effective U.S. Senator. Haley can send a message that South Carolina will be represented by at least one Senator willing to stand up to an emboldened second Obama term.
Wilson is the natural pick. He has worked in the trenches of the conservative movement for decades. His son, Attorney General Alan Wilson, has fought back hard against Eric Holder’s overreach, most notably beating Holder over the South Carolina Voter ID fight. So Wilson would join Senate colleagues like John Cornyn (TX) and Jeff Sessions (AL) conversant in the language of Holder’s lawlessness.
If Haley make the mistake of bypassing Wilson, it is important that she pick a genuine conservative like Wilson. Rep. Tim Scott from Charleston would be a great choice. Or to really send a message to President Obama and Eric Holder about South Carolina’s willingness to fight their overreach, send Senator Chip Campsen, the author of the South Carolina voter ID law the federal court just approved.
Ever wonder the disgraced head of ACORN, Bertha Lewis, is up to? She is now with the Black Institute. You can catch her tonight on WPKN (They stream, or perhaps you are in range of their signal). I’m sure Lewis will be talking about racial equality and individual dignity based on the content of character, or perhaps not. From the email she sent today:
Bertha Lewis, The Black Institute’s President, will be on WPKN tonight Tuesday from 9:00 – 11:00pm to discuss:
- the future of a progressive victory;
- the possible ramifications if the Supreme Court overturns key provisions of the Voting Rights Act;
- the future of ‘white identity politics’ in light of the new electoral alignment.
Join the conversation on twitter via our handle @theblackinst #vote
Hans von Spakvosky has “Crooked Justice” at NRO as a follow up to my PJ Media story yesterday about Merced County, California. Von Spakovsky shows that Eric Holder’s efforts to save Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act include approval of bailouts which do not meet the statutory requirements. Von Spakovsky:
Which brings us to New Hampshire. Though most jurisdictions subject to Section 5 are in the South, two townships and eight towns in New Hampshire were placed under Section 5 coverage in 1968. On November 15, 2012, New Hampshire filed a bailout complaint in federal court, requesting that its jurisdictions be relieved from coverage under Section 5.
But there’s one big problem for New Hampshire: For almost all of the 44 years that it has been covered under Section 5, New Hampshire has failed to comply with the law. The two townships and eight towns failed to submit for preclearance many voting changes they have made over that period. In fact, a November 18 internal DOJ memorandum sent by Chris Herren, chief of the voting section, to Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, confirms that “town officials uniformly indicated that they were not aware of their obligations under Section 5.” Clearly, then, they don’t meet the ten-year “clean record” criterion needed to qualify for bailout.
Think about that one! New Hampshire officials didn’t even know they were covered by the Voting Rights Act for the last 44 years. That’s what I’ve called the Granite State Free Ride. But to the DOJ Voting Section, it’s ok to give them a free ride, they’re northerners.
More from Von Spakovsky:
An internal Civil Rights Division report compiled on September 10, 2012, listed 90 unsubmitted voting changes made by New Hampshire jurisdictions subject to Section 5. This was, apparently, too many for the Civil Rights Division to be able to gloss over. So the department generated a “revised” list on September 27 that identified “only” 20 uncleared changes. Whether they’re 90 or 20, however, they render New Hampshire ineligible for bailout.
Ineligible for bailout means ineligible. Nevertheless, Eric Holder will both fight for bailout and then tell the Supreme Court how easy a bailout is – unless of course the Court is made aware of the games being played at the Justice Department.
Which takes us back to Merced County, California. The lawyers there are apparently adverse to the sunshine that my PJ Media story yesterday cast on their September 2012 bailout. They fired off a complaint to [Democrat activist posing as a] law professor Rick Hasen. Getting past the irrelevant gloss about how many meetings Merced had with Justice and the many pages of documents Merced sent Eric Holder, one is struck by the pathetic nature of the gripe. The lawyers at Merced just don’t know all the negative things being said about their bailout application – both inside and outside the Justice Department. These comments were documented in the internal DOJ memos obtained by PJ Media – documents that Merced does not possess. Merced’s other complaints have no merit either. For example:
“All of those submissions, except for the two mentioned above, concerned independent subjurisdictions within the borders of the County over which the County has no control.”
So what? Tell that to Shelby County that had no control over Calera, a town that made unprecleared changes thus rendering Shelby’s bailout impossible according to the District Court.
Then Merced claims that the non-compliance across the county was trivial and promptly corrected, thus justifying bailout. The documents obtained by PJ Media, however, demonstrate that minority contacts disagreed with bailout and so did law professor Joaquin Avila, the lawyer who brought the lawsuit against these “trivial” violations of Section 5.
It is true that a preclearance obligation can be retroactively satisfied, and then an unprecleared law goes into effect. For example, preclearance of a polling place change lets them use the new polling place. But that is a different question as to whether or not a jurisdiction that has blown off the law repeatedly is eventually eligible to enter the promised land of bailout. This isn’t a confessional. Absolution under the statute only goes so far.
Some of the sound and fury over Merced is small compared to the bombshell von Spakovsky dropped today aboout New Hampshire. I can’t wait until Justice Roberts and Kennedy learn that multiple New Hampshire election officials never even heard of Section 5, a law in effect for 44 years! That’s right, Section 5 is so “congruent and proportional” that towns subject to it didn’t even know about it, and never complied with it – a situation approved by DOJ officials in Washington for decades.
Yankees always seem to get a better deal, whether playing baseball or playing with the Voting Rights Act.
If the lawyers for Merced don’t understand that their bailout was part of a deliberate plan to save Section 5 (they use the word “conspiracy”; I didn’t) then they can be forgiven. Merced is a long way from Washington. But the fact is that everyone knows the bailout blitz is part of the plan to save Section 5. It was part of the plan when I worked at the DOJ and it remains so. And the knowledge is well spread outside of the DOJ. I spoke last week at Roger Williams School of Law last week on a panel with Project Vote’s Estelle Rogers. She called the bailout blitz the “longterm lifeboat designed to save Section 5.” Recognizing the problems we all see with this plan, she hedged, “it’s probably more of a short term lifeboat.” Maybe the lawyers for Merced can chat with Estelle to get the low-down.
The better question is whether Eric Holder doubles down and keeps up this ruse. It might be best to abandon the claim that bailout is so easy after the bailouts are revealed as a flimsy at best. And who knows what memos are the next to drop? This Voting Section doesn’t come before the Supreme Court with clean hands. The games played by previous Voting Section lawyers (and likely perjury) have been before the Justices once before in Miller v. Johnson. The bailout blitz may prove to be a bailout boomerang once this story is fully aired.
The speakers bureau Royce Carlton sent out an email today offering the plagiarist Fareed Zakaria to speak about energy issues. After all, Zakaria is a fracking expert – and what he doesn’t know, he can just make up (or plagiarize).
I spoke with Robert S. Levinson, Account Executive at Royce Carlton. He told me that Zakaria’s price to speak about energy is $85,000. Eighty five large, from an admitted dishonest plagiarist.
Yesterday I spoke at Roger Williams School of Law (for significantly less than $85,000, and I wrote my own speech!). A panelist mentioned Zakaria, and people in the audience started to laugh. Yes, Zakaria has become a laugh line. And so has CNN for continuing to put the plagiarist on the air.
Royce Carlton probably doesn’t know that their $85,000 speaker is a punch line, a punch line about liars. They will tut-tut from their Manhattan offices that Zakaria is “so smart” and can share his global views on fracking and renewables, and other such blah blah blah.
On the flight home yesterday from Rhode Island was a hard working flight attendant. She told one passenger than in her previous three jobs, all worked at once, she made $12,000 a year. She became a flight attendant to make just a bit more, but the work was more enjoyable.
Think about it, we have people who are admitted plagiarists like Fareed Zakaria who make $85,000 for a 40 minute speech about something he knows next to nothing about. Many elites reading this will sit there thinking, “sour grapes,” or “why not?” or feel tingles about how sophisticated and insightful Zakaria is. Meanwhile most of America, used to playing by the rules, bust their tails year round while phonies like Zakaria enrich themselves with no shame.
I will be appearing on Hannity Thursday night along with PJ Media contributor Hans von Spakovsky at 9 p.m. We appear in an hour-long special called “District of Corruption” that serves as a summary to all the outrageous scandals and bankrupt policies of the first Obama administration. District of Corruption is a documentary in select theatres produced by Judicial Watch. More from their presser:
The film opened on October 26, 2012, in three states: Florida, Ohio and Texas. It scored the second highest per-screen average at the box office on its opening weekend. The film averaged $7,374 per theater, finishing behind one other debut film, vaunted film festival favorite, “The Loneliest Planet.”
“District of Corruption” is a must-watch for every American citizen concerned about the explosion of corrupt government power in Washington, DC, a problem that will sure to worsen in a second Obama term,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people agree on the importance of cleaning up government corruption. “District of Corruption” provides the unvarnished truth about the threat of government corruption, while also providing a reason to hope. This is the right film and the right time.”
Fox News at 9 p.m. Thursday
Ron Williams has this dense and informative piece at Homeland Security Today talking about the radicalization of Islamic pockets in the United State and the interaction of race.
Despite all this, the reality is this: Law enforcement will never (nor should it ever be an option) to allow sensitivity concerns to trump domestic security priorities or influence its operation and the racial/ethnic minority consciousness will never accept a government structure or its actions it perceives as targeting them disproportionately; thus, tensions will inevitably and slowly build uninterrupted, coming to characterize the new American domestic security order. . . .
In sum, combating American Islamic radicalization is an extremely challenging, long-lasting and culture-changing effort based around racial/ethnic relationships for which the human capacity for its denial is astounding. Indeed, national security policymakers will offer up, and the American public consciousness will accept as effective, one-dimensional counter-radicalization measures which will, ironically, exacerbate the radicalization of its own native born Muslim-American population.
The Philadelphia Republican Party, led by the fine courtroom work of Linda Kerns, challenged the outrageous placement of voter machines next to a Chavez/Saddam Hussein-style Big Head mural of Obama. Kerns won the case today and a judge issued this order:
“Cover the mural in it’s entirety . . .so that the content is invisible.”
Pretty simple stuff, right? Not in Philadelphia, where the law comes second. Here is the response of the Philadelphia election workers to the order of the court.
Remaining is the large Obama quote with the dog-chases-its-tail “We are the Ones We’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.” And it looks to me that about 1/3 of the Big Head painting of Obama is covered. Philadelphia preserves its reputation of election day lawlessness.
I have received a report that no provisional ballots in English are available at the Ortiz Middle School in Santa Fe in New Mexico. Under the Help America Vote Act, some voters are entitled to vote a provisional ballot – presumably in the language spoken by the voter. Poll officials offered to translate the Spanish language ballot to the English speaking voter. No, no es el ley.
Houston election official Stan Stanart says the NAACP broke Texas law when they were inside the polls re-ordering the lines and providing voters with goods. I’m sure academia will be “tracking this to see if the allegations hold up.” There is selective interest in lawbreaking among some.
Elections are messy things. All morning True the Vote has been getting reports of election glitches and voter fraud. They aren’t the same thing. For example, optical scanners that don’t work, polls that aren’t open, these things happen every election. The system isn’t perfect and we can expect more of the same.
Fraud and lawlessness, on the other hand, are things that can be controlled. Law address fraud and lawlesssness. For example, the NAACP broke the law last week when it illeglly entered polling places n Houston, Texas. A parade of apologists have excused the Houston NAACP just like others excused the New Black Panther Panther Party.
Both glitches and fraud are bad. But the latter affects the integrity of our democratic process. That some organizations deny that voter fraud occurs is a disgrace.
True the Vote, the organization ABC refers to as the nation’s leading anti-voter fraud group, has announced their election integrity hot lines for tomorrow.
Concerned citizens are encouraged to report any incidents outside of polling locations with True the Vote’s official Election Integrity Hotline (http://www.truethevote.org/incident-report/). Citizens may submit incidents over the phone by dialing 855-444-6100. Descriptions and photos should be directed to email@example.com.True the Vote will verify credible reports and submit those appropriate local authorities.
Here is a video summary of the media’s coverage of Pat Moran and Stephanie Caballerro short but memorable voter fraud careers, careers ended by James O’Keefe. O’Keefe sent undercover campaign volunteers to embed inside the Obama campaign. Not surprisingly, the video captured a disturbing tolerance for voter fraud lawlessness by paid campaign staff. In the video, you can watch the forever shilling Soledad O’Brien cover the story with visible reluctance and contempt. That alone makes the video worth the time to watch.
The Obama administration goes out of its way to remove any whiff of Christianity from the President’s speeches, events and policies. (Islam, of course, gets different treatment) Deliberate outreach is directed toward atheists. The President’s rare church attendance seems only to follow media questions.
The policy has paid off, sort of. Obama is way behind in the polls among regular church attendees. The non-religious give overwhelming support to Obama. The problem is that America remains a religious nation. The administration’s policies also conflict with religious values and intrude on religious liberty – so much so that Obama may lose Wisconsin and Pennsylvania because of it.
The solution? Stop being so secular.
The Obama campaign on Saturday quietly released a web video featuring President Obama talking about his faith. The video includes various faith leaders describing how there is moral, even Biblical, backing for his policies on issues ranging from higher taxes for top earners to health care to the auto bailout.
Most theologies welcome even last moment conversions. But they have to be sincere.
The Million Muppet March rally today in Washington seeking to have taxpayers continue to subsidize television programing for children fell significantly short.
Perhaps small things aren’t on the minds of voters the weekend before the election. Or maybe it’s just hard to get people to turn out for hand outs for programing that channels like Nick Jr. produce without the government paying for it.
Texas and Iowa have told international election observers they aren’t welcome. State laws prohibit the observers from entering the polls and Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott has made it plain they will be arrested if they violate state law.
I posted a list of the international observers (accessible here) which I obtained. Many of the observers come from authoritarian countries, including countries that torture their citizens and repress free speech and religion.
While Texas and Iowa are telling these UN-style observers to go away, South Carolina is apparently rolling out the welcome mat. South Carolina Election Commission spokesman Chris Whitmire told Fox News: “We welcome them.”
This former Soviet state bears the most resemblance to the old authoritarian Soviet Union of all the former states. The human rights record of Belarus is terrible, replete with repression of political opponents. Political opponents of the authoritarian Aliaxander Lukashenka are routinely imprisoned.
Maybe Chris Whitmire will be “welcomed” to observe the next election in Belarus, if it occurs.
Rep. Elijah Cummings went on the Ed Show last night and told outright lies about the Tea Party group True the Vote. (Full video here) True the Vote is dedicated to election integrity and reviews voter rolls for problems and trains poll watchers. The poll watcher training, just like training used by the federal government, teaches poll watchers how to record information about what happens in the polls. Yesterday, we learned one reason that some people don’t want them in the polls – because they will deter voter fraud.
Cummings, unfortunately, went on national television (though of course next to nobody was watching the ratings challenged Ed Show) and outright lied about private citizens.
“True the Vote will do almost anything to stop people from voting.”
“I am thoroughly convinced that this is an effort to intimidate voters.”
The True the Vote trained pollwatchers “will be very confrontational” with voters.
A third lie.
True the Vote wants people “to turn away” and leave the line and not vote.
A fourth lie.
Cummings says there “is no doubt about it” that these efforts of civic minded citizens are illegal.
A fifth lie.
Poll watchers are “harassing” people who want to vote.
A sixth lie.
And then Cummings’ big reveal: “The more people hear about all of these efforts, of trying to stop them from voting, the more they want to vote.”
Pay attention. All of the complaints about the role of the Tea Party in the polls this year is designed solely to energize a disappointed minority base. Thanks Elijah, we just suspected that was your motive.
Cummings is willing to bear false witness in order to help his political cause. This is the most shameful sort of politics, to lie about your neighbor to preserve your power. I wonder what Bishop Walter Thomas would think?
All other lies, whether from Demos, Common Cause, and all the others, are designed to do the same thing – to energize a base by lying about your neighbor.
The United Nations is sending observers at the request of the NAACP and other civil rights groups to monitor US elections. I reported the names of the observers here.
Texas has warned the UN observers that if they set foot inside the polls, they will be arrested. It is a crime for someone to enter a Texas polling place without authorization.
One of the two UN observers in Texas is Conny Jensen.
Jensen is an active in the Danish Socialdemocraterne. This is the socialist party in Denmark. So the UN is sending a Danish socialist to monitor elections in Texas. Let’s hope Jensen keeps the number to a bailbondsman handy.
Perhaps other PJ readers can crowd source the backgrounds of the other UN observers and post below in the comments.
Harris, Zogby, Rasmussen, Gallup, Daily Kos, YouGov, Mason-Dixon, Pew – yikes! But how many of you have ever been polled by them? Not many I suspect. But now there is a real time webpage called beamAvote that lets you participate in real time, geographically isolated polling.
Politics is a zero sum game. One side wins, the other goes home. As Bill McKay said – “the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.”
But it is a chore trying to figure out which poll to believe. Some websites solve the riddle by simply averaging the polls. But that averages bias and error also.
Which pollster is the most reputable? How do they ask their questions? Who writes the questions? How do they determine who to ask? What particular demographics are being targeted that the rest of us know nothing about? What’s real v what’s manipulated? Who’s paying?
We don’t really know.
There is a new web technology called beamAvote that allows voters to self-poll through daily voting and to electronically monitor results in real-time. It just went live and will be polling through the election.
The concept is straight forward, you go to beamAvote.com, vote, pick your State, and watch the tally. You can vote once a day, it’s anonymous – no one wants to know your email address, name, home address, first child’s middle name, mother’s maiden name, billing information – it’s free and they don’t want anything.
The polling data is unofficial – the site goes to great lengths to make certain the voter knows it’s not a substitute for a real vote. They ask you to promise you’re a registered voter in the US – no nonsense just straight-forward language. You don’t have to be a lawyer to figure it out.
Eventually I suspect political scientists will minute-by-minute study the rate of votes tallied at any given moment to gage when candidates score points. This is similar to the debate lines we watched, except now it’s all of us.
Adding this new data to the familiar poll aggregators might give people a better picture of what is going to happen on November 6.
PJ Tatler has obtained the document detailing the places across the United States where United Nations election observers will be deployed. The document identifies the stateside targets, particular officials as well as their country of origin. To see it, click here.
For example, Aida Alzhanova of Kazakhstan will be monitoring in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Phoenix, Arizona. Elchin Musayvev from Azerbaijan will be monitoring in Concord, New Hampshire.
Kazakhstan has been criticized for a weak human rights record and a government that tightly controls speech, assembly and the free exercise of religion. Azerbaijan is worse. The government there has violently cracked down on peaceful protests and the “atmosphere for journalists is hostile. . . . The government tightened restrictions on religious groups. . . . Torture and ill-treatment in police custody continue with impunity.”
Other U.N. targets include Richmond (VA), Harrisburg (PA), Raleigh (NC), Austin (TX), Des Moines (Iowa), St. Paul, (Minn.), Topeka (KS), and Tallahassee (FL).
PJ Media has covered all side of the space debate, from Nasa to SpaceX to Obama. Since I last visited this topic, SpaceX has enjoyed success delivering cargo to the International Space Station. But today’s Washington Examiner reveals that founder Elon Musk is attracting the eye of the IRS in Green stimulus profiteer comes under IRS scrutiny.
The Internal Revenue Service is auditing SolarCity, the SEC filings reveal, and at the same time the Treasury Department’s inspector general is investigating the company. The question at hand: Did President Obama’s Treasury Department inappropriately give stimulus money to Musk’s company.
. . .
Treasury found that SolarCity repeatedly overstated the value of its investments, the SEC filings indicate. In those cases, Treasury awarded smaller grants than SolarCity had tried to claim. Now the department’s IG and the IRS are doing a broader audit of the projects for which SolarCity and other large solar companies got stimulus cash. Investigators want to know if the companies regularly overstated the value of their investments and thus got overly generous taxpayer grants.
But Musk’s problems are bigger than just valuation reporting issues. More from the Examiner:
Musk is the paradigmatic political entrepreneur, launching businesses that seek to capitalize on government favors and lobbying clout rather than provide goods or services that consumers demand.
. . .
Musk has personally given more than $100,000 to Obama’s re-election campaign, including two gifts of more than $30,000 each to the Obama Victory Fund, which divides the money between the maximum allowable donations to the Democratic National Committee and the maximum to the Obama campaign. (Musk has also given generously to Republicans.)
Tesla got that $465 million loan from Obama’s DOE in order to produce the Model S, an all-electric plug-in car, which will also benefit from other stimulus goodies. This summer, Tesla began delivering the taxpayer-subsidized cars at $50,000 a pop.
Musk touts SpaceX as the cutting edge of free-enterprise space exploration, but so far the company’s revenue seems to come mostly from Uncle Sam.
Musk demonstrates a fundamental quandary about “privatized” space flight. ”Private” space advocates and libertarians tout Musk as the next step in space exploration, free from NASA’s budgets and bureaucrats. But there is one problem – only the price tag has changed (for now). The people paying the bills remain the same. Sure, it costs less. But what of the much touted principle of “private” space flight. If a small budget is the only payout, then there are possibly ways to achieve the same ends in a revolutionized NASA.
This isn’t private space flight. This is government money spent on spaceflight in different places.
Musk and SpaceX don’t stand for the principle of privatized space flight, because SpaceX certainly isn’t. So once the philosophical goal of private spaceflight isn’t in play, and all we are talking about are dollars spent, then a whole range of issues are on the table. As the Examiner is determined to root out, what role does political coziness play in Musk obtaining enormous sums of taxpayer money to pursue his failed green projects and his yet to be fully successful SpaceX project? Should the taxpayers be funding Musk’s solar and electric car projects?
Either way, Musk now seems to epitomize what has gone wrong with the Obama administration’s crony capitalism. Should Romney win the White House, SpaceX shouldn’t escape the same scrutiny that Tesla Motors and SolarCity deserve.
Eric Marshall, “Manager of Legal Mobilization” at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights is badgering Clear Channel Communications to take down this billboard in Cleveland, Ohio:
Does Marshall have a problem with the billboard’s accuracy? Hardly. The Plain Dealer quotes a demand letter from Marshall saying the signs,
“stigmatize the African-American community by implying that voter fraud is a more significant problem in African American neighborhoods than elsewhere,” and the billboards “attach an implicit threat of criminal prosecution to the civic act of voting.”
In my book Injustice, I document how once proud civil rights groups have become intellectual smokescreens for criminal wrongdoing in American elections. Not only do these groups deny that voter fraud exists, they now consider discussion of the laws that prohibit it to be a racially motivated attack. We have reached a point of nuttiness that mere discussion of the law results in demands to stop speaking of such things.
“Clear Channel has a choice,” Marshall said. “Contract or not, it is not right to be putting intimidating messages up in predominately minority neighborhoods.”
First, these groups frequently say “minority neighborhoods are targeted” without a shred of evidence. The Plain Dealer reports a region-wide campaign. Consider also for a moment what is “intimidating” about the billboards. It’s not like there are photos of New Black Panthers standing in front of a poll with billy clubs, or, Klansmen. So the mere description of Ohio statute, according to Marshall, must be intimidating.
Quick, hide the law books! Nobody breathe a word about voter fraud round here, someone might get scared!
This is what the Lawyer’s Committee has become in 2012 – a facilitator of racial paranoia. Our culture has degraded to the point where stating the truth, the empirical about voter fraud laws, is not met with praise, but rather with threats from lawyers. Incidentally, here is the Lawyer’s Committee’s 2008 condemnation of the New Black Panther Party appearance at the polls in Philadelphia. (Psyche! There really was no condemnation, but you already knew that.)
On cue, the paranoid opponents of free speech and the rule of law have organized a rally.
Cleveland City Councilwoman Phyllis Cleveland and State Sen. Nina Turner will hold a rally at 11 a.m. Thursday in front of a billboard at the East 35th Street location to discuss their efforts to get the signs removed.
Ponder the racially demeaning assumptions behind the demand to remove the billboards. Once upon a time, no more than ten years ago, Marshall’s letter and Turner’s rally would be laughed at. Today, unfortunately, they represent a widening tolerance of lawlessness in American elections. Will the billboard’s sponsors and the local GOP Chairman Rob Frost have the courage to hold fast, or will they capitulate?
Now that South Carolina has won the voter ID case against the Holder Justice Department, how big is the butcher’s bill? How many federal tax dollars did the Voting Section waste defending the unobjectionable law? This is especially tragic given the fact that the career lawyers inside the Voting Section produced a preclearance memo. This memo recommended that the law be approved administratively.
Despite the professional career recommendation, “Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Matthew Colangelo then overruled the career staff and ordered that the Department of Justice object to South Carolina’s voter ID.” (Full story at PJ Media).
In other words, had Perez listened to his careeer lawyers, Justice would not have spent a king’s ransom attacking the perfectly appropriate law.
But spending your money allowed Perez and Eric Holder to energize the President’s base ahead of the election. The court decision today revealed it all as political theatre at your expense.
One source tells me that civil rights groups and the DOJ paid experts at least $50,000 in their failed efforts to oppose South Carolina Voter ID. Another source estimates that the DOJ lawyers spent thousands of man hours, tens of thousands of out of pocket expenses and enormous political capital attacking the law.
Now that the DOJ case is lost, the public has a right to know how much money Perez and Colangelo wasted to push a political and ideological agenda that didn’t square with the law. Expect the FOIA requests to follow asking for ICM records, bills, travel, etc.
Rep. Elijah Cummings needs someone in his office that knows election law to write his next letter attacking the Tea Party. This week, Cummings sent a nastygram letter to the Houston based Tea Party group True the Vote. The organization has been working to clean up the voter rolls of dead and ineligible voters. Apparently this sort of civic minded volunteerism rubbed Cummings the wrong way. The Baltimore Sun reported his threats to a group of law-abiding private citizens:
In a letter to Texas-based True the Vote, the Baltimore Democrat argues that the group and its affiliates have been unsuccessful in identifying people who are incorrectly registered. Instead, Cummings argues, the groups are jeopardizing to disenfranchise people who are correctly registered to vote.
“At some point, an effort to challenge voter registrations by the thousands without any legitimate basis may be evidence of illegal voter suppression,” Cummings wrote. “If these efforts are intentional, politically-motivated, and widespread across multiple states, they could amount to a criminal conspiracy to deny legitimate voters their constitutional rights.”
Cummings needs to get himself a lawyer who knows more about election law and less about playing the race card. First of all, there is no federal statute which mentions “voter suppression.” That is rhetoric used by the left to chill legitimate political activity that doesn’t help the left. Secondly, as reported yesterday here at PJ Tatler, True the Vote is discovering individuals who voted twice in federal elections. Perhaps Cummings objects to this discovery for reasons we can only speculate. Third, federal law allows citizens to bring cases under Section 8 of Motor Voter (a law Cummings supported) to force states and counties to remove dead and ineligible voters. Perhaps Cummings is against the removal of dead voters, again, for reasons we can only speculate.
Cummings makes up law when he says if the effort to remove voters ”are intentional, politically-motivated, and widespread across multiple states, they could amount to a criminal conspiracy.” Balderdash. There is no such law. In fact, the effort to remove dead voters are intentional and widespread across multiple states. They aren’t politically motivated, but they are motivated by having clean elections.
Gary Johnson is running for President as a Libertarian. The raison d’etre for his campaign is marijuana legalization. Good for him — but good luck. That probably ranks near the bottom of issues important to Americans as the federal debt spirals entirely out of control and millions are out of work.
Last night, amazing amateurism came across my television screen in the form of a Gary Johnson advertisement
The ad looks like a high-school project. It shows costumed characters in a black and white setting doing something sinister and dastardly. One speaks in German. Rule 101 of political ads: use English. One character has a bib with a donkey. We barely get to see the other’s bib. The amateur becomes comedy when the pair remove a sheet to reveal a shaking man in a costume which combines the features of an elephant and donkey. The pair cackle through the end of the video, laughing at their own joke like potheads watching reruns of H.R. Puffenstuff at 2 a.m. as smoke wafts across the set.
Where to begin? I suppose if your campaign is centered on pot legalization, this is a good strategy. Otherwise, it has got to be the dumbest political ad, ever. The audio is awful. The reveal is clownlike. But worst of all, a dwindling number of people in this polarized country think there is no difference between the ideas of the two major parties. Liberty is a good thing. But this year, the Libertarian Party seems less relevant than ever before, no thanks to silly ads produced by minor leaguers.
P.S. If the producers of this ad want to contact me and tell me why this ad is brilliant, I’ll print it all.
True the Vote, a Houston-based election integrity group, has turned over to the Justice Department the names of dozens of individuals who have voted twice in the same federal election. Voting twice is a federal felony under 42 U.C.C. 1973i(e). True the Vote is conducting a nationwide examination of individuals with multiple voter registrations in multiple states. A voter may only declare domicile in one place for each election.
We’ll see if Eric Holder’s Justice Department does anything about it.
True the Vote discovered 6,390 people registered in both Florida and Ohio. Of those, 534 appear to have voted twice in the same federal election. The examination also discovered at least 19,000 people registered in both New York and Florida.
Until now, nobody has ever conducted a systemic analysis of the nation’s voter rolls to detect this sort of voter fraud. The Pew Charitable Trust apparently conducted a similar examination – enough to conclude that 2,750,000 bogus voter registrations exist – but never made any referrals to law enforcement authorities.
Citizen volunteers continue to scour public records to find double registratnts and criminal double voters.
True the Vote will continue to examine voter rolls searching for evidence of double registration and voting. Would be law-breakers should take notice before they think about casting two ballots in 2012. Catherine Engelbrecht, President of True the Vote warned would be double voters, “It’s important for voters to remember that no candidate or cause is worth a felony conviction.”
In the past, no group or government agency ever examined voter rolls across 50 states looking for criminal double voting or double registration. This time, however, somebody is watching.
After today’s Inspector General Report on Fast and Furious, Democrats are spinning themselves silly that “neither the Attorney General nor senior DOJ officials authorized or approved of gun-walking in Fast and Furious.” But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the most senior DOJ official possible, other than the Attorney General himself, fully complicit in Fast and Furious and the murder of Brian Terry is none other than Attorney General Eric Holder’s Chief of Staff Gary Grindler.
I have repeatedly appeared on Fox News and said Grindler is the person most likely responsible for allowing this mess to continue, and the ensuing cover up. The report today confirms he is at the center of the mess, and only one degree removed from Eric Holder.
An aside, Grindler is also known in the Department as a maladministrator who directed or tolerated political appointees to engage in vindictive retaliation against employees who reported internal abuse and misconduct. It is believed that several EEO complaints are pending against Grindler’s office from the time he served as Acting Deputy Attorney General. Hopefully that’s next on the Inspector General’s agenda.
The Inspector General Report on Fast and Furious is highly critical of Grindler for relying on the FBI to investigate the Terry killing in association with the Fast and Furious gunwalking scheme, and that Grindler knew enough about the dangers of the Fast and Furious operation that he should have raised concerns with his immediate supervisor, in his case, Attorney General Eric Holder.
If the Report is correct, it is inconceivable that Grindler did not brief Holder. The Deputy Attorney General’s Office was involved Fast and Furious from its inception. On October 26, 2009, a teleconference was held at the Department to discuss strategy on how to combat the Mexican drug cartels. Participating in the teleconference was then Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, ATF Director Kenneth Melson, DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart, FBI Director Robert Mueller and the top DOJ prosecutors from the Southwest. It was during this teleconference that the policy to go after arms trafficking networks was formulated – the foundation of Fast and Furious. While the Fast and Furious program itself was not discussed, the policy on which the program rested was. Very shortly thereafter, in November 2009, Fast and Furious went into operation in Phoenix.
On December 23, 2009, After David Ogden resigned because of unspecified conflict with Holder, Gary Grindler was named Acting Deputy Attorney General. In January 2010, less than a month later, Fast and Furious was approved via a briefing paper as a prosecutor-led Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Strike Force case, meaning that ATF would join with the FBI, the DEA, the IRS and ICE, led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona.
With such an array of DoJ agencies involved, it is highly unlikely that Acting Deputy Attorney General Grindler was not intimately involved with approving, reviewing and monitoring the details of the case. And, in fact, on March 12, 2010, Grindler visited Arizona and was briefed on Fast and Furious; his handwriting appears all over power point presentation photos of the guns. At the briefing, Grindler is provided information on the program down to minutiae, including such details as the number of times a particular straw purchaser went in to a “cooperating” gun store and purchased guns.
The Deputy Attorney General generally keeps close oversight over the ATF, and Gary Grindler followed the ATF Fast and Furious Program closely. On December 14, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot with rifles traced directly to the Fast and Furious program. In an email exchange that night, Dennis Burke, the U.S. Attorney for Arizona told Holder’s Deputy Chief of Staff that he wanted to discuss a large firearms trafficking case. The next morning in a follow up email he informed the Attorney General’s Office that Brian Terry had been murdered. Holder’s Deputy Chief of Staff responded that he alerted Holder, Grindler and Lisa Monaco, the Acting Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General.
On January 3, 2011, Eric Holder made Gary Grindler his Chief of Staff. About three weeks later, on January 25, 2011, the details of Fast and Furious went public. Two days later Senator Grassley sent a letter to the Attorney General’s Office asking for information on Fast and Furious. In February, Holder ordered the DOJ Inspector General to investigate Fast and Furious. And on March 23rd, President Obama appeared on the Spanish-language TV station Univision and talked about the “gunwalking” controversy. He said that neither he nor Holder authorized the Fast and Furious case, and stated, “There may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made, and if that’s the case then we’ll find out and we’ll hold somebody accountable.”
On May 3, 2011,Holder testified to the House Judiciary Committee that he did not know who approved Fast and Furious, but that it was being investigated. He also stated that he “probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”
It strains credulity that Gary Grindler, Eric Holder’s own Chief of Staff, who one year earlier, on becoming the Acting Deputy Attorney General would not have been briefed on the Department’s policy regarding the Mexican gun cartels.
It strains credulity that Gary Grindler, as Acting Deputy Attorney General, would not have signed off on the Fast and Furious strike force briefing paper, that he would have forgotten the minute details of the power point presentation that he physically wrote on, that he would not have continued to exercise oversight on a program for which he was provided such a detailed presentation, that he would not have immediately connected the Terry murder with the Fast and Furious program; that he would not have immediately briefed his boss, Eric Holder; that he would not have spoken up to Holder when the Fast and Furious details went public; or when Holder’s Office received the letter from Senator Grassley (remember, Grindler is now Holder’s Chief of Staff!); or when President Obama refers to the Fast and Furious Program on Univision. It is even more puzzling why on May 3, when Holder testified that he did not know who approved Fast and Furious, Grindler did not immediately inform his boss of everything he knew, which MUST have included who approved the program.
There are only three possibilities. 1) Gary Grindler told Holder about Fast and Furious and is covering up for him; 2) Gary Grindler willfully and irresponsibly withheld policy and factual information of tremendous national importance from the Attorney General; or 3) Gary Grindler did not remember or could not put the facts of Fast and Furious together, meaning he is incomprehensibly incompetent to serve in such a senior-level position in the United Stated Department of Justice.
No matter which possibility is the truth, Brian Terry and many more people are dead because of the Fast and Furious program. Gary Grindler was fully aware of and briefed on that program. He did not stop that program or he perhaps did not brief the Attorney General about that program.
With so many murdered, it is time for Gary Grindler to go. Will Eric Holder hold people accountable, no matter how close they are to him?
I will be on Glen Beck TV’s Real News in the 6 p.m. hour discussing my latest PJ Media stories, including this one on Fast and Furious. I am told that GBTV is debuting tonight at 5 p.m. on the Dish Network, channel 212. It is free to Dish subscribers for the next two weeks. So anyone with Dish can catch the GBTV signal, now beaming down from space.
It has been amusing watching all the anticipation about the release of the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report on Fast and Furious. Some folks in Washington actually think that it will be the key that unlocks the door to the scandal. Balderdash. I’ve watched defective report after defective report come from the Justice Department internal affairs units. In the end, they always protect the institution, unless of course conservatives are in the cross hairs.
If you think that the Inspector General’s report on Fast and Furious will awaken the nation when it is released next week, you better hit the snooze bar and sleep in.
I knew the fix was in when I read this:
Horowitz told Issa that agencies and officials named and criticized in the report were being allowed to respond to the IG’s findings in an effort to make it as fair and accurate as possible. The new hearing has been scheduled for next Wednesday.
Are you kidding me? The DOJ Inspector General never afforded Republican political appointees any right of review and revision during the Bush administration. In fact, the DOJ Inspector General entirely ignored stacks of exculpatory evidence that the targets of Bush-era IG reports gave to the Inspector General. That’s right, the Department of Justice Inspector General not only didn’t allow the targets to see, much less respond to the IG’s findings, but ignored documents they gave the IG.
For example, the Bush-era DOJ officials gave the Inspector General stacks of data about non-partisan hiring in the Civil Rights Division, as well as partisan hiring during the Clinton administration. The Inspector General totally ignored the information.
In fact, the report on CIA interrogations produced by the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility lawyer Tamara Kessler was so shoddy, General Michael Mukasey and his Deputy Mark Filip had to rewrite it. Not surprisingly, Kessler was involved in the IG hiring report also. She never gave anybody the right of review and response, as Fast and Furious targets are now enjoying.
The DOJ report on the New Black Panther investigation was another example of the Obama administration using the internal affairs process to protect their political position.
So the first questions Chairman Issa should ask the DOJ Inspector General next week when he testifies are:
1. Did the Inspector General give Bush-era political appointees the right to “review and respond to” draft IG reports before they were released as you have done with the Fast and Furious report?
2. Will you allow the Committee to review the draft report as they existed before DOJ officials enjoyed their “review and response” rights?
Anybody who thinks next week’s DOJ IG report on Fast and Furious will be anything but a defensive play to protect political appointees involved is dreaming.