Stonewall: Napolitano, DHS Still Silent on Mohamed Elibiary

More than two weeks ago, my colleague Erick Stakelbeck of CBN News contacted DHS spokesman Chris Ortman -- the person who told me he would get back to me, and hasn't -- to ask many of the same questions for a video report. The response? Here's his report about confronting the DHS stonewall:

When I spoke to Ortman last week, I was greeted with a heavy dose of skepticism. His general attitude seemed to be that this was a non-story being peddled by a lone right-wing blogger who had it in for Muslims (presumably my colleague Patrick Poole, the intrepid investigative journalist who broke the story).

Still, Ortman promised to get back to me before my deadline. And he surely would have had I belonged to The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, or any of the other countless Obama-friendly, mainstream media mouthpieces.

Well, the deadline came and went. My report on the Elibiary scandal aired on Tuesday's The 700 Club for a viewing audience of 1 million. It was also picked up by Glenn Beck's website, The Blaze (50 million hits per month) and Fox


In short, this story is gathering steam, and much to the chagrin of Ortman and others in the DHS Public Affairs office, is not going away. To that end, I sent the following email to Ortman yesterday (Ed: 11/9):

Hi Chris,

Just wondering if you had found anything out yet on the Mohamed Elibiary leak case. My story aired yesterday, but I would still love to update it with some kind of statement from DHS. Fox, Glenn Beck and a few others have picked it up over the past 24 hours, so it would seem that this warrants some kind of explanation, e.g., Is Elibiary still on the DHS Advisory Council and are these charges being investigated?

He was also apparently the only member on the Advisory Council to be granted this kind of access to the database. Why? I think these are all very reasonable and relevant questions, regardless of whether a "right-wing blogger" broke the story. It seems that allegedly leaking sensitive government docs is a big deal, whether the perpetrator is a Muslim or not.



His response? More silence. Now, I've been doing this for a while and have been around the block a few times. This isn't the first time I've been subjected to the trusty old "stonewall" tactic. But the charges against Elibiary are so egregious, and the implications for our national security so alarming, that it simply demands a response from someone at DHS.

So Stakelbeck too was promised answers by DHS, but none were forthcoming. On it's face, it would seem in the department's best interest to resolve the matter, if only to clear their adviser Elibiary. But there is more at work than meets the eye.

As I'll report later this week, there may be substantial reasons why Napolitano and DHS want absolutely no investigation into Elibiary. As one source told me a few weeks ago:

For them to even ask whether Elibiary was a bad actor who has penetrated our highest and most sensitive intelligence and homeland security agencies has the potential for such catastrophic consequences ... they don't even want the question asked. The likelihood that there will be an actual investigation can be calculated between zero and none no matter how overwhelming the evidence.

The only way that Napolitano can succeed is if Congress refuses to act. In the coming days we will give them more reasons why they may want to look into this matter, and Elibiary's involvement with other government agencies, much more closely.