Will DOJ Take Action on FRC Shooting?

by Curt Levey 16 Aug 2012

 Yesterday’s violent attack on the conservative Family Research Council by an apparent gay rights activists puts the spotlight on the Obama Justice Department.  Will the Department seriously investigate the shooting – which was motivated by anger at FRC’s advocacy of traditional Christian values including opposition to gay marriage – as a hate crime and, if appropriate, prosecute it as such?  Those concerned with equal justice under the law should and will be watching to see whether the Department of Justice does the right thing here. DOJ’s handling of the FRC case would be closely watched under any President, given the long-standing, nationwide underenforcement of hate crimes laws when the bias behind the crime does not fit a politically correct narrative involving hostility to Muslims, gays, racial minorities and the like.  But the attention on Eric Holder’s Justice Department will be particularly intense here, given the well-documented politicization of its Civil Rights Division.

If the reported details of the FRC shooting are accurate, this case is a textbook example of a hate crime.

After a security guard took away his gun, suspect Floyd Corkins said, “Don’t shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for.”  Corkins is a volunteer at the DC Center for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender) Community, while FRC is a Christian-oriented, pro-life, traditional values organization that has been at the forefront of opposition to same-sex marriage.

In many of the high-profile hate crime cases in the news, bias – based on race, sexual orientation, etc. – is alleged to be only a factor in the crime and must be inferred (hence, the FBI’s questioning of dozens of George Zimmerman’s associates about his racial views).  In the FRC case, Corkins’ bias against the Christian values that “this place stands for” was both explicit and the raison d'etre for the crime.  Depending on what an investigation reveals, Corkins could also be charged under D.C. law with a hate crime based on “political affiliation” bias.

The doubt about prosecuting this textbook example of a hate crime arises only from the history of hate crime prosecution in this country.  Hate crime laws are typically enforced in anything but the symmetric manner required by federal and state statutes and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Instead, non-enforcement of hate crime laws is the norm when the bias does not provide a politically correct story line.

For example, FBI data shows that in 2010, crimes motivated by anti-white bias accounted for less than 18% of the incidents treated as racial hate crimes by law enforcement agencies across the nation, whereas anti-black incidents accounted for 70% of recognized racial hate crimes.  Those are shocking figures when you consider the Justice Department’s own statistics:

“Of the 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence that involved Blacks and Whites, 90 percent were committed by Blacks against Whites; Blacks were thus 250 times more likely to commit violence against Whites than Whites against Blacks.”

Comparable statistics are not available for religious bias.  However, despite the fact that Protestants and Catholics make up 76% of the U.S. population (and 88% of Americans identifying a religion), hate crimes against members of those religions were recognized only enough to account for seven percent of religious-bias hate crimes in 2010.

Given President Obama’s well-known view that bitter people cling to religion and Eric Holder’s documented politicization of the Justice Department, the Department risks losing whatever public respect it still retains if it fails to take the religious hate crime committed at FRC seriously.  But there’s also an upside here for Obama and Holder.  Doing the right thing in this high-profile case presents a great opportunity for them to demonstrate to the nation that the Civil Rights Division is sincerely interested in even-handed enforcement of civil rights laws, while also providing the nation with a valuable teaching moment – reminding us that hate crime laws were intended to protect all victims of bias-related crime.

Big Government

Obama Admin Blesses GSA Decision Not to Arrest Occupy Protesters

by Tom Fitton 14 Aug 2012
 

  Barack Obama found himself in hot water when he told a group of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protestors, “Families like yours, young people like the ones here today — including the ones who were just chanting at me — you’re the reason that I ran for office in the first place.”

The President was harshly criticized for essentially giving a “shout out” to a movement plagued by accusations of criminal and violent behavior. But Judicial Watch recently uncovered evidence suggesting that Obama White House support for the OWS crowd was not limited to rhetoric.

Last week, we released records from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) indicating that the General Services Administration (GSA), with the approval of the Obama White House, instructed law enforcement officers to “stand down” and not arrest “Occupy Portland” protestors who were in violation of the law.

You read that correctly.

The records, which we obtained pursuant to a November 11, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, include internal DHS correspondence. And one November 6, 2011, e-mail exchange between DHS/National Protection and Programs Directorate Chief of Staff Caitlin Durkovich and GSA Public Buildings Service Commissioner Robert Peck (who has since been fired) specifically related to Occupy Portland protests taking place on federal property in Portland.

I am sorry to be emailing you on a Sunday night, but wanted to let you know our Press Shop has received a couple of calls from Portland media outlets about a group of 11 protesters who again set up camp at Terry Shrunk Plaza in Portland last night. They have chained themselves to a large drum filled with concrete. GSA controls the permits and has asked FPS [Federal Protective Services] not to enforce the curfew at park and the prohibition on overnight encampments. Reporters have asked if we will be arresting the protestors as FPS did last week.

Our FPS Commander in Portland says they are standing down and following GSA’s request to only intervene if there is a threat to public safety.

Peck responds:

Caitlin: yes, that is our position; it’s been vetted with our Administrator and Michael Robertson, our chief of staff, and we have communicated with the WH [White House], which has afforded us the discretion to fashion our approach to Occupy issues…The arrests last week were carried out despite our request that the protesters be allowed to remain and to camp overnight…

Given the history of the OWS movement and its “members,” the decision to ignore their crimes is incredibly irresponsible.

From its inception, the OWS movement has been beset with accusations of “crimes and dangerous behavior” during its protests. Here’s a partial list of accusations levied against OWS protestors: sexual assault, destruction of property, drug use, assaulting a police officer, and petty theft.

And it doesn’t seem to matter where these protests take place, whether it’s New York City or Portland, Oregon.

According to the Oregonian, the week before the above email exchange, on October 30, 2011:

Twenty-five Occupy Portland demonstrators were arrested…after refusing to leave Jamison Square. The arrests capped an intense hours-long standoff between police and dozens of protesters who refused to leave the Pearl District park after it was declared closed at midnight. Officers, some in riot gear and others on horses, faced off with protesters who remained in the square, despite being ordered to leave.

The protesters were reportedly arrested on accusations of “trespassing, interfering with a police officer and disorderly conduct for the noise complaints from neighbors.”

And what happened after the Obama administration told law enforcement to stand down?

According to Fox News:

The most serious incident [of Occupy violence] was reported in downtown Portland last night [November 8, 2011] -- cops responded to calls of a Molotov cocktail being set off near the city's World Trade Center. Authorities had received unconfirmed information a week earlier that people within the Occupy Portland encampment were constructing the crudely made bomb, which is normally fashioned from a glass bottle filled with gas and a soaked rag or cloth sticking out of the opening as a wick.

The Obama administration cannot hide behind the disclaimer that they only allowed protesters to violate curfew so long as there was no threat to public safety. First, the law is the law and it must be enforced in a consistent fashion. And, second, when you condone characters who have reportedly demonstrated a penchant for violence, you are inviting chaos. There is simply no excuse for giving OWS special treatment.

The name Robert Peck, the GSA official involved in the email exchange, may be familiar to you. Peck was at the center of a scandal involving the GSA in 2010, where the agency spent $823,000 on a lavish Las Vegas “training conference” that featured a clown, a mind reader and a $31,208 reception. And he got fired for it.

Peck, who has donated thousands of dollars to Democrat candidates, including Barack Obama, was also previously implicated in an unrelated GSA scandal for reportedly brokering a controversial lease deal for a Democratic donor and friend of former Vice President Al Gore. Per The Washington Examiner’s Mark Tapscott: “In Peck’s first go-round at GSA, controversy was sparked when it was learned that excessively high rent was being paid by the FCC to the owner of a building who also happened to be a Democratic donor. Peck was the official who made the deal possible.”

Peck was deposed by Judicial Watch on Tuesday in a separate lawsuit on behalf of Linda Shenwick, a GSA whistleblower. Ms. Shenwick was allegedly subjected to retaliation from Peck and others because of her opposition to wasteful spending, including the infamous GSA parties that have now caused so much controversy.

And now we have a new GSA scandal – one that involves the Obama White House. These documents clearly show that federal agencies colluded with the Obama White House to allow the Occupy Wall Street protesters to violate the law with impunity. These documents tell us that the GSA and DHS can’t be relied upon to protect federal workers or property.

Incredibly, responding to the media crush of interest in this Judicial Watch find, the Obama administration is now saying that the public shouldn’t believe the Obama administration documents and that Peck’s email is “incorrect.” Despite the sad attempt to throw Peck under the bus, the documents speak for themselves and detail, in black and white, high-level communications within the Obama administration. If there are additional documents that show these Obama administration documents are false, they should be produced by the Obama administration.

While we wait for that to happen, to view the entire production of records obtained by Judicial Watch, click here.

Big Government

Court Rules DOJ Politicized Black Panther Case

by Tom Fitton 6 Aug 2012
 

 Judicial Watch has been confident for some time that the evidence shows that political appointees at the Holder Department of Justice (DOJ) were involved in the decision to abandon the DOJ’s own voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party. And we’ve also been concerned that at least one high ranking DOJ official lied about it under oath.

 In a major victory for Judicial Watch, a federal court seems to agree with our analysis of this continuing scandal.

The ruling came courtesy of Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in response to Judicial Watch’s effort to obtain attorney’s fees from the DOJ for stonewalling the release of documents pertaining to the Black Panther scandal. Here’s the key quote from Judge Walton’s ruling:

The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.

In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.

So, in short, this ruling is further confirmation that political appointees at the DOJ did interfere in the Black Panther case. Assistant AG Perez’s testimony was false. And the American people have a right to documents related to the scandal. That’s pretty much a clear-cut victory.

By way of review, this all started on Election Day 2008, when members of the New Black Panther Party stood guard at a polling station in Philadelphia, PA, brandishing weapons and threatening voters. A video of the incident was widely distributed on the Internet. The DOJ filed a civil lawsuit against the Black Panthers, but ultimately overruled members of its own staff and dismissed the majority of the charges.

The Black Panther lawsuit dismissal led to accusations of racism at the DOJ from within its own ranks. Former DOJ lawyer J. Christian Adams, who called the actions by Black Panthers, “the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law” he had ever seen during his career at the DOJ, resigned from his position as a result of the case dismissal.

Given the massive media attention earned by the Black Panther case dismissal, people started questioning whether or not the decision was politically motivated -- including the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

The Commission, an independent, bipartisan unit of the federal government charged with investigating and reporting on civil rights issues, initiated a probe of the DOJ’s decision to drop its lawsuit. During the hearing, Assistant AG Perez was asked directly regarding the involvement of political leaders in the decision to dismiss the Black Panther case.

And here’s what he said in his testimony:

COMMISSIONER KIRSANOW: Was there any political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case any further than it was?

ASST. ATTY. GEN. PEREZ: No. The decisions were made by Loretta King in consultation with Steve Rosenbaum, who is the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Wrong answer.

On September 20, JW released a draft Vaughn index prepared by the DOJ that shows that top political appointees at the DOJ were involved in the decision to dismiss the case. The index, which we acquired pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, describes documents the government is withholding from the public.

Included in the index was a description of a series of emails between Assistant Deputy Attorney General Steve Rosenbaum and Deputy Associate Attorney General Sam Hirsch. The back-and-forth emails occurred on April 30, 2009, the day before the case was dropped. Hirsch has been described by Slate magazine as a “DC election lawyer who represents a lot of Democrats” prior to joining the DOJ. Hirsch is also a former Obama donor.

Also among the documents were internal DOJ emails regarding the Black Panther case between former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden and the Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, the second and third ranking officials at the DOJ.

Here’s one example: A May 10, 2009, email from Associate Attorney General Perrelli to Deputy Associate Attorney General and former Democratic election lawyer Sam Hirsch. “Where are we on the Black Panther case?” Perrelli asks in the subject header. The email also includes Deputy Attorney General Ogden’s “current thoughts on the case.”

So what about the top ranking official at DOJ, Attorney General Eric Holder?

An email from former Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, dated May 12, 2009, was distributed directly to Attorney General Eric Holder through Odgen and Perrelli. Entitled, “Weekly Report for the Week Ending May 8, 2009,” the email “Identifies matters deemed significant and highlights issues for the senior offices, including an update on a planned course of action in the NBPP (New Black Panther Party) litigation.”

Evidently Holder was in the loop as well. Okay, next question: What about the Obama White House?

Press reports indicated that at least nine meetings between Perrelli and White House officials between March 25 and May 27, 2009, regarding the Black Panther case. (JW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to get to the truth in the matter but were unable to find evidence of a direct White House link (not that Messrs. Perrelli and Hirsch needed to be told what to do).

So the Black Panther scandal, which we were told was managed by low level DOJ officials, might just go all the way to the very top.

Expect the news regarding this case to continue to reverberate.  The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama DOJ is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth.  And it shows that we can’t trust the Obama DOJ to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.

We intend to continue to push for accountability.  Perez, who gave the false testimony, is a leading leftist at the DOJ who has taken the lead in the attacks on Arizona’s immigration enforcement measures; attacks on election integrity measures such as voter ID; and the shakedown of financial institutions over dubious discriminatory lending allegations. (You can go to agency’s Internet site to get the full breadth of Perez’s hard Left agenda.)

Hans von Spakovsky, a former DOJ official now with the Heritage Foundation, has been following this issue closely and writes:

Where is the investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) of whether Perez violated his ethical and professional obligations as a DOJ attorney? Will the DOJ inspector general open an investigation of the possible violation by Perez of 18 U.S.C. §1621, which outlaws presenting false statements under oath in official federal proceedings? Or will they all respectively yawn and ignore this?

Imagine if a conservative political appointee at DOJ had just been cited in a federal court decision as having apparently testified falsely under oath. Not only would it be a top headline at The New York Times and The Washington Post, but the IG and OPR would be rushing to investigate. All of which is a sad commentary on the liberal bias not just of the media, but of too many of the offices and officials within the Justice Department who are supposed to administer justice in an objective, non-political, and impartial manner.

We will follow up, of course.  You should, too.  Contact the Justice Department, call talk radio, write letters to the editor of your local newspaper, call or visit your congressman (they’re all back “home” now for a few weeks).

Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch and author of The Corruption Chronicles, on sale now.

Big Government

Federal Court: Obama Admin. Interfered in New Black Panthers Case

by Tony Lee 30 Jul 2012

 The Justice Department has denied that political motivations went into the dismissal of  the New Black Panthers case following President Barack Obama elections and the appointment of Attorney General Eric Holder.

A Federal court in Washington, D.C. on Monday dismissed the DOJ’s claims that its political appointees did not interfere with the New Black Panthers case.

In a case that decided whether the watchdog group, Judicial Watch, could receive fees and costs associated with the New Black Panthers litigation, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton held that:

“documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.”

“Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision making,” Walton wrote in his opinion.

“And the DOJ has not shown that these particular materials were released prior to this litigation, or that the information contained therein was already in the public domain.”

The New Black Panthers case revolves around members of the racist group who were caught on tape intimidating voters at a polling station during the 2008 elections in Philadelphia. The Justice Department initially charged the four New Black Panthers in the case. But after Obama shaped the Justice Department with his appointees, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissing the charges against three of the New Black Panthers while a fourth received a restraining order. 

Judge Walton’s decision again shows that politics have often trumped the law in the Obama administration.

Big Government

FBI, DOJ Sued for Info on Mueller's Secret Meeting with Radical Islamic Organizations

by Tom Fitton 30 Jul 2012

 

 Political correctness puts our national security at risk. Case in point: The FBI’s persistent kowtowing to radical Muslims in its approach to terrorism investigations. I’ve written previously about the FBI’s Muslim sensitivity training programs. WorldNetDaily has done some outstanding reporting on workshops run by the FBI that “educate” agents about Muslim customs and beliefs in an attempt to help them to “break down barriers” and foster “mutual understanding.”
Well, now it appears the FBI has taken another giant step down a very dangerous path with FBI Director Robert Mueller’s secret meeting with radical Islamic organizations and allowing them effectively to “edit” the FBI’s training manuals.

Last week we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) seeking access to records detailing a February 8, 2012, meeting between FBI Director Robert Mueller and Muslim organizations. Judicial Watch is also investigating the FBI’s subsequent controversial decision to purge the agency’s training curricula of material deemed “offensive” to Muslims.

On March 7, 2012, Judicial Watch submitted FOIA requests to the FBI and the DOJ seeking access to records regarding the meeting. We’re after “any and all records setting criteria or guidelines for FBI curricula on Islam or records identifying potentially offensive material within the FBI curricula on Islam,” and any directives to withdraw FBI presentations and curricula on Islam.

We’ve also asked for records of communications between the Office of the Attorney General and several entities, including the Obama White House, the Executive Office of the President, and Muslim organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Society of North America, and the Council for American-Islamic Relations regarding the FBI’s curricula on Islam.

The FBI acknowledged receipt of our FOIA request on March 20, 2012, and was required to respond by May 1, 2012. The DOJ acknowledged receiving Judicial Watch’s FOIA request on March 14, 2012, and was required to respond by April 11, 2012. But so far, after months, we’ve received nothing from either agency.

According to the press, Mueller reportedly met secretly on February 8, 2012, at FBI headquarters with a coalition of Islamist organizations, some with radical ties to terrorist organizations.

For example, per The Washington Examiner, one group that reportedly met with Mueller – the Islamic Society of North America – “was tied to the terror groups Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in federal court documents.” The government named the Islamic Society of North America as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing lawsuit, along with the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the North American Islamic Trust.

During the February 8 meeting, Mueller reportedly assured the Islamic groups in attendance that the agency had ordered the removal of presentations and curricula that were deemed “offensive” from FBI offices around the country. As reported by NPR, overall, “The FBI has completed a review of offensive training material and has purged 876 pages and 392 presentations, according to a briefing provided to lawmakers.”

The material purge was allegedly initiated in response to a letter of complaint sent by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL). However, other members of Congress, including Rep. Allen West (R-FL), object to allowing radical Muslim organizations the opportunity to dictate U.S. counterterrorism policy and want the material to be reinserted into the documents: “Now you have an environment of political correctness which precludes these agents from doing their proper job and due diligence to go after the perceived threat,” Congressman West said.

I couldn’t agree more. There is no question that the country is less safe when we allow radical Muslim organizations to tell the FBI how to train its agents and do its job. The Obama administration owes the American people a full accounting of how and why this terrible decision was made.

Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch and author of The Corruption Chronicles, on sale now.

Big Government

ADF Scores First Victory Against Obama's Unconstitutional HHS Mandate

by Ken Klukowski 28 Jul 2012
 

 On August 1, Obamacare’s latest outrage goes into effect as the “HHS Mandate” takes effect, and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) just scored the first victory in religious liberty against this authoritarian decree days before its implementation. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a regulation under Obamacare requiring almost all employers to cover abortion, birth control, and sterilization services. There are exemptions for nonprofit “religious employers,” but this term’s definition in the regulation is so ridiculously narrow that it would include churches and synagogues, by likely exclude a school, clinic, or hospital run by that house of worship.

Several states and religious institutions filed challenges to this mandate, which requires Catholics and adherents of various other faiths—such as some Evangelicals—to violate their religious faiths. Those cases have all been dismissed, because the plaintiffs have been unable to prove as this point that they will fall outside any interpretation of the religious exemption or otherwise be excluded from the scope of this governmental command. These courts haven’t ruled against the plaintiffs on the merits; they’ve instead held that litigation is premature at this point.

ADF designed a case that gets around that issue. The plaintiffs here are members of the Newland family, and the business they own, Hercules Industries, is an air conditioning business (pictured above). The Newlands are devout Catholics trying to live out the teachings of their faith through their business policies, yet they are a secular, for-profit business, thus outside any interpretation of the religious exemption to the HHS Mandate.
ADF filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the U.S. District Court in Colorado to order the mandate cannot be enforced against the Newlands and Hercules while this litigation is ongoing. Judge John Kane issued that injunction on July 27, finding that the plaintiffs have a “substantial likelihood” of final success on the merits of their lawsuit.

Kane explained that this injunction is to preserve the status quo until the lawsuit can run its course to a final ruling of whether the HHS mandate is invalid as applied to Americans who religiously object to it. The administration argued that granting the injunction would thwart Congress’ goal of improving healthcare. But Kane responded that even if true, “These interests are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion.”

So Newland satisfied the legal standard of showing that here, “questions going to the [legal] merits [are] so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make the issue ripe for litigation and deserving of more deliberate investigation.”

Judge Kane also found it unnecessary to examine the constitutional claims here because this regulation likely violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which makes it illegal for regulations to “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from” laws that generally apply to everyone regardless of religion. Under RFRA, such burdens are allowed only if it achieves a compelling public interest and if it is the least restrictive means of doing so.

This victory is by no means final, but it’s the first of its kind. As ADF’s lawyer on this case, Matt Bowman, said today, “Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith. Hercules Industries will be able to do just that.” He’s right, and now we’ll see if the courts continue to agree.

Breitbart News legal contributor Ken Klukowski is a senior fellow for religious liberty at the Family Research Council. 

Big Government

AP Changes Story to Minimize Embarrassment for DOJ

by J. Christian Adams 12 Jul 2012

  A trial is currently taking place in a Washington D.C. courtroom pitting Texas versus Eric Holder's Justice Department over the issue of voter identification (see also: Holder Employs Obama GOTV Org to help in trial) At PJ Media I posted a story of an absurd witness called by the Justice Department. Victoria Rose Rodriguez, 18, from San Antonio, flew to Washington D.C. to testify that she couldn't get photo ID because she couldn't find the time to do it! Her parents, you see, are also too busy to ever take her to the government office where she can obtain a free voter ID. (There is no telling what a serious cross-examination into Rodriguez's life and social activities might reveal about her time management practices.)

My story had this money quote from Henry Jackson at the Associated Press:

Victoria Rose Rodriguez, 18, told a federal court in Washington that she had limited documentation — a birth certificate, a high school transcript and a student ID card with a photo on it — but is currently a registered voter in Texas. She said her parents are too busy to take her or her twin sister to get the new voter identification cards required by the law.

Whether Jackson understood it at the time or not, the story made DOJ look absurd for calling this witness.

Naturally, after I called Jackson out on his shilling for the federal government, Jackson had to change the story to make Justice look less ridiculous for calling Rodriguez as a witness.

Henry Jackson's new version:

In her testimony Tuesday, Rodriguez testified that she's currently a registered voter but would not be able to meet the requirements of Texas' new law. She said she lacked the necessary documents and the ability to travel to a location where she can obtain the newly required voter ID.

In version 2.0, Jackson disguises the absurd reason Rodriguez can't get photo ID. Originally, it was because "her parents were too busy to take her." In the DOJ-friendly revision, Jackson says she has no "ability to travel." The ridiculous has become the sympathetic.

Any guess as to how often this 18-year old (read: adult) travels about to spend precious time with friends?

Any guess as to how Rodriguez gets around when her parents don't have the "time"?

This is par for the course for writers like Henry Jackson at the Associated Press, and it's why Americans can't trust them to report accurately about the federal government blocking state efforts to ensure the integrity of American elections. This witness should have been a laughingstock, but instead she was converted, when caught, into another example justifying the exercise of excess federal power.

Big Journalism

Secret Wiretaps Implicate Holder's DOJ in 'Fast and Furious' Scandal

by Tony Lee 29 Jun 2012

 One day after the historic vote that held Attorney General Eric Holder to be in criminal contempt of Congress, Darrell Issa (R-CA) revealed details of secret wiretap applications from the Justice Department that implicates them even more in the “Fast and Furious” gunwalking scandal that resulted in the murder of a U.S. border patrol agent.   Issa submitted these details to the Congressional Record by submitting a letter to Elijah Cummings (D-MD). Cummings have denied any wiretap applications contained details that would have tipped off those in the know, according to Roll Call, but Issa’s letter suggests Holder and Cummings were not truthful about what was in the wiretap application, which was signed by some of the most senior officials in the Department of Justice.

According to Roll Call: 

The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.

According to the letter, the wiretap applications contained a startling amount of detail about the operation, which would have tipped off anyone who read them closely about what tactics were being used.

Holder and Cummings have both maintained that the wiretap applications did not contain such details and that the applications were reviewed narrowly for probable cause, not for whether any investigatory tactics contained followed Justice Department policy.

The wiretap applications were signed by senior DOJ officials in the department’s criminal division, including Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco and another official who is now deceased.

Roll Call further reported the “application included details such as how many guns specific suspects had purchased via straw purchasers and how many of those guns had been recovered in Mexico,” in addition to describing how “ATF officials watched guns bought by suspected straw purchasers but then ended their surveillance without interdicting the guns.”

Issa excoriated the DOJ's lack of oversight:

Although ATF was aware of these facts, no one was arrested, and ATF failed to even approach the straw purchasers. Upon learning these details through its review of this wiretap affidavit, senior Justice Department officials had a duty to stop this operation. Further, failure to do so was a violation of Justice Department policy.

The coverup is always worse than the crime, and the question at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal has been what the Department Justice knew and when they knew it.

After Issa’s letter implicating the Department of Justice in the Fast and Furious scandal, those questions are about to get a lot more intense, pressure on Holder will increase, and the public’s demand for answers will intensify.

Now if only the mainstream media would do its job and put pressure on the DOJ, not the Congressmen investigating them.

Big Government