Report: McConnell's alleged 'bugger' visited the White House days earlier

It would appear that Watergate 2.0 may be more aptly named for the bugging of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell's campaign headquarters than was previously thought. The leader of the accused group met with White House officials days before the bugging.

Via Buzzfeed:

The head of a group accused of illegally taping private meetings of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's campaign visited the White House days before the group's Twitter account began actively attacking the Kentucky Republican, according to White House visitors logs.

White House logs and the Twitter feed of Shawn Reilly, one of two men at the heart of the McConnell wiretapping scandal, show he met with White House officials on Dec. 5, just days before his organization Progress Kentucky began a messaging blitzkrieg against the Republican leader.

Reilly and Curtis Morrison are currently under investigation by the FBI for illicitly taping a campaign conversation between McConnell and a handful of his advisors. During the conversation McConnell and his aides discussed the potential candidacy of actress Ashley Judd — including using her mental health problems against her.

Unlike Watergate, the potential for complicit actors to incriminate themselves is greater in today's social media age. Such appears to be the case with Reilly, who appears to have tweeted all about his meetings at the White House and with none other than George Soros' Center for American Progress (CAP) as well as a photo of what he claimed was the White House meeting.

This too is interesting, in light of the fact that the mainstream media has attempted to focus on McConnell's guys laughing at Ashley Judd's mental problems instead of on the act that isn't the least bit dissimilar from what happened in Watergate - save for confirmation of who ultimately was behind it or supported it.

On Dec. 13, eight days after Reilly's meeting with the White House, Progress Kentucky tweeted: "The single most important thing we want to achieve: Electing a new US Senator to represent Kentucky," which started a daily barrage of often more than a dozen tweets and retweets directly aimed at McConnell.

Over the next several months the pace of their Twitter attacks, and the vitriol, escalated. The organization hammered McConnell over his positions on fiscal issues, questioned his personal wealth before moving into more personal territory — at one point, Progress Kentucky sent a series of tweets accusing him of favoring China because of her ethnicity and claiming McConnell is a closeted gay man.

Yes, we are talking about public figures here but that would be called libel and slander, something that McConnell's people did not do to Judd. They didn't publicly mock her, nor did they accuse her of something libelous or slanderous publicly.

Moreover, the visitor log signed by Reilly was also signed by a Valerie Jarrett assistant named Victoria McCullough. Don't worry, though. The White House has an explanation:

Although the White House declined to comment, a source familiar with the situation said Reilly was one of 83 other people from Kentucky and Tennessee who attended the event. An administration official addressed the attendees, discussing the then-looming fiscal cliff fight and other items on the White House's upcoming agenda.

Neither Reilly nor any of the other people in attendance had "intimate" one on one meetings with Jarrett or other senior White House officials, according to this source.

Still, Republicans pointed to the evidence of the visitors logs to argue that Reilly is far more connected to the Democratic establishment than leaders would have the public believe.

The differences between Watergate and Watergate 2.0 appear to be increasingly fewer. To this point though, there are at least two. First, the mainstream media opposed the criminals Watergate while they are running interference for the alleged criminals in Watergate 2.0. Another difference is that Republicans don't seem to be raising their game on this issue. They will have to in order to overcome the media bias.

h/t WZ

Republicans blowing another huge opportunity (Mitch McConnell scandal)

Republicans are blowing a huge opportunity relative to what far left-wing wacko bird David Corn of Mother Jones did when he bugged Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell's campaign headquarters. No, this scandal isn't nearly as big as Benghazi or Fast and Furious. It's not even as big as Solyndra, which have all been said to be bigger than Watergate.

McConnell-gate ain't bigger than Watergate and it ain't smaller than Watergate.

It's exactly the same. Yet, there is no outrage from the left. In fact, they're pointing to what was said on the recordings as being the big infraction.

Meanwhile, Republicans are playing defense on Immigration and gun control, instead of showing a united front on this issue.

The words coming out of McConnell's mouth here are not the problem; his lack of passion is. In fact, he comes across as being so dispassionate that he doesn't even come across as having been violated.

Lack of fire on the Republican side of the aisle is their biggest problem.

Holder fighting off FOIA request for Fast & Furious documents by refusing to respond to it

After Attorney General Eric Holder was found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not releasing documents required by a lawfully issued subpoena by Congress, the U.S. Attorney responsible for prosecuting his boss on criminal grounds predictably decided not to do so for obvious reasons. That left the civil contempt charge, which served as the impetus for a lawsuit filed by the House Oversight Committee against Holder that is still pending.

These subpoenaed documents are the same ones over which Barack Obama asserted Executive Privilege to prevent from being released.

Concurrent with the civil lawsuit is an effort by a very effective Watchdog group to have the same documents released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and it's causing Holder to react on a second front.

Via Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a brief on January 15, 2013, in response to an Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) motion to indefinitely delay consideration of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking access to Operation Fast and Furious records withheld from Congress by President Obama under executive privilege on June 20, 2012 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01510)).

Rather than respond substantively to Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit, the DOJ argued in court that the lawsuit should be subject to a stay of proceedings because it is “ancillary” to a separate lawsuit filed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee against the DOJ. The Court “should let the process of negotiation and accommodation [between the House Committee and the DOJ] run its course, and then decide with the input of the parties whether and how this action may appropriately proceed at that time,” the DOJ argued, effectively abrogating the FOIA. The Obama DOJ even suggested that the Judicial Watch litigation might encourage the Congress to fight harder to get the same documents in separate litigation.

To Judicial Watch's argument, consider an exchange between Issa - in his role as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and Holder on December 8, 2011. In the exchange (audio only), Issa was pressing Holder to admit that if the documents relative to Fast & Furious after March of 2011 are not released, the Attorney General will be found in contempt.

There are two very key points (the second is particularly important) expressed by Issa relative to these documents.

1. Issa explains that Holder must cite a Constitutional exemption for refusing to produce the documents.
2. Even if Holder magically cites an exemption, he is still required to produce a log of the documents.

To this point, Holder has done neither, which leaves Obama's assertion of Executive Privilege the lone justification for the American people not knowing the truth about Fast and Furious.

Of all the exchanges between Issa and Holder, this one may just be the best.

h/t Breitbart

Shocker: DOJ seeks to dismiss Fast & Furious lawsuit

Attorney General Eric Holder was found to be in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not releasing documents subpoenaed in the Fast and Furious investigation. As was expected, the criminal conviction would go nowhere because Holder's subordinate is the individual responsible for prosecuting it (gotta protect the boss). That left the civil contempt conviction. The House Oversight Committee filed a lawsuit to demand the release of the documents. Barack Obama asserted Executive Privilege in order to prevent their release. He did so on the day Holder was found to be in contempt.

Now, the Justice Department is seeking a dismissal of the civil suit.

Via CBS News:

The Justice Department says federal courts should stay out of a political dispute between the Obama administration and Congress over documents in a botched law enforcement probe of gun trafficking.

In court papers filed Monday night, the department is seeking dismissal of a lawsuit by a Republican-led House committee, which is demanding that Attorney General Eric Holder produce records about Operation Fast and Furious.

The Justice Department says the Constitution does not permit the courts to resolve the political dispute between the executive branch and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The political branches have a long history of resolving disputes over congressional requests without judicial intervention, the court filing said.

President Barack Obama has invoked executive privilege and the attorney general has been found in contempt of the House for refusing to turn over records that might explain what led the department to reverse course after initially denying that federal agents had used a controversial tactic called gun-walking in the failed law enforcement operation.

There seems to be a slight problem with this argument. In U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that president could not assert Executive Privilege to cover up any crimes that had been committed.

A central component in the documents subpoenaed in Fast and Furious has to do with a February 4, 2011 letter signed by then Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich and addressed to Senator Charles Grassley. That letter alleged that the ATF was not allowing guns to walk into Mexico. Ten months later, the letter was withdrawn because its main assertion had been disproven.

Many of the documents subpoenaed are thought to provide some answers as to how that letter was written in the first place as well as what transpired in the months afterward.

If the precedent in this case is U.S. v. Nixon, a dismissal at this stage should not be considered likely. Then again, we've all seen some bizarre rulings these days.

Fast and Furious smoking gun may be one Email

It looks like an email from then Acting Director at the ATF - Kenneth Melson - to high ranking Department of Justice officials in March of 2011 may just blow the lid off the Fast and Furious investigation once and for all. That also may be why Obama went as far as asserting Executive Privilege to prevent it from being released.

Via Matthew Boyle at the Daily Caller:

Ken Melson, now the former acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, purportedly sent that email to several DOJ leaders in March 2011. According to Grassley, Melson wrote that he had reviewed the wiretap applications — the same documents Cummings and Holder claim do not show senior DOJ officials knew of or approved gunwalking tactics in Fast and Furious.

“ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson described reading those same wiretap affidavits in March of last year,” Grassley told Holder during the Senate hearing. “He said he was alarmed that the information in the affidavits contradicted the public denial to Congress.”

It appears Republican congressional investigators first learned of the Melson email’s existence on July 4, 2011, when Melson chose to give a lengthy deposition on Fast and Furious without DOJ and ATF lawyers present. Grassley told Holder during the Senate hearing that congressional investigators first requested that the DOJ provide Congress with that email during July 2011, shortly after Melson made his then-secret trip across town to Capitol Hill.

Possible scenario: The February 4, 2011 letter from the Justice Department to Grassley said any claims that the ATF was engaged in gun-walking were "false". In March of 2011, Melson sees the now infamous wiretap applications. Upon doing so, it becomes apparent to him that DOJ Officials (Lanny Breuer / Jason Weinstein we now know at minimum) were well aware of gun-walking; Melson then sends an email expressing this concern - as well as concern over the fallacious letter sent to Grassley - to high ranking DOJ officials.

As the days and weeks go by, Melson sees that the Justice Department is not going to correct the record relative to the lie in the February 4th letter. He gets nervous and decides to meet with Oversight Committee investigators on July 4th of last year instead of on the date of his scheduled testimony on July 13th. He also brings his own counsel instead of DOJ or ATF counsel during that meeting.

Here is a report from July 6th of last year, via Hot Air:

...it says something that Melson chose to meet secretly with Issa and Grassley and to be represented by his own personal counsel rather than DOJ and ATF counsel, who, obviously, would have had departmental interests (and the protection of higher officials, perhaps?) more in mind than what was best for Melson.

On July 5, 2011 Charles Grassley sent a letter to Eric Holder about the testimony given by Melson one day earlier. In light of this new focus on Melson's e-mail to DOJ officials, this excerpt seems to take on added significance:

"By his (Melson's) account, he was sick to his stomach when he obtained those documents and learned the full story. Mr. Melson said that he told the office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) at the end of March that the Department needed to reexamine how it was responding to requests for information from Congress.

The Deputy Attorney General is Holder's right hand man. In this case, that's James Cole. Did Melson notify Cole in March of last year that DOJ needed to correct the February 4th letter? If so, DOJ ignored it month after month until it retracted the letter in December of 2011. That also calls into question every bit of testimony given to the House Oversight Committee as well as House and Senate Judiciary Committees by all DOJ and DHS officials between February 4, 2011.

Let's revisit this clip from a May 3, 2011 House Judiciary Committee hearing, not for what it's become most known for - Holder saying that the first he had heard about Fast and Furious was a "few weeks" earlier - but for his response to a question from Issa about whether James Cole authorized the program. Holder says he doesn't think Cole authorized the program because it started before Cole had assumed the position of DAG. This is correct as Cole was sworn in on December 29, 2010, fifteen days after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered. When asked if Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer authorized the program, Holder was evasive.

Pay attention starting at the 1:00 mark:



What makes this testimony interesting is that if Melson's letter is released (currently being withheld under Executive Privilege asserted by Obama last week), it could show that Cole knew the February 4th letter was false at the time Holder was painting Cole as someone having virtually nothing to do with the operation.

Earlier today, Mike Vanderboegh, at the reliable Sipsey Street Irregulars website, claims to have heard from sources who claim that:

Boehner is set to deal away the contempt vote in the full House for less than the minimum discovery that Darrell Issa has set.

Regular visitors to this blog know I'm not a Boehner fan but in light of these revelations that one lone email from Kenneth Melson could blow a hole in the Fast and Furious stonewall, the Committee might not need everything it's subpoenaed.

The best part, as Boyle points out at DC? Holder told Grassley at the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 12 (earlier this month) that the Melson email did not qualify for Executive Privilege.

If you're in the mood (and have time) for some very real comparisons from 40 years ago...