Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Speaker Boehner, working to make Fast and Furious go away would be Felonious

If House leaders (John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy) still want Fast and Furious to 'go away' at this point, it'd no longer be an issue of political cowardice or courage, or even calculation; it'd be about them being accomplices in the coverup of a murderous federal program.

No accusations here but when it comes to politicians - especially ones of the establishment / RINO persuasion - history is on the side of the skeptics. Besides, there's nothing wrong with a bit of preemptive accountability when it comes to holding said politicians accountable. Trusting them almost always gets you burned. So why do it now?

Consider a post by Mike Vanderboegh over at Sipsey Street about sources telling him that John Boehner, Mitt Romney, and the RNC (by extension) could be looking for ways to prevent the truth about Fast and Furious from coming out:
Said one source, "Romney wants this to go away, so the RNC wants it to go away, and they're putting more pressure on Boehner who never wanted to get this far down the road in the first place but he's been pushed along by Issa and the stand-up guys on his committee." He added, "The NRA making this a 'scored' vote means that if it comes to a vote, it will happen with as many as two or three dozen Democrats as well. The leadership now thinks that the only way for this to 'go away' like Romney wants is to short-circuit the vote."
Again, I'm not making the charge but if that last sentence is true and House leadership is doing anything to sabotage the vote, they would already be accomplices in the coverup. Not only that but it would mean the presumptive Republican nominee for president - as well as the RNC - would be party to the biggest political scandal in perhaps the history of the country, before even winning the general election.

Another interesting aspect to this comes courtesy of the Washington Post (h/t Sipsey Street). They imply that a possible reason for House leadership scheduling the contempt hearing on Thursday is to coincide with the expected Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare on the same day.
Republican leaders plan to bring the issue to the floor on Thursday, meaning lawmakers likely will vote on contempt charges on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to announce its ruling on the constitutionality of the 2010 health-care reform law.

The timing likely deprives advocates for contempt charges of the big headlines they might have received if the vote were held another day this week.
To his credit, when Boehner speaks publicly about Fast and Furious, his words are in support of getting to the bottom of the scandal. To his discredit, these concerns just keep rearing their heads. Maybe if he spoke a little more like Congressional freshman, Rep. Trey Gowdy and less like a politically guarded politician, that would stop.



As for Romney, he had a golden opportunity - when Obama announced amnesty for illegal aliens nearly two weeks ago - to point to Fast and Furious being a program that is responsible for hundreds of dead Mexicans. The implication would have been clear: If Obama cares so much about the welfare of Mexican nationals, why hasn't anyone been held accountable for a program that led to the deaths of hundreds of Mexican nationals.

Romney didn't do it and that is another example of why skeptics are, well, skeptical.

E-mail or call Speaker Boehner's office by clicking HERE.

E-mail or call the Romney campaign by clicking HERE.

E-mail or call the RNC by clicking HERE.

**UPDATE** POLITICO has written that Issa has sent a letter to Barack Obama demanding answers about why he asserted Executive Privilege. Toward the end of the article, we have more anecdotal indicators that may lend more credence to the claim that House Leadership wants this to go away:
Unlike Issa’s last letter to the administration, this note didn’t contain the signatures of House GOP leadership.

The contempt motion is sure to pass, but House Republican leadership is not whipping their members. Speaking aboard Air Force One en route to New Hampshire, White House press secretary Jay Carney declined to say whether the administration was trying to keep Democrats in line.
Compare that behavior with that of Congressional Democrats in 2009 - 2010 when it came to ramming Obamacare through.

Quite the contrast, eh?

Monday, June 25, 2012

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...



Video: Hillary shows lack of respect for Oath of Office

I realize this video is a few days old now but I can't get past the fact that while swearing in Mike Hammer as the new Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Hillary cackled while donning outlandish mardi gras glasses as she read the oath of office to Hammer so he could repeat it.

Humor is fine but it was classless for Clinton not to remove the glasses before swearing Hammer in with the formal oath. It's as if she doesn't take that oath seriously. Then again, Huma Abedin is her closest aide. Hate to say it but perhaps it's not possible for Hillary to take that part about 'domestic' enemies too seriously when someone like Abedin is her Deputy Chief of Staff.



Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Breitbart
Doug Ross
Drudge
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Mediaite
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
NewsBusters
Newsmax
News Real
Pajamas Media
Politico
Powerline
Rasmussen
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive