Chuck Grassley

Uncategorized

Senator Grassley Continues To Prod Holder For Answers

May 19, 2011 by

Senator Chuck Grassley sent another letter on Monday to Attorney General Eric Holder regarding his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 4th. His office released it to the public today. Grassley noted that the Justice Department normally takes up to eight months to respond to Questions for the Record.

“I’ll keep pressing for answers from the Attorney General. The oversight work we’re doing on the ATF’s policy to let guns walk is incredibly important, and these questions should be answered in a timely manner, not the night before the Attorney General comes before the Judiciary Committee the next time,” Grassley said.

 The full text of his letter is below. The letter plus attachments is 14 pages long so I won’t include all of it here. However, go to this link to read what Senator Grassley sent to Holder today.

May 16, 2011

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder:

Last week I submitted Questions for the Record (QFRs) following the Judiciary Committee hearing on Oversight of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Historically, the Justice Department generally takes five to eight months to respond to QFRs. However, because of my ongoing investigation into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), I would appreciate receiving responses to questions on this topic much sooner. Attached is a copy of those questions. Please provide responses as soon as possible.

Additionally, I would like to reiterate the requests that have remained unanswered from my previous letters on this matter.

a) In my letter of February 16, 2011, I requested that you provide:

1) All records relating to communications between the ATF and the Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) who sold the weapons to Avila, including any Report of Investigation (ROI) or other records relating to the December 17, 2009 meeting “to discuss his role as an FFL during this investigation.”

2) All records relating to communications between ATF headquarters and Phoenix Special Agent in Charge (SAC) William Newell from December 1, 2010 to the present, including a memorandum, approximately 30 pages long, from SAC Newell to ATF headquarters following the arrest of Jaime Avila and the death of CBP Agent Brian Terry.

3) A copy of the presentation, approximately 200 pages long, that the Group 7 Supervisor made to officials at ATF Headquarters in the Spring of 2010.

4) Copies of all e-mails related to Operation Fast and Furious, the Jaime Avila case, or the death of CBP Agent Brian Terry sent to or from SAC Newell, Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) George Gillette, Group 7 Supervisor, or the Case Agent between November 1, 2009 and January 31, 2011.

I requested that these documents be provided on a rolling basis as they are identified and located.

I also requested that you please prioritize your search for documents and produce them in the following order: (1) documents in response to requests one through three, (2) documents in response to request four dated between December 13, 2010 and January 31, 2011, and (3) documents in response to request four dated between November 1, 2009 and December 13, 2010.

b) After ICE Agent Jaime Zapata was brutally murdered in Mexico on February 15, I was shocked to learn that, like Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, Agent Zapata had been killed with a weapon traced to an individual in the U.S. that the ATF had been aware was trafficking firearms. Accordingly, in my March 4, 2011 letter, I requested answers to the following questions:

(1) Although the gun used in the assault on Agent Zapata that has been traced back to the U.S. was purchased on October 10, 2010, how can we know that it did not make its way down to Mexico after the November investigation, when the arrest of these three criminals might have prevented the gun from being trafficked and later used to murder Agent Zapata?

(2) When did law enforcement first become aware that Morrison purchased the gun?

(3) Given that the likely recipients of any trafficked guns were so close to the border, did any ATF personnel raise concerns about the possibility of those guns being used against U.S. law enforcement? If so, how did the ATF address those concerns?

(4) Did any ATF personnel raise concerns about the wisdom of allowing individuals like the Osorio brothers or Morrison to continue their activities after the November weapons transfer?

If so, how did the ATF address those concerns?

In addition to answering those questions, I also requested all records relating to:

(5) When law enforcement officials first became aware of the trafficking activities of Otilio and Ranferi Osorio and Kelvin Morrison;

(6) Surveillance that may have been conducted on the Osorio brothers or Morrison prior to the November transfer of weapons between the ATF’s confidential informant and the Osorio brothers and Morrison;

(7) The November transfer; and

(8) Any surveillance that law enforcement continued to conduct on the Osorio brothers or Morrison after the November transfer.

Finally, I requested a briefing on the Zapata matter. I reiterated these requests in my letter of March 28, 2011, and am still awaiting both a response and a briefing.

c) In my letter of April 8, 2011, I requested written answers to three questions. The third read:

(3) What steps have you taken or do you plan to take to ensure that employees are aware of their right to communicate directly with Congress if they so choose?

In response, you provided me with information about the ATF providing its agents with information about the Whistleblower Protection Act in order to prevent retaliation against whistleblowers. While that is appreciated, it does not respond to my question. I asked about making employees aware of the appropriations provision that protects their right to communicate directly with Congress. As I outlined in that letter:

[A]ttempts to prevent direct communications with Congress are not a lawfully authorized activity of any officer or employee of the United States whose salary is paid with appropriated funds. Specifically, no officer or employee may attempt to prohibit or prevent “any other officer or employee of the Federal Government from having direct oral or written communication or contact with any Member, committee, or subcommittee of the Congress” about a matter related to his employment or the agency “in any way, irrespective of whether such communication or contact is at the initiative” of the employee or Congress (emphasis added).

I wrote to you on January 31 to ensure you were aware of these provisions and to express concerns that without proper guidance, managers might inappropriately intimidate employees to discourage them from speaking with Congress and thus unlawfully interfere with a Congressional inquiry. In order for Congress to exercise its oversight authority and act as a check on Executive power, it is crucial that agency employees are free to communicate directly with Members and Committee staff. Direct contact means contacts that do not necessarily involve Congressional liaison or agency management. Without such direct, unfiltered communications, Congress would still be unaware of, and unable to inquire about, the serious allegations involving the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and the sales of weapons to known and suspected gun traffickers.

Accordingly, please provide responses to the questions attached, as well as those outlined above, by May 30, 2011. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please have your staff contact (202) 224-5225. Thank you for your prompt attention these important issues.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Ranking Member

Attachment

Uncategorized

Sen. Chuck Grassley’s Prepared Statement At Hearings Yesterday

May 5, 2011 by

At the Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearings on the Department of Justice yesterday, Senator Chuck Grassley read  a prepared statement. I have omitted the parts not dealing with ATF and Operation Gunrunner.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s oversight hearing. It has been over a year since this committee last held an oversight hearing with the Attorney General so there is much ground to cover. In that intervening year, many developments at the Justice Department have raised serious questions about whether the department is putting politics before the interest of the American people. These are serious issues and I plan to ask a number of questions about why the department has applied the law inconsistently in certain areas, such as prosecuting national security leaks, and whether the department has provided apparently false information in response to congressional inquiries.

ATF Investigation:

I am extremely disappointed in the Justice Department’s response to my inquiry into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). I sent a letter to the ATF on January 27, 2011, seeking a response to allegations I received from whistleblowers that the ATF was allowing guns to be illegally smuggled to Mexico. Rather than allowing the ATF to respond to my letter, on February 4, 2011, I received a letter from the department which claimed the whistleblower allegations were “false” and that “ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.” I personally expressed my concern to the Attorney General about the accuracy of the department’s replies to my inquiries in our telephone conversation on Monday, May 2.

I was stunned that just a few hours after our conversation, the department sent another letter repeating the denial in slightly different words. According to Monday’s letter, “ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious did not knowingly permit straw buyers to take guns into Mexico.” It is particularly disturbing that the department would renew its denial at this late date in light of the growing evidence that the department’s claims are patently false.

Documents and witness testimony from employees at ATF show that the ATF knowingly allowed the sale of semi-automatic weapons to many straw purchasers, even after the ATF knew that guns they previously purchased were recovered in Mexico. I have in my possession a document which the ATF specifically requested be drawn up on March 29 of this year, apparently in response to this controversy. This document shows that just 15 defendants indicted on January 25 were responsible for purchasing one thousand, three hundred and eighteen (1,318) guns from Arizona dealers after being identified as targets in the ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious investigation. Of those guns, only 250 have been recovered in the United States. And that’s just from these fifteen straw buyers—the ATF enabled this pattern to recur many more times through additional buyers and guns. At the very least, this means that over 1,000 semi-automatic weapons are on the street because the ATF decided to wait and watch rather than getting in the way of the criminals’ plans.

The ATF also clearly knew that these guns were being exported south of the border to Mexico. According to internal ATF correspondence, as of June 15, 2010, the ATF was aware that at least 179 guns—traced back to sales which the ATF allowed to occur—had been recovered in crimes in Mexico.

While it appears that the ATF did make an effort to tally the number of the guns they allowed to walk, the reality is that those recovered represent just a small percentage of the total number of these guns the ATF has lost track of. Worst of all, on December 15, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in an incident at the border where two of these weapons that the ATF knowingly allowed to be sold to criminals were found at the crime scene. At best, the ATF was careless in authorizing the sale of thousands of guns to straw purchasers; at worst our own government knowingly participated in arming criminals, drug cartels, and those who later killed federal agents.

Aside from categorical denials that are clearly contradicted by the evidence, I have received absolutely zero substantive information from the department on this issue. On the contrary, the Department of Justice has intervened in every inquiry I have made with other agencies under the department and instructed them that the Justice Department alone is allowed to respond. The actions of the Department have only served to impede and frustrate this investigation. In fact, I have provided more information to the Attorney General than he has provided to me.

After ten letters to the department or the ATF, I have received five responses—two which provided false information, one which provided no information, one which sought to deter me from seeking information from other sources, and one which partially responded to my concern about attempts to prevent communications between whistleblowers and Congress.

Although the ATF is a separate entity, it has done these things under the Attorney General’s watch. The witnesses that were interviewed under subpoenas from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have made clear that Acting Director Melson was intimately involved in Operation Fast and Furious, lauding it as an extremely successful operation. However, even more troubling is that it is clear that individuals at the Justice Department were involved in certain aspects of Operation Fast and Furious.

The evidence that I and Congressman Issa have gathered is clear—the ATF sanctioned the sale of guns to straw purchasers that were then used in crimes on both sides of the Southwest border. Officials at both the Department and ATF knew of and approved the operation. Now, the Attorney General argues that this congressional investigation threatens the ongoing criminal prosecution of the straw purchasers. Yet, the department and the ATF chose to wait and watch those same straw purchasers do business for over a year before charging them with any of the criminal conduct. It was only after the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry that the straw purchasers were finally charged. I take exception to the notion that Congress must hold off on an investigation on the grounds that discovering the truth could hinder prosecutions. The goal of a trial is a search for the truth. The department is required to turn over any exculpatory evidence to criminal defense attorneys in any event. If our system of justice works the way it should, then the department cannot ultimately prevent the truth from coming to light. Congress should not allow its fact finding efforts to be stonewalled just because the details might be embarrassing to certain officials in the Justice Department.

Further, the department has tried to avoid questions by referring to the Acting Inspector General’s investigation. That inquiry does not preclude an independent congressional investigation. Moreover, it has become clear that conduct by attorneys at the U.S. Attorney’s office has been called into question. As you know, that is a matter that the Inspector General is statutorily precluded from investigating. So, unless the Attorney General has requested an independent review by the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the questionable conduct by department attorneys may go unchecked.

The conduct in question by both the ATF and the department is serious. It may have led to the death of at least one federal agent and countless other crimes in the U.S. and Mexico. The department should not stonewall Congress or seek to intimidate whistleblowers or other potential witnesses in congressional proceedings. This cannot simply be swept under the rug. I plan to continue my work with the help of Congressman Issa and get to the bottom of who signed off on this operation that failed so tragically.

I would also note that in the video from the hearings that I have seen of Attorney General Eric Holder testifying you will see over his left shoulder Asst. AG Ron Weich. Weich is the one who has continually sent the kiss-off letters to Senator Grassley.

Uncategorized

Grassley Fires Another Salvo At DOJ And Holder

April 14, 2011 by

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has fired another salvo at Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department over Operation Fast and Furious (aka Project Gunwalker). In his latest letter, Grassley releases e-mails sent by an unnamed FFL in Arizona to ATF Group VII Supervisor David Voth along with Voth’s replies. They show that at least one cooperating gun dealer was quite concerned that these straw purchases would end up in Mexico.

Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News reports that Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Grassley are sharing information received from the Justice Department. However, as she notes, the response by DOJ hasn’t been very forthcoming.

So far, Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who is also investigating the gunwalking scandal, say they have received little to no meaningful response to their document and information requests from ATF and the Department of Justice. Earlier this week when the Justice Department turned over selected materials to Rep. Issa’s staff, sources say Grassley’s staff were now allowed entry or access to the same materials.

Grassley notes in his letter that the Justice Department has not provided his office or staff with even one page of the requested documents. He goes on to say that he hasn’t requested that Sen. Pat Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issue a supoena or document request because “any such request would be unnecessary and duplicative of the process on the House side.”

The previous responses by the Justice Department from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich brought this from Sen. Grassley.

The Department’s failure to cooperate with my requests is especially troubling in light of the February 4, 2011, reply to my initial letter. In that reply, the Justice Department took the position that those allegations were “false” and specifically denied “that ATF ‘sanctioned’ or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons” to straw purchasers. The letter further claimed that “ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.”

I already provided evidence contradicting that denial in my February 9 and March 3 letters. In addition, attached you will find further documentation undermining the Department’s assertion. Specifically, the documents are emails between ATF officials and a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) in Arizona. These emails demonstrate that ATF instructed gun dealers to engage in suspicious sales despite the dealers’ concerns. The emails refer to meetings between the FFL and the U.S. Attorney’s office to address the concerns being raised by the FFL.

Grassley goes on to say that the Justice Department’s claim that they didn’t authorize or allow the sale of firearms to straw buyers is simply not believable. He then goes on to put Holder on the spot by asking the two following questions. He requests a response by April 20th.

1. Do you stand by the assertion in the Department’s reply that the ATF whistleblower allegations are “false” and specifically that ATF did not sanction or otherwise knowingly allow the sale of assault weapons to straw purchasers? If so, please explain why in light of the mounting evidence to the contrary.

2. Will you commit to providing the Senate Judiciary Committee with documents, or access to documents, simultaneously with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform? If not, please explain why not.

CBS News has video of Grassley discussing his letter and the email on the floor of the Senate.

The emails that have been released definitely show that the FFL was concerned about where these firearms went. He had friends who were U.S. Border Patrol agents and didn’t want them to be harmed by his cooperation with ATF. Beyond just the emails, Grassley’s staff has also interviewed the FFL. They are definitely worth reading to see how the dealers were “played” by ATF in the course of their so-called investigation.

Uncategorized

Senator Grassley Is Asking More Questions

March 25, 2011 by

Senator Chuck Grassley is asking more questions regarding Operation Fast and Furious (aka Project Gunwalker). This time he is asking the questions of the head of Customs and Border Protection. He wants if they knowingly let Jaime Avila and two of those arrested in Columbus, NM “walk” with firearms even though Border Patrol agents had stopped all three.

Grassley Presses for More Answers on Operation Fast and Furious, Allowing Guns to “Walk”

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley continues to press the administration for answers about the policy that allowed guns to “walk” over the Mexican border. Grassley began questioning the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in January. His requests for information about the involvement of various agencies, including ATF, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection have been stonewalled by the administration.

Grassley is now asking Customs and Border Protection for information about reportedly stopping Blas Gutierrez and Miguel Carrillo near the Mexican border. The two were recently indicted as part of a gun trafficking operation involving the mayor of Columbus, New Mexico. Additionally, Grassley is asking about allegations that Customs and Border Protection stopped Jaime Avila, who was recently indicted as the straw purchaser of weapons found at the scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder. In both instances, Border Patrol agents allegedly found the gun runners to be in possession of multiple weapons, but let the suspects proceed for unknown reasons.

“No longer can this administration stand idly by and answer every question by saying that the Justice Department Inspector General is investigating. There is too much at stake. U.S. agents may have been killed because of a tragically ill-advised policy,” Grassley said. “The President said a serious mistake may have been made here, and that, if so, he would hold someone accountable. It is clearer every day that serious mistakes were made. Now it’s time for accountability.”

Grassley’s letter to Customs and Border Protection (March 16, 2011) made a specific request for officials knowledgeable about the agency’s involvement in Operation Fast and Furious be made available at a briefing that was already scheduled to take place with Grassley staff. Customs and Border Protection did not make officials available and there have been no attempts by the agency to schedule a subsequent briefing when officials would be available to answer the questions in Grassley’s letter.

Senator Grassley’s letter to Alan Bersin, Comissioner of Customs and Border Protection, can be found here.

Uncategorized

Grassley Letter To Holder And Supporting Documentation

March 3, 2011 by 1 Comment

Senator Chuck Grassley has written to Attorney General Eric Holder again in response to another brush-off letter from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich telling Sen. Grassley, in so many words, to butt out. Grassley didn’t take kindly to this brush-off.

Looking at Weich’s background before becoming Assistant Attorney General, one would think he would know better than to tell any Senator to butt out. Weich served as Chief Counsel to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid just before going to the Justice Department and as Chief Counsel to the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Even though Grassley is a Republican and in the minority party in the Senate, senators will close ranks when they see one of their own not being treated with the respect that they think he or she deserves. They may despise the person but they want the position treated with all due respect. Senator Pat Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, may not want to have to deal with Project Gunwalker but there will be a limit to how long he will allow Grassley to be dumped on by Eric Holder’s minions.

I have embedded the Grassley letter below. Two things stand out. First, he has the goods on ATF and he knows it. Second, he doesn’t like being lied to and is not going to tolerate it.

2011-03-03 CEG to DOJ-ATF

Uncategorized

Memo To ATF – Grassley Not Impressed With Your Dog And Pony Show

February 17, 2011 by 1 Comment

Senator Chuck Grassley is like a dog after a bone when it comes to investigations. It is a point of pride for the Senator. He even puts this on his website when describing himself:

As Iowa’s hired hand in Washington, Grassley immerses himself in the nitty-gritty work of rigorous government oversight. Grassley is a leader when it comes to shedding light on the federal bureaucracy and bringing transparency to the people’s business.

In fact, Grassley’s whistleblower laws have become the federal government’s #1 anti-fraud tool. Thanks to his ongoing legislative victories to protect whistleblowers, taxpayers have gotten back more than $22 billion that would otherwise have been lost to fraud .

So when the ATF sent Asst. Director McDormand and a delegation of ATF heavies to brief Sen. Grassley on Operation Gunrunner, I’m guessing they thought they could blow smoke and he’d buy it. According to an internal report presented at a meeting of Special Agents in Charge, they thought it went well.

ATF briefed Senator Grassley’s office relative to memo written to ATF and recent whistleblower allegations concerning Southwest Border. AD McDermond thought meeting went well and that ATF delegation provided full debriefing of Project Gunrunner and ATF’s Firearms Trafficking strategy overall.

It didn’t. Sen. Grassley sent a new letter to Attorney General Eric Holder describing the meeting saying:

I appreciate the staff briefing that Department of Justice (DOJ) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) officials provided on February 10, 2011. However, the briefers focused on general issues related to challenges in successfully prosecuting gun trafficking cases. They refused to answer specific questions about the facts and circumstances that led me to request the briefing.

Specifically, they refused to say whether the approximately 103 weapons seized according to the Jaime Avila indictment were the only seizures related to the nearly 770 weapons mentioned in the indictment. They refused to say whether the third assault rifle purchased by Avila in January 2010—the one not found at the scene of CBP Agent Brian Terry’s shooting—has been recovered elsewhere. When asked whether ATF had encouraged any gun dealer to proceed with sales to known or suspected traffickers such as Avila, the briefers said only that they did not have any “personal knowledge” of that.

So now as a result of a dog and pony show gone bad, Sen. Grassley is now asking for very detailed documents. His document request is so specific that it indicates for all the world to see that he has inside information from whistle-blowers and he won’t be put off with a meaningless data dump. Here is what he requested:

Therefore, please provide the following documents to the Committee:

1) All records relating to communications between the ATF and the Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) who sold the weapons to Avila, including any Report of Investigation (ROI) or other records relating to the December 17, 2009 meeting “to discuss his role as an FFL during this investigation.”

2) All records relating to communications between ATF headquarters and Phoenix Special Agent in Charge (SAC) William Newell from December 1, 2010 to the present, including a memorandum, approximately 30 pages long, from SAC Newell to ATF headquarters following the arrest of Jaime Avila and the death of CBP Agent Brian Terry.

3) A copy of the presentation, approximately 200 pages long, that the Group 7 Supervisor made to officials at ATF Headquarters in the Spring of 2010.

4) Copies of all e-mails related to Operation Fast and Furious, the Jaime Avila case, or the death of CBP Agent Brian Terry sent to or from SAC Newell, Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) George Gillette, Group 7 Supervisor, or the Case Agent between November 1, 2009 and January 31, 2011.

Grassley set a deadline of February 23rd for receipt of the first batch of documents.

David Codrea sent a Freedom of Information Act request today requesting “any memorandum, report, summary or other communication that describes what happened at the meeting (with Grassley), including a description of any oral briefing and what was said by both sides, and include copies of any such documents filed or stored, or designated for filing and storage, at the Office of Public and Government Affairs.” It will remain to be seen what David gets back and how redacted any documents will be.

As an aside, SAC William Newell has been transferred to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City as the new ATF Attache. This and the thought that ASAC George Gillette could be promoted to head the Phoenix Division has caused much discussion on CleanUpATF.org.

I think Sen. Grassley’s request for specific documents has just upped the ante exponentially. The question then is when the mainstream media will deem it important enough to cover. We are still waiting for most of them to even acknowledge that a weapon sold in the U.S. could have killed Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

UPDATE: The forum at CleanUpATF.org is buzzing with reactions to Grassley’s latest letter. Start with the post by “Zorro” and read up.