Holder’s Testimony Tomorrow – Bush Did It

Attorney General Eric Holder’s prepared statement that will be delivered before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been posted on the committee’s website.

I think I can summarize the gist of it in three words – Bush did it.

The similarities in the arguments between Holder’s testimony and the so-called report released yesterday by the Democrats on the Oversight Committee make a prima facie case for coordination on this by the White House, the Department of Justice, and the Committee Democrats.

Holder’s testimony is below. I have highlighted some relevant passages but have resisted the urge to insert commentary which might be scatological in nature.

Statement of
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
United States House of Representatives
February 2, 2012

Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the Committee, I am here today because I understand and appreciate the importance of congressional oversight, and because I am committed to ensuring the highest standards of integrity and professionalism at the Department of Justice. That’s precisely what I pledged to do – exactly three years ago tomorrow – when I was sworn in as Attorney General. And it is exactly what I have done.

My dedication to the Department’s mission is shared by an extraordinary group of
colleagues: the 117,000 employees who – each day, in offices all around the world – work tirelessly to protect the American people from a range of urgent and nprecedented threats – from global terrorism and violent crime, to financial fraud, human trafficking, civil rights abuses, and more. Over the last three ears, we’ve made a number of significant improvements, including policy and personnel changes that address many of the concerns that are the subject of this hearing. Today, I’d like to discuss some of these improvements in specific terms – and outline the steps that we have taken to ensure that the flawed tactics used in Operation Fast and Furious – and in earlier operations under the prior Administration – are never again used.

If some of my comments today sound familiar, it is because this marks the sixth time I have answered questions about this operation before a congressional committee in the last year. Let me start, however, with something that cannot be said often enough: allowing guns to “walk” – whether in this Administration or in the prior one – is wholly unacceptable. This tactic of not interdicting weapons, despite having the ability and legal authority to do so, appears to have been adopted in a misguided effort to stem the alarming number of illegal firearms that are trafficked each year from the United States to Mexico. To be sure, stopping his dangerous flow of weapons is a laudable – and critical – goal. But attempting to achieve it by using such inappropriate tactics is neither acceptable nor excusable.

That’s why, when I learned early last year about the allegations raised by ATF agents involved with Fast and Furious, I took action. In addition to requesting an Inspector General investigation last February, I ordered that a directive be sent prohibiting the use of such tactics. There also have been important personnel changes in the Department. And vital reforms reflecting the lessons we have earned from Operation Fast and Furious have been implemented.

Today, I reaffirm my commitment to ensuring that these flawed tactics are never used again. And I reiterate my willingness to work with Congress to address the public safety and national security crisis along our southwest border that has taken far too many lives.

Congress has sought answers to questions about law enforcement Operations Wide
Receiver
and Fast and Furious. And my colleagues and I at the Department of Justice have worked diligently to provide those answers. In addition to my frequent testimony before Congress, I have answered – and am continuing to answer – questions that have been submitted for the record during previous hearings. The Department also has responded to more than three dozen letters from members of Congress and facilitated numerous witness interviews. We also have submitted or made available for review more than 6,400 pages of documents to congressional investigators. This has been a significant undertaking for Department employees – and our efforts in this regard remain ongoing.

We also have provided Congress with virtually unprecedented access to internal deliberative documents to show how inaccurate information was initially conveyed in a letter sent to Senator Grassley on February 4, 2011. These documents show that Department officials relied on information provided by supervisors from the relevant components in the best position to know the facts. We now know that some of the information they provided was inaccurate. We also understand that, in subsequent interviews with congressional investigators, these supervisors have stated that they did not know at the time that the information they provided was inaccurate.

In producing internal communications regarding the drafting of the February 4th etter, the Department made a rare, limited exception to longstanding Executive Branch policy. This decision reflected unusual circumstances and allowed us to respond, in the most comprehensive way possible, to congressional concerns where the Department itself concluded that information in the letter was inaccurate. The documents we produced have answered the question of how that letter came to be drafted and put to rest questions about any intentional effort to mislead. All of our communications to Congress should be accurate and that is the standard I expect the Department to meet. At my direction, the Deputy Attorney General has instituted new procedures to increase safeguards in this area.

As I testified in a previous hearing, the Department does not intend to produce additional deliberative materials about the response to congressional oversight or media requests that postdate the commencement of congressional review. This decision is consistent with the longstanding approach taken by the Department, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, and reflects concerns for the constitutionally-protected separation of powers.

Prior administrations have recognized that robust internal communications would be
chilled, and the Executive Branch’s ability to respond to oversight requests thereby impeded, if our internal communications concerning our responses to congressional oversight were disclosed to Congress. For both Branches, this would be an undesirable outcome. The appropriate functioning of the separation of powers requires that Executive Branch officials have the ability to communicate confidentially as they discuss how to respond to inquiries from Congress.

I want to note that the separation of powers concerns are particularly acute here, because the Committee has sought information about open criminal investigations and prosecutions. This has required Department officials to confer about how to accommodate congressional oversight interests while also ensuring that critical ongoing law enforcement decision-making is not compromised, and is free from even the appearance of political influence. Such candid internal deliberations are necessary to preserve the independence, integrity, and effectiveness of the Department’s law enforcement activities and would be chilled by disclosure to Congress of such materials. Just as we have worked to accommodate the Committee’s legitimate oversight needs, I trust that the Committee will equally recognize the Executive Branch’s constitutional interests and will work with us to avoid further conflict on this matter.

I know the Committee also is keenly interested in policy changes that the Department has undertaken in the wake of Operation Fast and Furious. The ATF, which is now under the leadership of Acting Director Todd Jones, has implemented a number of key reforms and critical oversight procedures to prevent such a flawed operation from occurring again. These reforms include: clarifying current firearms transfer policies to more effectively prevent the criminal acquisition, trafficking, or misuse of firearms; implementing a new Monitored Case Program designed to facilitate closer coordination on sensitive investigations between ATF field and headquarters personnel; revising policies regarding the use of confidential informants to, among other things, prevent using Federal Firearms Licensees as paid informants except in limited circumstances; and reinforcing the importance of deconfliction and information sharing so law enforcement agencies can investigate subjects more effectively.

I’m also pleased to report that, under the leadership of the Department’s Criminal
Division, we’ve bolstered crime-fighting capacity on both sides of the U.S./Mexico border. We’ve done this by creating new cartel-targeting prosecutorial units; developing new procedures for using evidence gathered in Mexico to prosecute gun traffickers in U.S. courts; training thousands of Mexican prosecutors and investigators; extraditing more than 300 defendants wanted by U.S. law enforcement; successfully advocating for enhanced sentencing guidelines for convicted traffickers and straw purchasers; and pursuing coordinated, multi-district investigations of gun-trafficking rings.

This is an important start, but we have more to do. And no one knows this better than the members of our nation’s law enforcement community – including the ATF agents who testified before this Committee last summer. Not only did these agents bring the inappropriate and misguided tactics of Operation Fast and Furious to light, they also sounded the alarm for more effective laws to combat gun trafficking and improve public safety.

These agents explained that ATF’s ability to stem the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico suffers from a lack of effective enforcement tools. Unfortunately, in 2011, a majority of House Members – including all members of the majority on this Committee – voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and long guns – like AK-47s – in gun shops in four southwest-border states.

In this new year, I hope we can work together to provide law enforcement agents with the tools they desperately need – and have requested – to protect our citizens and ensure their own safety. Indeed, incidents of violence against law enforcement officers are approaching the highest levels we’ve seen in nearly two decades, even though violent crime is down overall. Last year, a total of 177 federal, state, and local officers lost their lives in the line of duty – a 16 percent increase over 2010. More than 70 of these deaths involved firearms – 20 percent more than the previous year. And, since the beginning of this year, an additional 14 officers have been killed – half of them in gun-related incidents.

That is unacceptable. The Justice Department is committed to turning back this rising tide, and to protecting those who serve on the front lines. We’ve designed and implemented a comprehensive new training initiative to provide law enforcement leaders with the information, analysis, and cutting-edge tools they need to respond to a range of threats – including ambush style assaults. We’ve developed and distributed 8,000 Officer Safety Toolkits, and have partnered with public safety professionals at every level to make sure our officers have the communications platforms necessary to share information more quickly – and to more effectively identify and combat threats. And we’ve built a robust network of elationships – between state, local, and tribal authorities; key federal partners; private sector stakeholders; and Cabinet-level agencies – to explore new strategies, invest in critical research, and ensure that this vital work remains a top priority. Let me be clear: nothing is more important than ensuring the safety of the brave law enforcement professionals who put their lives at risk for us each and every day.

But we can’t make the progress we need – and that our law enforcement partners deserve – without your assistance and your leadership. As I have said before, I am determined to ensure that our shared concerns about these flawed law enforcement operations lead to more than wornout Washington “gotcha” games and cynical finger pointing. The Department of Justice stands ready to work with you – not only to correct the mistakes of the past, but also to strengthen our law enforcement capacity in the future.

I look forward to discussing this, and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

Preemptive Strike By Cummings And Democrats On Oversight Committee

In what can only be considered a preemptive strike in advance of Attorney General Eric Holder’s appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) has released a report from the committee minority staff that blames Project Gunwalker entirely on the ATF Phoenix Field Division. It explicitly exonerates senior DOJ officials including Holder and Lanny Breuer.

From Cummings’ press release:

Cummings Issues Report Detailing Five Years of Gunwalking Operations in Arizona

Comprehensive Report Finds No Evidence that Senior Officials Approved Controversial Tactic

Washington, DC (Jan. 31, 2012)—Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a 95-page minority staff report entitled “Fatally Flawed: Five Years of Gunwalking in Arizona.” The report describes the results of the Committee’s year-long investigation into the actions and circumstances that led to multiple gunwalking operations in Arizona from 2006 to 2010.

According to a letter Cummings sent to Committee Members accompanying the report, “this report tells the story of how misguided gunwalking operations originated in 2006 as ATF’s Phoenix Field Division devised a strategy to forgo prosecutions against low-level straw purchasers while they attempted to build bigger charges.”

The report finds that this strategy failed to include sufficient operational controls to stop these dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of violent criminals, creating a danger to public safety on both sides of the border. Rather than halting operations after flaws became evident, ATF’s Phoenix Field Division launched several similarly reckless operations over the course of several years, according to the report, also with tragic results.

Cummings’ letter noted that he instructed his staff “to focus on the facts we have discovered rather than the heated and sometimes inaccurate rhetoric that has characterized much of this investigation.”

“Contrary to repeated claims by some, the Committee has obtained no evidence that Operation Fast and Furious was a politically-motivated operation conceived and directed by high-level Obama Administration political appointees at the Department of Justice,” Cummings wrote in his letter. “The documents obtained and interviews conducted by the Committee indicate that it was the latest in a series of reckless and fatally flawed operations run by ATF’s Phoenix Field Division during both the previous and current administrations.”

The report sets forth ten constructive recommendations intended to address specific problems identified during the course of this investigation.

As might be expected from the rabid anti-gunners composing the Democrat side of the committee, many of their “constructive recommendations” are calls for more gun control. They include continuing and expanding the multiple semi-automatic rifle reporting requirement, repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, enactment of a “dedicated firearms trafficking law”,  and more money for ATF.

The New York Times’ Charlie Savage has a long story on this effort by the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee to shield Holder and other DOJ officials. After three paragraphs trumpeting the Democrats’ conclusions and so-called exoneration of Holder, even the Times has to admit the timing is suspect.

Still, because the report was written by Democrats, the political impact of its conclusion exonerating high-level officials of wrongdoing may be limited. Its publication comes two days before Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is to testify before the committee.

In the Times article, there is significant discussion of the letter sent by DOJ to Sen. Chuck Grassley on February 4, 2011 which falsely denied any gun-walking took place. It seems to cast the blame for the false claims on Patrick Cunningham, the former head of the U.S. Attorney for Arizona’s criminal section. Cunningham, you may recall, has elected not to answer questions from Committee investigators and has pled the Fifth.

Holder To Testify On Groundhog Day

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced today that Attorney General Eric Holder is scheduled to testify before the full committee on February 2nd.

Attorney General Holder to Testify Feb. 2 on DOJ’s Response to Operation Fast and Furious

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa today announced that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has been scheduled to testify on February 2 about the Department of Justice’s knowledge of, and response to, gunwalking that occurred in Operation Fast and Furious. The Attorney General will be asked to address management deficiencies within the Department that occurred both during and after the conclusion of Operation Fast and Furious. This will include the Department’s steadfast refusal to disclose information following the February 4, 2011 letter to Senator Grassley, which the Department has withdrawn because it contained false information denying allegations made by whistleblowers about Operation Fast and Furious. The committee’s investigation has found documentation that numerous members of the Justice Department knew the letter to Congress contained false information both before it was sent and later withdrawn.

“The Department of Justice’s conduct in the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious has been nothing short of shameful,” said Chairman Issa. “From its initial denials that nothing improper occurred, to efforts to silence whistleblowers who wanted to tell Congress what really happened, to its continuing refusal to discuss or share documents related to this cover-up, the Justice Department has fought tooth and nail to hide the full truth about what occurred and what senior officials knew. Attorney General Holder must explain or reverse course on decisions that appear to put the careers of political appointees ahead of the need for accountability and the Department’s integrity.”

Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley have led the investigation into Operation Fast and Furious. In December 2011, the Justice Department explicitly informed the Committee that it would not deliver subpoenaed documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious created after February 4, 2011. In interviews with committee investigators, senior Justice Department officials who had management responsibilities for Operation Fast and Furious have also refused to answer questions about decisions and conversations that occurred after February 4, 2011.

The hearing will occur in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building. The start time has yet to be determined.

For more information about the committee’s investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, visit the website at www.FastandFuriousinvestigation.com.

The question now is which Groundhog Day will this be. Will it be the one in the movie where Bill Murray lives the same day over and over again or in this case Eric Holder tells the same lies over and over?

Or will it be the one where the mainstream media doesn’t see the shadow of the Obama Administration and finally begins to cover the scandal for what it is – an attempt to promote more gun control on the bodies of hundreds of dead Mexicans and two U.S. federal law enforcement officers?

Only time will tell.

Happy New Year, Mr. Attorney General!

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting that he testify before the committee on January 24th.  He was given a choice of six alternate dates for the hearings in either January or February. He is asked to confirm his attendance by January 3rd.

In the letter, Issa explains that the hearing will cover what senior Justice Department officials could have – and should have – done to prevent a reckless program like Operation Fast and Furious.

The full letter can be found here.

This letter puts the ball in Holder’s court as to whether he appears voluntarily before the committee or he is subpoenaed. If it is the latter, I think it devolve into a test of wills between the executive and legislative branches.

Holder – Those Mean Conservative Bloggers Are Saying Bad Things About Me

In a New York Times political piece that charitably can be described as utter rubbish, Attorney General Eric Holder blames bloggers and conservative commentators for some of his troubles.

But Mr. Holder contended that many of his other critics — not only elected Republicans but also a broader universe of conservative commentators and bloggers — were instead playing “Washington gotcha” games, portraying them as frequently “conflating things, conveniently leaving some stuff out, construing things to make it seem not quite what it was” to paint him and other department figures in the worst possible light.

While it is hard not to portray the most devious and political Justice Department since Nixon in a bad light, I would disagree with Holder’s partial explanation of why bloggers portray him in such a negative way. As might be expected, Holder is playing the race card.

Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

The bigger explanation according to Holder is that we are raving conservative ideologues who oppose him over his stands on the issues. Holder also feels that Republicans are after him as a payback for the way John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales were treated by their Democratic critics.

If it is ideological to want accountability for a program that has led to two dead Federal law enforcement officers and untold numbers of Mexican citizens, then I’m an ideologue as are bloggers like Mike Vanderboegh, David Codrea, Dave Workman, and others who have reported on Project Gunwalker.

Eric Holder needs to go if for no other reason than he is living in a fantasy world. What’s worse is the way Charlie Savage and the rest of the mainstream media excuses this behavior. It is the equivalent of the co-dependency between an alcoholic wife beater and a spouse who refuses to press charges despite repeated beatings. Both are sad, pathetic behaviors.

Rep. Issa On Hannity Discussing Holder’s Testimony

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) was on Hannity last night to discuss Attorney General Eric Holder’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. One of the things he said was this is not going away until they get the truth from Eric Holder. You know, I believe Issa when he says that. No matter how much Holder and the Obama Administration stonewalls, this isn’t going away and it isn’t going to get any better for them.

Tom Gresham on last Sunday’s GunTalk Radio show reiterated his prediction that Holder will be gone by the summer so as not to be an issue in the fall Presidential campaign. He well could be right.

Fox Legal Analyst On Holder’s Testimony

Fox News Legal Analyst Peter Johnson finds it a bit incredulous that on one hand Attorney General Eric Holder is “a hands-on” leader aware of what is going on in his department but yet has never discussed Operation Fast and Furious with the President. Johnson also discusses lying, perjury, and misstatements to Congress.

I tend to agree. I think it strains belief that Holder and Obama have not discussed this operation especially since two U.S. law enforcement officers have been killed with weapons from it.

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Bloomberg Willing To Give Holder A Pass

While he usually has no problem whatsoever in criticizing anything related to firearms, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is refusing to criticize Attorney General Eric Holder over Operation Fast and Furious. Unlike even ardent gun prohibitionist Jackie Hilly of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence who says the Administration needs to take responsibility, Bloomberg won’t even go that far.

According to CBS New York:

Bloomberg seems clearly willing to give Holder a pass.

“I’ve never been into looking at the past and trying to blame people for the past,” the mayor said.

What a damn wimp not to mention a hypocrite. Bloomberg has no problem blaming gun shows in Arizona and other states for crime in New York City. However, in one of the few cases with a clear trail of evidence of illegal purchases by straw buyers, he won’t say anything negative about the operation or those who ran it. He is just plain, flat out, pathetic.