General Info
Key Fast and Furious Documents Posted PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Monday, 25 June 2012 09:40

Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, has been investigating the government law enforcement strategy of allowing guns to “walk” across the Mexican border to drug traffickers for the past 18 months.  He and his staff have obtained several key documents through their investigation.  Links to key documents with a description of the importance of each follows here.

1.     October 27, 2009, Draft DOJ Strategy for Combating Mexican Drug Cartels: Provided the policy guidance to ATF that “merely seizing firearms through interdiction will not stop firearms trafficking to Mexico.”

2.    January 8, 2010, Briefing Paper: ATF briefing paper that explicitly states ATF’s strategy to “allow the transfer of firearms to continue to take place.”  It is unknown how high up in ATF and/or the Justice Department this briefing paper was provided.  A source other than the Justice Department provided it long after Senator Grassley started asking questions.  The Justice Department didn’t produce it until June 13, 2011.

3.    January 27, 2011, Letter from Senator Grassley to ATF (initial letter): Senator Grassley’s initial letter to DOJ asking if ATF was allowing gunwalking in any case, as whistleblowers had alleged.

4.    January 31, 2011, Letter from Senator Grassley to ATF: Senator Grassley’s letter making clear that ATF whistleblowers had the right to talk to Congress and not be retaliated against.

5.    February 3, 2011, ATF Special Agent Memo: A memo from an ATF agent in Dallas who had previously been a part of Group VII in Phoenix, the ATF group responsible for Operation Fast and Furious.  The agent had substantiated the claims of other whistleblowers to Senator Grassley’s staff, and the agent produced the memo to document what he had told staff.  It is known that some in ATF leadership received the memo but not known who else in ATF or the Justice Department received it.  The memo should have served as a red flag to the Justice Department not to send its February 4, 2011, letter the next day.  A source other than the Justice Department provided the memo to Senator Grassley long after he started asking questions.  The Justice Department has never produced this memo, only making it available to view in camera in November 2011.

6.    February 4, 2011, Letter from DOJ to Senator Grassley: Justice Department denied that ATF walked guns.

7.    March 9, 2011, Deputy Attorney General Cole reiteration of gunwalking policy: The Deputy Attorney General email represents the Justice Department’s policy change that supposedly ended gunwalking, but doesn’t necessarily address the problem of ATF’s failing to seize guns that agents have probable cause to interdict based on information from cooperating gun dealers providing ATF with contemporaneous notice of sales.

8.    April 13, 2011, Letter from Senator Grassley to DOJ regarding gun dealer emails: This letter quoted and attached emails from a gun dealer who expressed concerns to what ATF had been asking him to do and, because he had “some very close friends that are US Border Patrol agents in southern AZ,” wanted reassurances that the guns he had been encouraged by ATF to sell wouldn’t “ever end up south of the border or in the hands of bad guys.”  The emails show ATF assuring the gun dealer that ATF was monitoring the suspects, and organizing a visit of the Assistant U.S. Attorney to the gun dealer’s store to “put [him] at ease.”  This gun dealer was not the main gun dealer in Fast and Furious, but corroborated that gun dealer’s testimony.  Senator Grassley’s letter attaching these emails also asked, in light of these emails, if the Justice Department stood by its February 4, 2011, denial of gunwalking allegations.

9.    April 14, 2011, floor speech from Congressional Record with gun dealer emails: Introducing the above gun dealer emails into the Congressional Record.

10.    May 2, 2011, Letter from DOJ to Senator Grassley: The Justice Department’s response doubling down in its denials of ATF gunwalking.

11.    June 15, 2011, testimony to the House in front of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee: Senator Grassley’s testimony of his investigation to that point.  Summarizes details about the underlying Fast and Furious case.

12.    PowerPoint presentation from June 15, 2011, House Testimony:   Detailing the amount of guns sold in Fast and Furious.

13.    December 2, 2011, DOJ Letter to Senator Grassley and Chairman Issa – Retraction of DOJ’s February 4, 2011 Letter: Letter finally withdrawing the Justice Department’s assertion that gunwalking had not taken place, ten months after its initial denial and seven months after its reiteration of the denial.

14.    List of documents not produced by DOJ: On June 21, 2012, White House press secretary Jay Carney stated, “[W]e have provided Congress every document that pertains to the operation itself.”  This list indicates just a sampling of documents that the Justice Department has never produced but that investigators are either aware exist or have confidentially obtained copies of from whistleblowers.

 
Kids Help Create Program to End Bullying PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Ginny Grimsley   
Monday, 25 June 2012 09:31

A new youth-driven campaign aims to end bullying where it begins: with kids and the choices they make.

“I Choose” (www.WhatDoYouChoose.org), available free to schools and communities, asks children and teens to adopt and embrace one of five words representing powerful social concepts: friendship, kindness, respect, compassion, love. In teacher-guided discussions, they analyze the meaning of their word and then strive to use it in daily interactions. When confronted with a choice involving peer relationships, they’re asked to choose their word to put into action.

A Lance Armstrong “Livestrong”-style bracelet imprinted with “I choose (their word)” serves as both a reminder and a message to others.

“‘I Choose’ was developed with the help of the youth community at Yoursphere.com (kids-only social networking site). We asked who they thought could end bullying and 98 percent of respondents said ‘kids can,’ ” says Mary Kay Hoal, the website’s founder and president. “When we asked about the choices they thought would be effective in helping them end bullying, they chose these five.”

The education initiative is the first for Yoursphere’s non-profit arm, The Yoursphere Media Foundation and Coalition for Internet Safety Education and Reform (FCISER).

“Bullying is a global issue and cyber-bullying is at an all-time high,” says Hoal, an Internet safety expert. “Unfortunately, a lack of funding and awareness has left many schools and communities without a solid bullying education program.”

School and community representatives can apply for a free Anti-Bullying Challenge Starter Kit at WhatDoYouChoose.org. They’ll receive an information packet, poster (“Bullying is a choice”) and the “I Choose” bracelets.

“After the initial implementation of the challenge, we tell teachers and youth group leaders to periodically follow up with their students to analyze the impact that the program is having in their life at school and at home”, Hoal says. “Have the students noticed a shift in the school or classroom culture? Did they stand up for someone they normally wouldn't have? This follow-through can be very empowering because it not only reinforces the fact that their choices matter, but it proves to the students that they can have a real impact."

The need is made painfully clear at the whatdoyouchoose website, where students can share stories and videos about their own experiences with bullying.

Maddie, 15, remembers bullies starting to leave nasty notes in her locker and binder when she was in seventh grade. They called her “fat,”“ugly,”“worthless.” It got worse the following year, she writes.

“I started to believe them. … So I stopped eating, not completely but to the point where I would eat so little a day, I was very very light-headed and sick by the end of the school day. …I started wearing more makeup than I already was wearing and I was just a mess,” she writes.

“To try to forget about the hurt and pain those people caused me, I turned to cutting myself. Not a good idea. I never told my parents because they were in the middle of getting divorced.”

Maddie’s doing better now, she writes, but the experience taught her how intensely painful and isolating life is for the victims of bullies.

Adults and children who’ve already chosen their words also have a place to share on the site. Nine-year-old Gladys chose kindness.

“I choose Kindness because it’s like Love. Love shows up when Kindness comes around. So Kindness is like niceness and Love merged together,” she writes.

“It’s also like Friendship. If you’re kind, people want to be your friend, right? … It’s also like Respect. … If you’re showing Respect, that is a sign of Kindness. And last, it’s Compassion. If you’re helping others, isn’t that showing Kindness? Friendship, Respect, Love, and Compassion, ALL started with Kindness.”

It’s that kind of critical thinking that helps children remember they have a choice – and that with their choices they have the power to change people, Hoal says.

“‘I Choose’ is an important reminder to children that their choices do matter,” Hoal says. “We want them to stop, think and remember.”

About Mary Kay Hoal

Mary Kay Hoal is a nationally recognized Internet safety expert who provides technology tools and tips for parents at www.YoursphereForParents.com. She’s the founder and president of www.Yoursphere.com, a social network site for ages up to 17 and social media outlet for youth-oriented organizations. Yoursphere Media Foundation and Coalition for Internet Safety Education and Reform is the website’s charity arm. The ‘I Choose’ Anti-Bullying Challenge is its first education initiative.

 
IRS whistleblower office fixes must continue; Grassley seeks further accounting of progress PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Monday, 25 June 2012 08:58
June 21, 2012

 

Grassley presses Treasury Department and IRS to effectively implement whistleblower program 

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley is asking for a complete accounting from the Treasury Secretary and IRS Commissioner of questions he’s raised about the agencies’ flawed implementation of the IRS whistleblower program enacted in 2006.  Grassley has placed a hold on nominees for two high-level Treasury Department positions until satisfactory responses are provided.

“The way the IRS and Treasury Department have handled the whistleblower program enacted more than five years ago is inexcusable.  Any improvements have been made only under duress and in response holds I’ve put on administration nominees, and those changes are far less than what ought to be the standard,” Grassley said.  “The lack of progress is demoralizing valuable whistleblowers who often put their own livelihoods at risk to speak up about wrongdoing.”

Grassley, who authored the 2006 overhaul of the IRS whistleblower program, said the IRS continues to go out of its way to limit the applicability of the updated statute at a disservice to honest taxpayers and good government.

“The 2006 legislation was intended to obtain valuable information about major tax fraud and prevent the IRS from shortchanging whistleblowers.  So far, the IRS is using questionable tactics like the Justice Department did when the False Claims Act was updated 25 years ago to limit whistleblower awards, including now saying that collections of penalties under the Bank Secrecy Act aren’t eligible for whistleblower awards, for example,” Grassley said.

Grassley made his latest request for information today in a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and IRS Commissioner Doug Schulman.  It follows a June 15 response from the IRS to an April letter from Grassley and the IRS’s release of several other documents, including a much delayed Whistleblower Annual Report to Congress and new timelines for processing whistleblower claims.  “Ironically, the sliver of good news is that the IRS admits it has trouble processing whistleblower claims in a timely manner.  Even so, the agency fails to establish accountability measures for its leaders and senior executives to pay out awards. Those checkpoints are clearly needed if the program is to work as Congress intended.”

Grassley said the Treasury Secretary and the IRS Commissioner have an obligation to effectively administer the IRS whistleblower program.  The 1986 qui tam amendments to the False Claims Act, which Grassley also sponsored in Congress and which served as a model for the 2006 IRS whistleblower legislation, have recovered $30 billion to the federal treasury which otherwise would be lost to fraud by government contractors.

Grassley is a senior member and former chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance.  He is currently ranking member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. He has pressed for effective implementation of the IRS whistleblower program during Senate hearings and through a series of oversight letters.  Click to read letters from April 2012, September 2011, and June 2010 and IRS responses from June 2012, November 2011, and November 2010.

Click here to read Grassley’s June 21, 2012, letter to Geithner and Shulman.

-30-

 
White House press secretary on Fast and Furious PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Monday, 25 June 2012 08:55
Thursday, June 21, 2012

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, today made the following comment in response to the White House press secretary’s statements this afternoon on Operation Fast and Furious.

 

“It’s necessary to correct and clarify a few comments from the White House press secretary this afternoon on Fast and Furious.   His statement that the Administration has ‘provided Congress every document that pertains to the operation itself’ is hogwash.  Through my investigation, I know there are reams of documents related to ‘the operation itself’ that the Justice Department has refused to turn over to Congress.

 

“For example, the earliest known Fast and Furious briefing paper was sent to ATF leadership on December 2, 2009.  The Attorney General promised last summer that the Justice Department would send us all of the briefing papers.  However, the Justice Department never provided what is arguably the most important one.  The assertion that the Administration has given Congress every document related to Fast and Furious is just inaccurate.

 

“The accusation that I’m motivated by a desire for a ‘political scalp’ is baseless.  Yes, I want the responsible people held accountable.  An American agent died because of government policy and practice, and that can’t go unanswered.  Whenever the government does damage, credibility demands telling the full story and taking appropriate action.  Inaction erodes trust in government.

 

“If my approach to congressional oversight were dictated by political gain, I wouldn’t have voted to subpoena records from Alberto Gonzales and the Bush Justice Department over the firing of U.S. attorneys.  I wouldn’t have voted to hold Bush White House officials in contempt in the same matter.  I wouldn’t have voted to authorize subpoenas for documents on warrantless surveillance sought by the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  These weren’t popular moves with my fellow Republicans, but I thought they were right.  I’m committed to Congress’ constitutional responsibility of oversight regardless of which party is in the White House.  Congress has the authority as elected representatives of the people to get the facts to inform our legislative duties under the Constitution.  Any administration of any party should respect that.”

 

Links and documents describing the subpoena votes follow here.

 

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=12258

For Immediate Release
March 22, 2007

Judiciary Committee Subpoena Vote

During a Judiciary Committee meeting this morning, Sen. Chuck Grassley asked that he be recorded in support of giving the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in consultation with the ranking member, the authority to issue subpoenas to White House officials regarding the Committee’s inquiry into the administration’s dismissal late last year of U.S. attorneys.  Committee members voted by voice vote to give that authority to the Chairman.

 

"I wanted to express my support for getting the facts out on the table.  The sooner we do that, the better.  The executive branch - no matter who is President - is almost always extremely resistant to oversight requests from Congress.  For example, I've been very frustrated in my efforts of the last year to get information about the Food and Drug Administration's actions with regard to an antibiotic.  The FBI has continued to stonewall several of my requests.  Congress has a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight.  I've worked to meet that responsibility both when the spotlight is on an issue and when it's not.  Congress’ inquiries need to be legitimate oversight.  I want to make sure that we do the right thing for the American people."

 

 

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1207/Senate_Judiciary_approves_contempt_resolutions_against_Rove_Bolten.html

December 13, 2007

Categories:

 

·         Bad behavior

Senate Judiciary approves contempt resolutions against Rove, Bolten

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved contempt resolutions against Karl Rove, the former top aide to President Bush, and Joshua Bolten, the current White House chief of staff. The vote was 12-7.

The criminal contempt resolutions now move to the Senate floor, although no action on them is expected until next year.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), ranking member of Judiciary, voted in favor of issuing the contempt resolutions, saying the committee's oversight responsibilities must be upheld.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) also supported the resolutions.

"It is a vote that I would prefer not to make," Specter said. "It is a vote I make with reluctance."

The House Judiciary Committee has also approved contempt resolutions against Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has not set a date for a floor vote yet.

The committee subpoenaed Rove and Bolten over the summer as part of its probe into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys last year. Bush, citing executive privilege, refused to allow Rove and Bolten to testify or turn over documents to the panel. Bolten was subpoenaed in his role as custodian of White House records, while Rve called to testify over his knowledge on the role politics played in the firings.

Leahy said that he and Specter had working to modify the resolutions since they were first debated last week, but added that the panel must enforce its subpoenas if it is to be able to conduct effective oversight of the executive branch.

"The White House counsel asserts that executive privilege covers all documents and information in the possession of the White House," Leahy said, referring to White House counsel Fred Fielding. "They have further and claimed immunity even to have to appear and respond to this committee's subpoenas fr Mr. Rove and Mr. Bolten. And they contend that their blanket claim of executive privilege cannot be tested but must be accepted by the Congress as the last word."

Leahy called this stance "a dramatic break from the practices of every administration since World War II in responding to congressional committees."

Update: White House officials dismissed the Judiciary Committee vote as a political stunt, and they pointed out that Leahy had stated that the Justice Department under former President Clinton would not pursue criminal contempt citations against White House officials when it occurred back in 1999. The Justice Department has stated that it will not allow the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, to pursue this case in court. Taylor would normally represent Congress in any legal battle with the White House.

"Senate Democrats are showing that they're more interested in headlines than serious legislation, and they should be fully aware of the futility of pressing ahead on this," said Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, in a statement.

"It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, that the constitutional prerogatives of the President would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. Attorneys."

Perino added:"Senator Leahy may have summed it best in September 1999 when he said the following: 
'The criminal contempt mechanism, see 2 U.S.C. section 192, which punishes as a misdemeanor a refusal to testify or produce documents to Congress, requires a referral to the Justice Department, which is not likely to pursue compliance in the likely event that the President asserts executive privilege in response to the request for certain documents or testimony.'"

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/06/21/14147/nsa-docs-supoena/?mobile=nc

Breaking: Senate Judiciary Committee Authorizes Subpoenas For NSA Domestic Spying Documents

By Faiz Shakir on Jun 21, 2007 at 1:58 pm

The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted 13-3 to authorize chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to issue subpoenas for documents related to the NSA warrantless surveillance program. Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) voted with the Democrats on the committee to authorize the subpoenas for any legal opinions and advice the Bush administration has received regarding the NSA program.

The Center on Democracy & Technology has released a list of the seven “most wanted surveillance documents.” See the full list here.

The confrontation over the documents “could set the stage for a constitutional showdown over the separation of powers.” The Senate Judiciary Committee had previously scheduled to authorize subpoenas last week, but Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) blocked the Judiciary Committee from voting on the subpoenas.

On May 21, the Senate Judiciary Committee made at least its ninth formal request for the documents, but the Justice Department continued its stonewalling. Leahy issued the following statement about today’s vote:

This stonewalling is unacceptable and it must end. If the Administration will not carry out its responsibility to provide information to this Committee without a subpoena, we will issue one. If we do not, we are letting this Administration decide whether and how the Congress will do its job. [...]

Why has this Administration been so steadfast in its refusal? Deputy Attorney General Comey’s account suggests that some of these documents would reveal an Administration perfectly willing to ignore the law. Is that what they are hiding? [...]

Whatever the reason for the stonewalling, this Committee has stumbled in the dark for too long, attempting to do its job without the information it needs. We need this information to carry out our responsibilities under the Constitution. Unfortunately, it has become clear that we will not get it without a subpoena. I urge the adoption of the subpoena authorization.

The House Judiciary Committee has also threatened to subpoena the NSA documents. In a hearing last month, Principal Assistant Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Steven Bradbury refused the committee’s request to turn over the papers, but refused to assert executive privilege in doing so.

 

-30-

 
Grassley asks the President to detail scope of executive privilege claim for Fast and Furious PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Monday, 25 June 2012 07:18

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley has asked President Obama for a description of the scope of the executive privilege claim made this morning for documents in the congressional investigation of the Fast and Furious program, where the government allowed as many as 2,500 guns to be illegally purchased and trafficked to Mexico.

In a letter to the President this afternoon, Grassley asked if the privilege was being asserted only with regard to documents called for by a subpoena from the oversight committee in the House of Representatives that may have involved communications with the President, or if the privilege was being extended to records of purely internal Justice Department communications, not involving the White House.

Grassley has questioned the last-minute assertion of executive privilege by the President regarding Fast and Furious.  “At no point in the last 18 months since I started asking questions has the Department of Justice hinted that there was a potential that the documents might be subject to executive privilege.  That includes a face-to-face meeting with the Attorney General last night,” Grassley said.  “If it were a serious claim, the administration would have and should have raised it last night, if not much earlier.”

In fact, some White House emails involving the Fast and Furious program already have been turned over to congressional investigators, including messages between White House National Security staffer Kevin O’Reilly and William Newell, Special Agent in Charge of Phoenix field division for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

The congressional investigation began with Senator Grassley’s inquiry into whistleblower allegations first made in January 2011 that the government had allowed the transfer of the illegally-purchased weapons later found at the scene of the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  The Department of Justice denied the allegations to Senator Grassley for 10 months before being forced to withdraw its denial in face of evidence to the contrary.

“We owe no less to the family of Brian Terry than our best effort to get to the truth,” Grassley said.  “That has been my primary goal all along.  It is what motivated the whistleblowers to risk their careers, and it is why I will continue to insist on answers.”

The Iowa senator said the House committee investigating the gun-walking operation was forced to subpoena documents due to stonewalling by the Department of Justice and that the contempt citation is “an important” procedural mechanism in our system of checks and balances.  “Congress has a constitutional responsibility to determine what happened so that there’s accountability and this kind of disastrous government program never happens again,” he said.

Click here to see a copy of Grassley’s letter to Obama today.  The text of the letter is below.

 

June 20, 2012

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

 

Dear Mr. President:

This morning, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform began considering a contempt citation against Attorney General Holder for his refusal to deliver documents related to Operation Fast and Furious.  As you know, two guns that federal law enforcement allowed to be illegally purchased and trafficked to Mexico as part of that operation were found at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010.  I have been seeking documents related to this matter from the Justice Department since January 2011.

At the last minute before the House Committee proceedings began this morning, I received notice that you were claiming executive privilege.  After 18 months of investigation and interaction with Justice Department officials on this matter, this was the first indication that anyone at the Department or the White House believed the documents being sought were subject to executive privilege claims.  Last week, I questioned the Attorney General about a specific example of a document that I and the House Committee have been seeking and whether there could be a legitimate claim of executive privilege over that document and others like it.  The document I referenced is an internal email from the then-Acting Director of ATF to people at ATF and DOJ headquarters.

The Attorney General was not clear in response to my question whether he believed that executive privilege could be asserted with regard to that document or others like it.  Rather than executive privilege, the Attorney General talked about “deliberative process.”  He indicated a willingness to provide that document and others like it, if the possibility of contempt were to be taken off the table.  Yet this morning, it appears that you may be claiming executive privilege over the very same type of document—internal Justice Department communications not involving the White House—that the Attorney General said he was willing to provide.

Can you please provide a more precise description of the scope of your executive privilege claim? Are you asserting it only with regard to documents called for by the subpoena that may have involved communications with you?  Or are you extending your claim to records of purely internal Justice Department communications, not involving the White House?  Please provide a more detailed description of the documents that you are or are not asserting executive privilege to protect.

 

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Ranking Member

 

cc:        Darrell Issa

Chairman

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

U.S. House of Representatives

 
<< Start < Prev 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 Next > End >>

Page 312 of 462