Thread: House files suit against Holder over gov't records

House files suit against Holder over gov't records
Associated PressBy LARRY MARGASAK | Associated Press – 22 mins ago

Email
Print

Related Content

FILE - In this July 26, 2012 file photo, Attorney General Eric Holder speaks in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington. The Republican-run House has asked a federal court to enforce a subpoena against Attorney General Eric Holder. The subpoena demands that Holder produce records related to a bungled gun-tracking operation known as Operation Fast and Furious. The failure of Holder and House Republicans to work out a deal on the documents led to a vote in June that held the attorney general in contempt of Congress. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

FILE - In this July 26, 2012 file …

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican-run House on Monday asked a federal court to enforce a subpoena against Attorney General Eric Holder, demanding that he produce records on a bungled gun-tracking operation known as Operation Fast and Furious.

The lawsuit asked the court to reject a claim by President Barack Obama asserting executive privilege, a legal position designed to protect certain internal administration communications from disclosure.

The failure of Holder and House Republicans to work out a deal on the documents led to votes in June that held the attorney general in civil and criminal contempt of Congress. The civil contempt resolution led to Monday's lawsuit.

Holder refused requests by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to hand over — without preconditions — documents that could explain why the Justice Department initially denied in February 2011 that a risky tactic was used to allow firearms to "walk" from Arizona to Mexico.

Federal agents lost track of many of the guns. The operation identified more than 2,000 illicitly purchased weapons, and some 1,400 of them have yet to be recovered.

The department failed to acknowledge its incorrect statement for 10 months.

"Portentously, the (Justice) Department from the outset actively resisted cooperating fully with the committee's investigation," the lawsuit said.

"Among other things, the department initially declined to produce documents; later produced only very limited numbers of documents in piecemeal fashion; refused to make available to the committee certain witnesses; and limited the committee's questioning of other witnesses who were made available," it said.

The Justice Department previously said that it would not bring criminal charges against its boss. Democrats have labeled the civil and criminal contempt citations a political stunt.

Numerous lawmakers said this was the first time a Cabinet official had been held in contempt.

The lawsuit asked that:

—The executive privilege claim by Obama be declared invalid.

—Holder's objection to the House records subpoena be rejected.

—The attorney general produce all records related to the Justice Department's incorrect assertion in early 2011 that gun-walking did not take place.

The administration's position reciting the words "executive privilege" rests entirely on a common law privilege known as the "deliberative process privilege" and "is legally baseless," says the lawsuit.

Historically, there are two main types of executive privilege. One privilege, for "presidential communications," only covers the president and the work of top aides preparing advice for the president.

The other, known as "deliberative process privilege," covers a much wider category of administration officials, even if they weren't working on something for the president specifically. Presidents are required to have a stronger argument to justify keeping secrets under this broader authority, which can involve documents they never saw or were even intended to see.

A federal appeals court has ruled that this broader privilege is easier for Congress to overcome and it "disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct has occurred."

The lawsuit said the documents "would enable the committee (and the American people) to understand how and why the department provided false information to Congress and otherwise obstructed the committee's concededly legitimate investigation."

It challenged the executive privilege claim on several legal grounds, contending it was asserted indirectly by the deputy attorney general in a letter to Congress, and that the documents do not involve any advice to the president. The department's actions do not involve core constitutional functions of the president, the suit said.

The suit contended the administration's position, if accepted, "would cripple congressional oversight of executive branch agencies...."

In past cases, courts have been reluctant to settle disputes between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Given recent experience, the Republican-controlled committee's lawsuit could result in a compromise or an appeal by the losing side.

In 2008, a federal judge rejected the George W. Bush administration's position that senior presidential advisers could not be forced to testify to the House Judiciary Committee. The decision was regarded as vindication of Congress's investigative powers.

But the ruling also said that Congress's authority to compel testimony from executive branch officials was not unlimited. The Bush administration appealed, but after Barack Obama became president in 2009, the newly elected Congress and the administration reached a settlement. Some of the documents at issue in the case were provided to the House and former White House counsel Harriet Miers testified.

The battle over congressional subpoenas for documents and testimony arose when Congress looked into whether political motives and White House involvement had prompted the dismissal of U.S. attorneys.

Gun-walking long has been barred by Justice Department policy, but federal agents in Arizona experimented with it in three investigations during the George W. Bush administration before Operation Fast and Furious. The agents in Arizona lost track of several hundred weapons in the three earlier operations.

___

Associated Press Writer Pete Yost contributed to this story.


House files suit against Holder over gov't records - Yahoo! News

August 13, 2012 by Tim Brown
Fast and Furious Bombshell Explodes



vicente-zambada-niebla

According to a high-ranking Mexican drug cartel operative, who is currently in U.S. custody, there are some things that the American people are not being told about Fast and Furious. We obviously knew something was not being told behind the scenes because of Barack Obama issuing executive privilege and Holder being in contempt of Congress for failing to comply. But this makes even the sleepiest of people perk up their ears and pay attention.

Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, known as the Sinaloa Cartel’s “logistics coordinator,” has brought allegations that the gunwalking operation had nothing to do with tracking guns and everything to do with supplying them. According to Zambada-Niebla it was part of an elaborate agreement between the U.S. and Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel to take down rival cartels.

The Blaze reports,

Zambada-Niebla claims that under a “divide and conquer” strategy, the U.S. helped finance and arm the Sinaloa Cartel through Operation Fast and Furious in exchange for information that allowed the DEA, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies to take down rival drug cartels. The Sinaloa Cartel was allegedly permitted to traffic massive amounts of drugs across the U.S. border from 2004 to 2009 — during both Fast and Furious and Bush-era gunrunning operations — as long as the intel kept coming.

This pending court case against Zambada-Niebla is being closely monitored by some members of Congress, who expect potential legal ramifications if any of his claims are substantiated. The trial was delayed but is now scheduled to begin on Oct. 9.

Zambada-Niebla is reportedly a close associate of Sinaloa Cartel kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman and the son of Ismael “Mayo” Zambada-Garcia, both of which remain fugitives, likely because of the deal made with the DEA, federal court documents allege.

Zambada-Niebla believes that he, like the leadership of the Sinaloa cartel, was “immune from arrest or prosecution” because he also actively provided information to US federal agents.

Zamada-Niebla’s attorney filled a motion for discovery in U.S. District Court in July 2011 which alleged the above agreement stating:

”the Sinaloa Cartel under the leadership of defendant’s father, Ismael Zambada-Niebla and ‘Chapo’ Guzman, were given carte blanche to continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs into Chicago and the rest of the United States and were also protected by the United States government from arrest and prosecution in return for providing information against rival cartels which helped Mexican and United States authorities capture or kill thousands of rival cartel members.”

If these accusations could be proven in court, it could have severe ramifications to both the Bush and Obama administrations. Of course the feds are denying the allegations, just like they denied the allegations of the ATF whistleblowers like Vince Cefalu, John Dodson, Jay Dobyns, and Peter Focelli. What would we expect from a corrupt administration?

Zambada-Niebla’s lawyer is seeking government “documents, files, recordings, notes, and additional forms of evidence” that would support claims that federal agents personally assured Zambada-Niebla that “he would not be arrested, that the agents knew of his prior cooperation … that they just wanted to continue receiving information … “[and] that the arrangements with him had been approved at the highest levels of the United States government.”

Zambada-Niebla’s claims are confirmed by statements made last month by Guillermo Terrazas Villanueva, a spokesman for the Chihuahua state government in northern Mexico, who said,

U.S. agencies ”don’t fight drug traffickers,“ instead ”they try to manage the drug trade.”

Villaneuva, also pointed the finger at the U.S. in providing an example of how it fights the ‘war on drugs” stating, “It’s like pest control companies, they only control. If you finish off the pests, you are out of a job. If they finish the drug business, they finish their jobs.”

There is also corroboration of the story with Humberto Loya-Castro, who was a high-ranking member of the Sinaloa Cartel. He was arrested in 1995. In 2008 prosecutors dismissed his case after he became an informant for the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern district of California in 2005. According to a motion filed in federal court:

“This strategy, which he calls ‘Divide & Conquer,’ using one drug organization to help against others, is exactly what the Justice Department and its various agencies have implemented in Mexico. In this case, they entered into an agreement with the leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel through, among others, Humberto Loya-Castro, to receive their help in the United States government’s efforts to destroy other cartels.”

“Indeed, United States government agents aided the leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel.”

Of course the federal government denies the accusations and claims the deal was only for Layo-Castro.

Though Zambada-Niebla was arrests by Mexican soldiers in 2009, and the U.S. was not involved in his arrest, he was extrdited to Chicago to face federal drug charges in February of 2010. He claimed that he had immunity via an agreement, but the DEA says that there was no “official” immunity deal, but they admitted that he may have acted as an informant.

While Zambada-Niebla’s legal council requested records pertaining to Fast and Furious, they were denied. Here is the claim they made in their motion for the documents:

“It is estimated that approximately 3,000 people were killed in Mexico as a result of ‘Operation Fast and Furious,’ including law enforcement officers in the state of Sinaloa, Mexico, the headquarters of the Sinaloa cartel. The Department of Justice’s leadership apparently saw this as an ingenious way of combating drug cartel activities.”

“It has recently been disclosed that in addition to the above-referenced problems with ‘Operation Fast & Furious,’ the DOJ, DEA, and the FBI knew that some of the people who were receiving the weapons that were being allowed to be transported to Mexico, were in fact informants working for those organizations and included some of the leaders of the cartels.”

The federal government continues to deny discovery for the defense claiming that they are “classified materials” and argued that they “do not support the defendant’s claim that he was promised immunity or public authority for his actions.”

Well that is just like the federal government, isn’t it? You can’t have the documentation because we think it should be classified and besides it doesn’t make your case. Oh really? Well maybe it doesn’t make the case, but I can tell you this: The federal government has a long history of trust issues and the administration that claimed it would be the most transparent has been anything but that.

Read more: Fast and Furious Bombshell Explodes : Freedom Outpost

Contempt Lawsuit Against Holder: NBC Ignores, ABC and CBS Do Bare Minimum



by Mary Chastain 14 Aug 2012 61 post a comment
Today the Oversight Committee filed a civil contempt lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder. This is a big story, but ABC and CBS did the bare minimum and NBC completely ignored it.

NBC Nightly News

Last year Cam Edwards, host of Cam and Company on NRA News, said NBC would rather have Brian Williams talk about puppies for 30 minutes than touch Fast & Furious. That sort of happened tonight! Mr. Williams talked about everything, including a puppy rescue team in Detroit, except the lawsuit against Mr. Holder. There was too much time spent on Helen Gurley Brown. Her passing is important, but NBC could have cut it in half and given Fast & Furious a few seconds.

ABC World News Tonight

Diane Sawyer spent maybe 20-30 seconds on the lawsuit. It was a snippet, not a segment. She even fumbled the introduction. She called it the “showdown between Republicans and House of Representative and Attorney General Eric Holder.” Ms. Sawyer also spent quite a bit of time on Helen Gurley Brown. That segment could also be cut in half to devote a full minute to the historic lawsuit.

CBS Evening News

Bob Schieffer filled in for Scott Pelley tonight. They devoted only 20-30 seconds, but they can’t be criticized too much because Sharyl Attkisson broke the lawsuit story last night. But Mr. Schieffer did do the absolute bare minimum. CBS did devote quite a bit of time about some massive prawns invading the Gulf of Mexico.

There are still plenty of people out there who rely on the big three to give them the important news. It's sad they're being deprived. Someone needs to remind the big three 53% of Americans approve of the contempt vote and 69% even think President Obama should release the documents.

Contempt Lawsuit Against Holder: NBC Ignores, ABC and CBS Do Bare Minimum


Let me say this about that!!