Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 111
Like Tree20Likes

Thread: BRIAN TERRY MURDER and ATF OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    8,546
    Federal Court Orders Obama Administration to Release Fast and Furious Information

    When it comes to forcing the release of information from the Obama administration - especially records Congress has been unable to obtain - our attorneys and investigators are on a roll. There's no other way to put it.

    Just between the
    Benghazi and the IRS scandals, we've shown repeatedly that Judicial Watch is the most effective watchdog - private or government - in Washington.

    And now this week, it's the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the microscope for stonewalling records related to the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, in which the Obama administration
    allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, ultimately leading to the deaths of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and countless Mexicans.

    On July 18, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Obama DOJ must turn over to the organization a "Vaughn index" of all requested Operation Fast and Furious materials from the June 2012 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and subsequent September 2012 FOIA
    lawsuit. We sought all of the documents the Obama White House was withholding from the House of Representatives under executive privilege claims.

    The
    ruling by Judge John D. Bates lifted a lengthy 16-month delay of our open records lawsuit. And now the Obama DOJ, for the first time, must provide a detailed listing of all documents that it has withheld from Congress and the American people for years about the deadly Fast and Furious gun running scandal. The court ordered production of the information by October 1.

    The Justice Department opposed the Judicial Watch action, claiming it would interfere with the department's continuing litigation with the
    House Oversight Committee concerning these Fast and Furious documents subpoenaed in October 2011. (You may recall back in September 2012, President Obama whisked in at the last minute to protect his Attorney General by asserting executive privilege over the documents.)

    In the July 2014 opinion overruling the Obama Justice Department's request for an almost indefinite hold on our legal right to obtain this information under the Freedom of Information Act, Bates said:

    In the [February 15, 2013] order granting the stay, this court explicitly noted that the DOJ 'does not seek, and the court will not award, an indefinite stay pending ultimate resolution of the House Committee litigation,' and that 'the benefits of delaying this case might well [become] too attenuated to justify any further delay ...

    Because many of the issues to be resolved in this case do not overlap with the House committee, and because resolving those issues will not risk upsetting the delicate balance of powers in subpoena disputes between the political branches, the Court will require DOJ to produce a Vaughn index here.

    In fact, the court took it one step further suggesting that disclosing information to Judicial Watch might actually resolve the legal dispute now before Judge Amy Berman Jackson between the Obama administration and Congress:

    True, nothing in the subpoena enforcement context of House Committee would require DOJ to produce a particularized description of the withheld documents...But this is a FOIA case, and since 1973, when Vaughn was decided, courts in this circuit have required agencies to justify their FOIA withholdings on a particularized basis. And doing so here will not prematurely expose or resolve the executive privilege issues ahead of Judge Jackson and the political branches; it will merely permit the parties and this Court to cull from the dispute any documents as to which a valid, non-executive privilege reason for withholding exists, thereby narrowing or perhaps even resolving the case.

    To the extent DOJ argues that the mere production of the Vaughn index-not involving the release of any documents in dispute-would alter the historical balance of powers between the branches, any unbalancing would result from FOIA itself, a law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, and which this Court cannot ignore forever.

    Judge Bates also noted no court has ever "expressly recognized" President Obama's executive privilege claims that his administration is using to keep these documents secret from Congress and the American people.

    And what exactly is a Vaughn Index? This is in essence a report that describes the records being withheld by the Obama administration. Each
    Vaughn index must: (1) identify each document withheld; (2) state the statutory exemption claimed; and (3) explain how disclosure would damage the interests protected by the claimed exemption.

    In ordering the DOJ to provide Judicial Watch the Vaughn index, the Court ruled, "In this circuit, when an agency is withholding documents under exemption claims, courts require that the agency provide a Vaughn index so that the FOIA requester - at a distinct informational disadvantage - may test the agency's claims."

    And that's exactly what we are going to do. Because the Obama administration is playing games with FOIA law, including the president himself.

    As I mentioned earlier, on June 20, 2012, President Obama improperly asserted executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents the House Oversight Committee had subpoenaed eight months earlier. Two days later, we filed our FOIA request. When the DOJ denied that request, we filed a FOIA lawsuit on September 12, 2012.

    On February 15, 2013, Judge Bates stayed the case, in part to allow ongoing settlement discussions between the DOJ and the House Committee to continue. Judge Bates' order lifted the stay after a lengthy July 18 hearing. Generally speaking, the
    documents at issue are about how and if the Obama administration misled Congress about the Fast and Furious matter.

    Once again, Judicial Watch beat Congress to the punch in getting key information about another Obama scandal - this time, the Fast and Furious outrage. A federal court has ordered the Obama administration to produce information that could, for the first time, provide specific details as to who in the administration is responsible for Fast and Furious lies to Congress and the American people.

    This is a battle that put Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, saw Nixonian assertions of executive privilege by Barack Obama, and a hapless Congress in face of all this lawlessness. Finally, we may get some accountability for Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and the countless others murdered as a result of the insanely reckless Obama administration program.

    Now this Judicial Watch lawsuit for key Fast and Furious documents is one of several FOIA lawsuits Judicial Watch has filed in its effort to obtain information concerning the Fast and Furious scandal.

    Most recently, on
    May 28, 2014, Judicial Watch sued the DOJ on behalf of ATF Special Agent John Dodson, who heroically blew the whistle on Operation Fast and Furious and was then subjected to an alleged smear campaign designed to destroy his reputation.

    Congress tried to get this information by holding Holder in contempt and then engaging in a seemingly never-ending constitutional court battle, but Judicial Watch is about to crack this case with our simple FOIA lawsuit. For those of you who have been fighting this battle with us, thank you for your support. Please keep it coming! We're making some incredible progress in holding the government accountable. If you'd like to make a secure tax deductible contribution, please click
    here.

    Judicial Watch in Court: Minority Vote Turnout Up After Election Integrity Measures Implemented in North Carolina

    We've all heard the Left's (especially the Obama administration's) tired old "race-baiting" argument against voter integrity measures - ad nauseum. For example, if measures are put into place to require identification before casting a vote, the story goes, minority voters will be shut out of the voting process.

    But what if I told you that the evidence shows the precise opposite result occurred in North Carolina - that the number of minority voters actually increased after election integrity measures were implemented in the state? Because that's exactly what took place, as we pointed out in court earlier this month.

    Allow me to backtrack to put this development in context.

    On July 7, 2013 a federal district court in Winston-Salem, North Carolina held hearings on a motion to enjoin the enforcement of North Carolina House Bill (HB) 589 in the 2014 general election. The plaintiffs in that case include the U.S. Department of Justice run by Attorney General Eric Holder, the NAACP, and the League of Women Voters.

    The North Carolina legislature passed HB 589 in July 2013, and Governor Pat McCrory signed it into law in August, calling it "
    an overwhelmingly popular common-sense law."

    HB 589 contains a number of reforms relating to election integrity, including a provision for voter ID, the elimination of same-day registration, shortening the early voting period from 17 to ten days, and requiring that voters cast their ballots in their own precincts.

    Judicial Watch subsequently filed an
    amicus curiae brief in partnership with the Allied Educational Foundation supporting the State of North Carolina and the election integrity provisions. Now an amicus participant is not typically given the opportunity to participate in oral arguments but the court made an exception in this case.

    And on July 10, 2014, Christopher Coates, former Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division in the U.S. Department of Justice, presented our arguments in court. Mr. Coates pointed out that - despite the dire predictions of plaintiffs and their witnesses - voter turnout, and in particular minority turnout, actually increased in the recent primary elections held in North Carolina in May of this year, after the implementation of the reforms contained in HB 589.

    Following oral arguments, the court indicated that it would likely rule on the motion in the next few weeks.

    Now let's a look at the specific arguments we raised in court and with our
    amicus curiae brief filed on June 18, 2014 with the AEF and Christina Kelley Gallegos-Merrill. (Christina Kelley Gallegos-Merrill ran for County Commissioner of Buncombe County in 2012 and lost a very close election. She alleges that this loss was due to same-day registration during early voting and to improperly cast ballots.)

    Now, I realize full well that the Left never lets the facts get in the way of a good narrative. Liberals would prefer, as they have done in this case, to rely upon theory, conjecture and dishonest statistics to make their ideological and partisan points. But the numbers we found are clear and indisputable.

    In our amici brief, Judicial Watch and AEF compared the results of a May 4, 2010, primary election with those of a May 14, 2014, primary election, the first major election to be held in North Carolina since the passage of HB 589. And the turnout numbers are "devastating to the Justice Department's case because they contradict all of their experts' basis for asserting harm:"

    The results of this analysis ... show that black turnout increased in 2014 by every meaningful measure. Black share of the total electorate increased. The percentage of black registered voters voting increased. Using Census Bureau estimates, Dr. Camarota [the Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies] found an increase in turnout among blacks of voting age. Finally, while turnout increased across the board in May 2014, and while white turnout increased by 13.7%, black turnout increased much faster - by an astonishing 29.5%.

    You can read our brief in full
    here. But let me just call attention to several of the most important "inconvenient truths" for the anti-election integrity activists running the Justice Department:

    The Increase in Black Turnout in the Recent Primary Elections Compared to the Last Such Elections Shows That Injunctive Relief is Not Warranted.

    On May 6, 2014, thirteen days before the filing of the instant motion for a preliminary injunction, the State of North Carolina held primary elections for federal and state offices, including statewide primaries for the office of U.S. Senator. The North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE) posted turnout data for these elections on its website soon after the elections, which data subsequently was updated. It also posted turnout data for the last off-year primary held in May 2010.

    This data was analyzed by Dr. Steven A. Camarota, an expert retained by amici. He confirms that the "May 4, 2010 election makes for a good comparison with the May 6, 2014 election because both were primary elections held in May of a non-presidential year." He describes the result as a "natural experiment," because the "May 6, 2014 election is the first and only election to occur" after HB 589 repealed same-day registration and out-of-precinct ballots and restricted early voting.

    The results of this analysis - which may be reproduced using the publicly available data files - show that black turnout increased in 2014 by every meaningful measure. Black share of the total electorate increased. The percentage of black registered voters voting increased.

    Using Census Bureau estimates, Dr. Camarota found an increase in turnout among blacks of voting age. Finally, while turnout increased across the board in May 2014, and while white turnout increased by 13.7%, black turnout increased much faster - by an astonishing 29.5%. Dr. Camarota concludes that "a comparison of the May 2010 primary and the May 2014 primary indicates that the new law will not negatively impact black participation in the election process in North Carolina."

    These results are devastating to Plaintiffs' case, because they contradict all of their experts' bases for asserting harm. Instead of a real-world test of the effects of HB 589, Plaintiffs have relied on elaborate analyses of its probable effects; and their experts have not been shy about predicting dramatic and dire consequences. As just one example, Dr. Charles Stewart opined that 915,426 North Carolina voters (204,959 black and 710,467 white) would have been "burdened" in the off-year elections of 2010 by the changes HB 589 makes to same-day registration, early voting, and out-of-precinct voting. He calculates that close to 2 million North Carolina voters (769,492 black and 1,172,119 white) would have been "burdened" by those changes in 2012.

    Given such testimony, we might expect turnout not just to decline following the implementation of HB 589, but to crash. On May 6, 2014, however, both total turnout and black turnout significantly increased. This outcome is not merely another piece of evidence for the Court to consider. Rather, it fundamentally undermines Plaintiffs' entire case by showing that all of the various models, hypotheses, correlations, and conjectures presented in almost 900 pages of expert reports are unreliable, because they predicted the opposite of what happened.

    These facts also doom Plaintiffs' request for an injunction. Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of a claim asserting either discriminatory effect or intent if the challenged provisions of HB 589 do not, in fact, cause any discernible disadvantage to minority voters. Far from suffering irreparable harm, both black and white voters will, as the recent primary elections indicate, simply adapt to the new rules and continue to turn out to vote. Finally, in the absence of any such harm, no consideration based on a balance of the equities or on the public interest will weigh in favor of preliminary relief. Because the only real-world test that we have belies the Plaintiffs' predictions of harm resulting from HB 589, their request for an injunction should be denied.

    JW also notes that the "North Carolina General Assembly had a Substantial Interest in Passing HB 589" that should not be ignored: "In the legislative history of HB 589, its proponents claimed that preventing voter fraud and promoting public confidence in elections ... justified the enactment of the challenged election procedures. Plaintiffs now ask this Court to scrutinize the public policy reasons given by members of the General Assembly for HB 589, and to do so without acknowledging that the Supreme Court has recognized the importance and legitimacy of these very interests ... To allow this type of attack would be to allow an undue encroachment upon the legislative branch's prerogative to make the laws for the Tar Heel State."

    The Obama Justice Department attack on HB 589 was not unexpected. On the day the bill passed, Attorney General Eric Holder in a speech to the National Urban League concerning the Supreme Court's decision in
    Shelby Co. v. Holder said that a DOJ voting rights lawsuit against Texas "is the Department's first action to protect voting rights following the Shelby County decision, but it will not be our last."

    This statement was widely seen as a reference to a potential lawsuit against North Carolina over its photo ID law. Former Holder spokesman
    Matt Miller said the next day: "From everything I've read, the writing's on the wall that the North Carolina law is going to draw a DOJ challenge."

    On July 29, 2013, a group of political activists attended a meeting at the White House with Attorney General Holder, Labor Secretary (formerly Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division) Tom Perez, and President Obama. Those attending included representatives from the ACLU, the NAACP, and Rev. Al Sharpton.
    Sharpton subsequently told MSNBC that, based upon what he heard at the "unprecedented" meeting, he expected action regarding North Carolina "when this governor signs the bill."

    The recent election in North Carolina shows that the Obama administration is engaged in a race-baiting canard when it suggests that voting integrity measures suppress minority votes. HB 589 aligns North Carolina with the
    vast majority of states (42) that do not allow a person to register and vote on the same day. It is high time that the Obama administration comes into line with the majority of the American people who want to strengthen rather than weaken ballot box integrity.

    Regarding our partners, the Allied Educational Foundation, this is a charitable and educational foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through education. In furtherance of that goal, the Foundation has engaged in a number of projects which include, but are not limited to, educational and health conferences domestically and abroad. AEF has frequently partnered with Judicial Watch to fight government and judicial corruption.

    We've earned some victories together. Let's hope this is another.

    Until next week...





    Tom Fitton

    President

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/
    Last edited by kathyet2; 08-03-2014 at 11:53 AM.

  2. #72
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,063
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #73
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,063
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #74
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696



    Eagle Rising

    The Obama Administration may be the worst gun runners in the world.
    www.eaglerising.com
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #75
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,063
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #76
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,063
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #77
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,063
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #78
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,063
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #79
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    96,310
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  10. #80
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    35,723

Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •