Most Corrupt Justice Department In U.S. History Stonewalling Internal Investigators

Justice Department Stonewalling Internal Investigators – Daily Caller

.
…………

.
The head investigator charged with overseeing the Department of Justice testified Tuesday that various government agencies have repeatedly stymied his investigation efforts, and have done so in direct violation of federal law.

Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General of the Department of Justice, was testifying before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on investigative access to government information.

“Since 2010 and 2011,” he said. “The FBI and some other Department components have not read Section 6 (a) of the IG Act as giving my Office access to all records in their possession and therefore have refused our requests for various types of Department records. As a result, a number of our reviews have been significantly impeded.”

“It’s deeply troubling that Department of Justice leadership has stonewalled the Inspector General’s investigations several times and only produced requested documents after officials concluded that it would help them,” lamented Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the committee’s chairman. “The Inspector General’s activities should not be dependent upon the whims of a particular administration. Efforts to restrict or delay an Inspector General’s access to key materials in turn deprive the American people and their elected representatives of timely oversight information with which to evaluate an agency’s performance.”

Inspectors general are independent investigative officers whose job is to ensure that government agencies are not violating the law or engaging in fraudulent behavior. In August of this year, nearly 50 inspectors general signed a letter to Congress alerting politicians to “the serious limitations on access to records that have recently impeded the work of Inspectors General at the Peace Corps, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Justice.”

These officers “faced restrictions on their access to certain records available to their agencies that were needed to perform their oversight work in critical areas,” the letter explained. “Limiting access in this manner is inconsistent with the IG Act [the 1978 law that created the inspector general offices], at odds with the independence of Inspectors General, and risks leaving the agencies insulated from scrutiny and unacceptably vulnerable to mismanagement and misconduct – the very problems that our offices were established to review and that the American people expect us to be able to address.”

During his testimony, Horowitz cited a number of examples of administrative obfuscation, including government actions that significantly delayed their 2012 report on the notorious “Fast and Furious” scandal, in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives facilitated Mexican drug cartels purchasing hundreds of guns, and later losing track of them.

In each of these instances, Horowitz explained, “the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General granted us permission to access the records we sought… However, as I have publicly testified previously, I have several significant concerns with this process. First and foremost, this process is inconsistent with the clear mandate of Section 6(a) of the IG Act. The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General should not have to order Department components to provide us with access to records that the Congress has already made it clear in the IG Act that we are entitled to review. Second, requiring the OIG to have to obtain the permission of Department leadership in order to review agency records compromises our independence.”

In other words, the administration is making the watchdog agencies jump through hoops to do their jobs, significantly delaying their findings, wasting taxpayer dollars, and compromising the oversight reports.

As the IGs’ original letter of complaint plainly states, “the IG Act is clear: no law restricting access to records applies to Inspectors General unless that law expressly so states, and that unrestricted access extends to all records available to the agency, regardless of location or form.”

“Our struggles to access information relevant to our reviews in a timely manner continue to cause delays to our work and consume resources,” Horowitz said. “They also have a substantial impact on the morale of the auditors, analysts, agents, and lawyers who work extraordinarily hard every day to do the difficult oversight work that is expected of them. … For the past 25 years, my Office has demonstrated that effective and independent oversight saves taxpayers money and improves the Department’s operations. Actions that limit, condition, or delay access to information have substantial consequences for our work and lead to incomplete, inaccurate, or significantly delayed findings or recommendations.”

Other investigations hindered by the government included reviewing “whether Department officials violated the civil rights and civil liberties of individuals detained as material witnesses in national security cases in the wake ofthe September 11 terrorist attacks,” FBI use of wiretaps, and sexual assault within the Peace Corps.

“The issues facing the DOJ OIG, the EPA OIG, and the Peace Corps OIG are not unique,” the August complaint stated. “Other Inspectors General have, from time to time, faced similar obstacles to their work, whether on a claim that some other law or principle trumped the clear mandate of the IG Act or by the agency’s imposition of unnecessarily burdensome administrative conditions on access. Even when we are ultimately able to resolve these issues with senior agency leadership, the process is often lengthy, delays our work, and diverts time and attention from substantive oversight activities. This plainly is not what Congress intended when it passed the IG Act.”

.

.

Holder Justice Department Spending Over Half A Million Taxpayer Dollars On LinkedIn Profile

Justice Dept To Spend $544,000 On A… What!? You Won’t Believe This – Independent Journal Review

.

.
According to the government website FedBizOpps.gov, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division is spending $544,000 on a new LinkedIn profile:

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Criminal Division is paying $544,000 for a shiny new LinkedIn profile, in the wake of a partial government shutdown that followed a top Democrat’s assurance that ‘the cupboard is bare, there’s no more cuts to make.’

The LinkedIn contract, first reported in the Washington Free Beacon, includes ‘Work With Us’ banner ads and ‘gold’-level user pages commonly purchased by private companies, all designed to drive job-seekers to Attorney General Eric Holder’s law enforcement agency.

The DOJ provided its contractor, the Reston, Virginia-based Carahsoft Technology Corporation, with a not-so-helpful table of prices for LinkedIn’s services, in which all the costs were listed as $0. The agency contracting officer responsible for the award did not respond to a request for an explanation.

While LinkedIn is free to use, it also offers paid plans that give organizations the opportunity to spice up their page and access several bells and whistles. However, it’s not incredibly extensive or complicated. To justify paying someone $544,000 for this is preposterous.

Suppose it takes Brogan & Partners, the consulting firm the DOJ has hired, 150 hours (and that’s a generous estimate) to redesign the profile, create some banner ads and write up some redirect pages. That comes out to $3,626 per hour!

Does it look like our government’s priorities are way off, or is it just me?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Most Corrupt Justice Department In U.S. History Sets Up Zimmerman Snitch Hotline

DOJ Sets Up Zimmerman Snitch Hotline – Jammie Wearing Fools

George Zimmerman should seriously consider leaving the country, because if Obama’s goons have their way, he’s sure to be railroaded by any means necessary.

.

The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday afternoon appealed to civil rights groups and community leaders, nationally and in Sanford, for help investigating whether a federal criminal case might be brought against George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, one advocate said.

The DOJ has also set up a public email address to take in tips on its civil rights investigation.

Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law – who earlier in the day joined calls for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman, said that later in the afternoon, she joined a U.S. Department of Justice conference call to discuss the prospects.

“They were calling on us to actively refer anyone who had any information,” that might build a case against Zimmerman for either a civil rights violation or a hate crime, Arnwine said. “They said they would very aggressively investigate this case.”

Arnwine said the call was convened at about 3:30 p.m. by Tom Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, and included representatives from the FBI, and several federal prosecutors, she said. DOJ officials also said they would open a public email address so people could send in tips on the case.

That email address, which is now in operation, is Sanford.florida@usdoj.gov.

This is un-American, to say the least. It’s hard to imagine anything about Zimmerman is already unknown to these persecutors. At the same time, perhaps they’ll find out he’s a Democrat who voted for Obama and mentored black kids. Come to think of it, if Holder’s so interested his so-called justice, perhaps he’d be OK with a separate tip line so people can provide information on his Fast & Furious gun-running operation that left hundreds of Mexicans and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry dead. By the way, looks who’s participating in the lynch mob:

In addition to Arnwine’s group, Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Laura Murphy, Washington Chapter head of the ACLU; and several national, Florida and Sanford-based “human relations” groups participated, Arnwine said.

Isn’t the ACLU purportedly in business to protect civil liberties?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Politics has no place in our justice system, right Mr. President?

George Zimmerman’s trial, joke that it is, proves that in the PC age in which we live, justice is no longer blind. Justice is now a political tool apparently. Stacy McCain lays out the case against our “post-racial” presidential administration

While I haven’t followed the George Zimmerman trial closely, I have noticed the widespread reaction to the trial, namely, “Why are they even having this trial?” There is no way in hell Zimmerman will be convicted. Some see it as a clear-cut case of self-defense, but everyone who has watched the testimony sees enough “reasonable doubt” in the prosecution’s case that it seems obvious the jury will acquit.

So, once again: Why are they even having this trial? And the answer would seem to be, because the Obama administration wanted it.

Lee Stranahan writes at Breibart.com:

Welcome to Trayvongate, where the President of the United States used both the bully pulpit, the Department of Justice and sly media manipulation to gin up charges of racism in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting. Now that the trial is almost finished and the only act of racism mentioned so far came from the victim–Martin called Zimmerman ‘a creepy ass cracker’ according to testimony–the cynical and repeated use of the race card by the White house is even more abhorrent.
Judicial Watch revealed documents today that proved what Breitbart News reported in April, 2012: that Eric Holder’s Department of Justice took an active role in racially charged rallies in Sanford, Florida and that the Community Relations Service helped force the temporary resignation of Sheriff Bill Lee. That resignation made it appear that Sanford authorities were suspect and possibly complicit in covering up something. . . .

Equally disturbing to me is how the prosecution attempted to introduce a brand new charge at the end of this trial. They know they over charged, they know this was all political, yet, they are still willing to pull these tricks out? I guess justice does not mater much to them either. This ought to scare the hell out of every one of us. Because if it can happen in Sanford Florida……..

Justice Department Investigated New York Times Reporter Too

The Justice Department Investigated A New York Times Reporter, Too – Yahoo News

The New York Times reports the Department of Justice investigated national security leaks given to Times reporter David Sanger over his story last year about the Stuxnet virus by pulling all the email and phone records of government officials who communicated with the reporter. Last summer, Sanger reported the U.S. helped develop the Stuxnet virus and used it to attack Iran, becoming the first country to carry out a sustained cyber attack with the intent of destroying another country’s infrastructure. The was some hoopla and a hullaballoo about leaks and DOJ investigations, the Associated Press case, and now a year later we’re finding out just how far things went.

.

The Times’ Ethan Bronner, Charlie Savage and Scott Shane report the FBI requested for any phone and email logs from the White House, the Defense Department and other “intelligence agencies” that showed any contact between employees and Sanger. It does not appear they went so far as to seize Sanger’s telephone records or emails, as they did with the Associates Press and Fox News reporter James Rosen. They at least got creative this time. Instead of looking at his communication records, they looked at the communications between him and every government employee by looking on their end.

The Times report does paint a very detailed picture of how far the Justice Department goes with these investigations, even before they get into the legally and morally questionable practice of subpoenaing a reporters’ email and phone records. As a result of the intense scrutiny, the Times says some sources are starting to clam up:

Some officials are now declining to take calls from certain reporters, concerned that any contact may lead to investigation. Some complain of being taken from their offices to endure uncomfortable questioning. And the government officials typically must pay for lawyers themselves, unlike reporters for large news organizations whose companies provide legal representation.

The intense investigation into Sanger is a little confusing. There were discussions when the story came out about how it seemed the White House may have leaked the story. Or, at the very least, they liked it. It showed the President taking action against Iran during election season. Sanger told Gawker’s John Cook the White didn’t protest the story being released. The White House didn’t actually leak the story, Sanger said, but they didn’t fight him about it either. The investigation into the Stuxnet leak was announced the same day as the AP investigation.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

At least it was not “very, very, very serious”

Eric Holder is a national embarrassment. By the way how confident should we feel that his Justice Department will be looking into the IRS scandal?

Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters Tuesday that the leak to the Associated Press that prompted the Justice Department to secretly obtain phone records for AP reporters and editors constituted a “very, very serious leak” that “put the American people at risk.”

The AP sent a scathing letter to the DOJ on Monday, after they were informed that the DOJ had secretly obtained two months worth of phone records from April and May of 2012, a period of time during which the AP reported on a covert CIA operation in Yemen to prevent an airplane bomb plot. The Justice Department had previously said it was investigating the leak.

“This was a very serious leak. A very, very serious leak,” Holder said Tuesday at a press conference. He added that it was possibly the most serious leak he had seen, or at least top two or three.

See, it was “very serious” In fact it was “very very serious”, in his personal top three very, very serious leaks it seems. I wonder if it was more, or less serious than selling guns to Mexican cartels?

 

Obama Justice Department: Children Don’t Need Mothers, And Have No Right To Them

DOJ: Children Do Not Need, And Have No Right To, Mothers – CNS

The Obama Justice Department is arguing in the United States Supreme Court that children do not need mothers.

………

The Justice Department’s argument on the superfluity of motherhood is presented in a brief the Obama administration filed in the case of Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that amended California’s Constitution to say that marriage involves only one man and one woman.

The Justice Department presented its conclusions about parenthood in rebutting an argument made by proponents of Proposition 8 that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, was the ideal place, determined even by nature itself, to raise a child.

The Obama administration argues this is not true. It argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers is just as good as having one of each.

“The [California] Voter Guide arguably offered a distinct but related child-rearing justification for Proposition 8: ‘the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father,’” said the administration’s brief submitted to the court by Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.

“As an initial matter, no sound basis exists for concluding that same-sex couples who have committed to marriage are anything other than fully capable of responsible parenting and child-rearing,” the Department of Justice told the court. “To the contrary, many leading medical, psychological, and social-welfare organizations have issued policy statements opposing restrictions on gay and lesbian parenting based on their conclusion, supported by numerous scientific studies, that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents.”

“The weight of the scientific literature strongly supports the view that same-sex parents are just as capable as opposite-sex parents,” says the administration.

To support this argument, one of the documents the administration cites is a “policy statement” by the American Psychological Association. This statement claims that some studies indicate same-sex parents might be “superior” to mother-and-father families, but then concedes there is little actual data on the results of raising children in two-father households.

“Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners,” says this APA policy statement the administration cited to the court. “The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

“Studies of other aspects of personal development (including personality, self-concept, and conduct) similarly reveal few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents,” says the APA policy statement. “However, few data regarding these concerns are available for children of gay fathers.”

The Obama administration further argues that because California law already permits domestic partnerships in which same-sex couples are allowed all the “incidents” of marriage – including the right to adopt children and be foster parents – that Proposition 8 only denies same-sex couples the use of the word “marriage” and does not change the status of child-rearing in the state.

“Moreover, as the court of appeals determined, ‘Proposition 8 had absolutely no effect on the ability of same-sex couples to become parents or the manner in which children are raised in California,’” says the administration. “As explained, California law, both before and after Proposition 8, grants registered domestic partners the same parental rights and benefits accorded to married couples. And Proposition 8 does not alter California’s adoption, fostering, or presumed-parentage laws, which ‘continue to apply equally to same-sex couples.’

“In light of California’s conferral of full rights of parenting and child-rearing on same-sex couples, Proposition 8’s denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry bears no cognizable relation, let alone a substantial one, to any interest in responsible procreation and child-rearing (however defined),” says the administration. “Indeed, because a substantial number of California children are raised in households headed by same-sex couples.”

In effect, the administration is arguing that California had already conceded the administration’s point that children do not need a mother or a father when it enacted laws treating same-sex couples the same as married couples in its adoption, foster-parenting and other laws–which Proposition 8 did not seek to overturn.

So far in the history of the human race, no child has ever been born without a biological father and mother. Now, in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government is arguing that, regardless of the biological facts of parenthood, states have no legitimate and defenisble interest in ensuring that children conceived by a mother and a father are in fact raised by mothers and fathers.

The brief that the Justice Department presented to the Supreme Court discussed children only as items controlled by others, not as individual human beings who have God-given rights of their own. It simply assumes that a child has no inherent right to a mother or father and that the only right truly in question is whether two people of the same-sex have a right to marry one another and that that right encompasses a right to adopt and foster-raise children.

To take this view and be consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence – which recognizes the ultimate authority of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” and says that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” – the Obama Justice Department must advance the assumption that natural law and Nature’s God give children no right to a mother and father and no right not to be legally handed over by the government to be raised by same-sex couples.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story