Commentary on the economic , geopolitical and simply fascinating things going on. Served occasionally with a side of snark.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
How many clowns does one need to run a 4 Scandal Circus - Buy a Spy - Gate .... Benghazi - Gate ...... IRS- Gate ....... AP Spy - Gate...... Who even can keep up and don't forget about Fast and Furious - Gate !
Cloak and Dagger " Buy A Spy " - Gate
http://rt.com/news/fsb-detain-cia-agent-253/
Cloak, dagger and a blond wig? FSB says CIA agent nabbed in Moscow (VIDEO, PHOTOS)
Promises of millions, a new face and detailed instructions on a double-agent conspiracy in Moscow. Bearing the hallmarks of a Cold War spy thriller, Russia’s counterintelligence agency says it caught a CIA officer trying to flip a Russian operative.
The Federal Security Service (FSB) Public Relations Center announced that detained individual was Ryan Christopher Fogle, a career diplomat working as the third secretary of the Political Section of the American embassy in Moscow.
The agency stressed that Christopher had “special technical equipment” in his possession, including an additional wig, multiple pairs of dark sunglasses and a lot of cash in euro – along with a Moscow atlas, a compass, a knife, and an American Bic lighter.
The detainee, who was sporting a blond wig at the time of his interception, was delivered to the FSB receiving office for questioning. Following all of the necessary procedures, he was handed over to representatives of the US embassy in Moscow.
Ryan C Fogle, 3d secretary of US embassy, was detained in Moscow by the Russian counterintelligence agency (FSB)
Disguise allegedly used by Ryan Fogle (FSB)
Ryan Fogle inside FSB office (FSB)
The one-page letter to “a dear friend” found in Christopher’s possession was to be clandestinely delivered to the would-be recruit.
The correspondence proposed a US$100,000 payment for an interview with the prospective double agent, as well as $1 million per annum if the candidate chose to accept the mission and supply the American side with information.
Proving its technological prowess in the digital era, the alleged spy further offered step-by-step instructions on how to create a new Gmail account to be used for future contacts.
Ever-so-savvy, the document stressed the importance of not divulging any real contact information like phone numbers, email or home addresses when creating an email account for the purposes of spying on one’s own country.
It further discouraged the use of personal handheld mobile devices and laptops when registering the account, proposing a more anonymous setting like an internet café would be more judicious. If that didn’t pan out, the prospective recruit was told to buy a new mobile device or computer with the express purpose to be used for the express purpose of establishing contact. The new device was to be paid for in cash, and all expenses would be reimbursed.
Instruction allegedly used to recruit Russian intelligence officer with offers of money and means of conducting the conspiracy (FSB)
Once a new Gmail account was created, the recruit was told to write a letter to unbacggdA@gmail.com and wait one week for a reply.
“Thank you for reading this. We look forward to working with you in the nearest future. Your friends,” the missive concludes.
On Tuesday, The Russian government announced that Fogle had been branded a “persona non grata,” demanding his immediate expulsion from Russia.
“At a time when the presidents of our countries have reaffirmed their readiness to broaden our bilateral relations, including special service [cooperation] in the battle with international terrorism, such provocative actions in the spirit of the “Cold War” do not facilitate a strengthening of mutual trust,” the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement.
Ryan Fogle’s pass to the US embassy (FSB)
US Ambassador to the Russian Federation Michael McFaul refused to comment on the detention of his subordinate or his alleged part in the cloak and dagger plot.
On his Twitter account the ambassador simply wrote ‘no’ when questioned about Ryan Fogle.
McFaul has a date with the Russian Foreign Ministry, however, where he has been summoned to give an explanation for the not-so-undercover incident.
Former assistant secretary of state Jon Alterman told RT the timing of the incident was “strange” in light of the upcoming international conference on Syria spearheaded by Moscow and Washington.
“It clearly will have an effect on the talks. I don’t think it tells us anything new about US-Russian relations. What is strange is the timing, because when it comes to catching spies – if this even was a spy – you get to choose when you take action. And the decision to act immediately before the summit seems to me calculated to affect the summit,” he argued.
The website of the American embassy in Russia says that its Political Section is engaged in “bringing to the attention of the Russian government the US position on the issues of foreign policy and security.” The section’s other task is to “inform Washington about the main provisions of the foreign and defense policy of Russia,” as well as Russian domestic political life.
Money allegedly used by Fogle for recruiting (FSB)
The Benghazi-related emails released by the White House late May 15 exclude the critical emails between administration officials that were sent during the crucial first two days after the deadly jihadi attack that killed four Americans last September.
The 100 pages of partially redacted emails also conclude with a dismissive message from CIA chief David Petraeus.
“Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” Petraeus said about the heavily edited, four-sentence “talking points” that the White House used to downplay Al Qaeda’s role in the Sep. 11 attack on the poorly protected diplomatic compound.
“This release is long overdue [but] there are relevant documents the Administration has still refused to produce,” said a May 15 statement from Brendan Buck, press secretary to House Majority Leader John Boehner.
“We hope, however, that this limited release of documents is a sign of more cooperation to come,” he added.
The two-day gap — the first released email was sent 67 hours after the attack began — plus the Petraeus comment, undermines the White House’s explanation for the rewrite.
Officials, including spokesman Jay Carney, say CIA officials — not White House and State Department officials — rewrote a quick-reaction CIA report that had attributed the attack to an al-Qaeda affiliate.
“Even the smallest amount of scrutiny [shows the emails don’t] support their explanation,” said a May 15 tweet from Buck.
“The White House’s explanation appears NOWHERE in the actual [email] documents. Nowhere. Not even a hint of it,” Buck added.
After the attack, White House officials used the edited talking points to bolster repeated claims that the organized attack was an unpredictable, spontaneous violent riot by Libyans who were angry about a California-made YouTube video.
The little-known video was sharply critical of Mohammad, the central prophet in Islam.
The video was repeatedly cited by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the crisis, which began only eight weeks before the 2012 election.
GOP legislators plan to continue investigating the September cover-up of al-Qaeda’s role, and the current cover-up over the White House’s role in rewriting the CIA report.
GOP officials also say more whistleblowers will testify in Congress about the attackers and the White House’s failure to send reinforcements to the beleaguered U.S. diplomats and soldiers.
An interim House report into the cover-up “found that ‘senior State Department officials requested the talking points be changed to avoid criticism for ignoring the threat environment in Benghazi and that those changes were ultimately made,” said the Buck statement.
“Those findings are confirmed by the emails released today … [and] the seemingly political nature of the State Department’s concerns raises questions about the motivations behind these changes and who at the State Department was seeking them,” he concluded.
Breitbart News has obtained an exclusive video of Attorney General Eric Holder flatly rejecting the idea of appointing a special counsel to investigate Benghazi.
Filmed on May 15 and provided to Breitbart News by Special Operations Speaks, the video shows Holder emerge from his car and walk towards the Rayburn House Office Building for hearings on the IRS scandal. Holder is clearly asked, "Mr. Holder, will you appoint a Special Counsel to investigate Benghazi?"
In equally clear tones, Holder answers, "No," and disappears into the building.
The White House on Wednesday released 94 pages of emails between top administration and intelligence officials who helped shape the talking points about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that the CIA would provide to policymakers in both the legislative and executive branches.
The documents, first reported by THE WEEKLY STANDARD in articles here and here, directly contradict claims by White House press secretary Jay Carney and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the revisions of those talking points were driven by the intelligence community and show heavy input from top Obama administration officials, particularly those at the State Department.
The emails provide further detail about the rewriting of the talking points during a 24-hour period from midday September 14 to midday September 15. As THE WEEKLY STANDARD previously reported, a briefing from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence shows that the big changes came in three waves – internally at the CIA, after email feedback from top administration officials, and during or after a meeting of high-ranking intelligence and national security officials the following morning.
The initial CIA changes softened some of the language about the participants in the Benghazi assault – from “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to “Islamic extremists.” But CIA officials also added bullet points about the possible participation of Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaeda-linked jihadist group, and previous warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Those additions came out after the talking points were sent to “the interagency,” where the CIA’s final draft was further stripped down to little more than boilerplate. The half dozen references to terrorists – both in Benghazi and more generally – all but disappeared. Gone were references to al Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, etc. The only remaining mention was a note that “extremists” had participated in the attack.
As striking as what appears in the email traffic is what does not. There is no mention of the YouTube video that would become a central part of the administration’s explanation of the attacks to the American people until a brief mention in the subject line of emails coming out of an important meeting where further revisions were made.
Carney, in particular, is likely to face tough questioning about the contents of the emails because he made claims to reporters that were untrue. “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two – of these two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility,’ because the word ‘consulate’ was inaccurate,” he told reporters on November 28, 2012.
That’s not true. An email sent at 9:15 PM on September 14, from an official in the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs to others at the agency, described the process this way. “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their concerns in mind.”
That directly contradicts what Carney said. It’s also difficult to reconcile with claims made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during testimony she gave January 23 on Capitol Hill.
“It was an intelligence product,” she said, adding later that the “intelligence community was the principal decider about what went into talking points.” (See here for the original version of the talking points and the final one.)
Carney and other top Obama administration officials have long maintained that CIA officials revised the talking points with minimal input from Obama administration officials. The claim made little sense when they made it – why would CIA officials revise on their own a set of talking points they’d already finalized? The emails demonstrate clearly that it isn’t true.
Another CIA email, this one a draft of a message for CIA director David Petraeus, noted that the talking points process had “run into major problems,” in part because of the “major concerns” raised by the State Department. That same email reported that the issues would be revisited at the Deputies Committee meeting on Saturday morning.
Elsewhere, CIA officials seemed to understand that the document had been stripped of most of its content. An email from an official with the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis, the office that drafted the original version of the talking points, signed off on the final version but seemed to understand that the new version wouldn’t please those who had requested it. “They are fine with me,” this CIA official wrote. “But, pretty sure HPSCI [the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] won’t like them. :-)”
When Petraeus received the rewritten talking points, he objected. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” he wrote to a legislative affairs staffer. But he declined to put up a fight.
The documents answer some questions and raise many others. Did Hillary Clinton have any role in the efforts of State Department staffers to push for the many substantive revisions to the talking points? Clinton, who testified that she was a hands-on part of the State Department’s response to the attacks, has claimed she had nothing to do with the talking points.
And what about the administration’s claims that State and White House officials weren’t involved with substantive edits? In one email, Jake Sullivan, deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, reports to State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that he’s spoken with Obama’s top spokesman at the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor. “I spoke with Tommy. We’ll work through this in the morning and get comments back.”
In a separate email, he writes: “Talked to Tommy. We can make edits.”
Moments ago, as the WSJ reported that "the White House succumbed to mounting pressure Wednesday and decided to publicly release the chain of administration emails surrounding the controversial Benghazi talking points. The move came a week after public interest in last year's terror attack unexpectedly rebounded with testimony by three State Department employees that reopened lingering questions about the assault. The documents were being released late Wednesday afternoon. While many of the emails have already leaked out, the release of the complete set of communications paints a fuller picture of an administration struggling with how much to disclose about an attack that eight months later remains a focus of partisan division."
Courtesy of CNN, the full 100 page pdf of all alleged Benghazi emails is enclosed below (pdf link).
The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.
Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.
Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit.
Grant announced today that he would retire June 3, despite being appointed as commissioner of the tax-exempt office May 8, a week ago.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-tax-exemptionobamacare-exec-got-100390-in-bonuses/article/2529899 ( no punishment for Ingram , despite her role in IRS - Gate... 0
UPDATED: IRS tax exemption/Obamacare exec got $103,390 in bonuses; Did Obama OK them?
IRS lawyer Sarah Hall Ingram received four bonuses totaling $103,390 between 2009 and 2012 while managing the tax agency's division that harassed conservative Tea Party groups seeking tax exempt non-profit status. She was then promoted to manage the IRS role in implementing Obamacare. Big bonuses like those awarded Ingram typically require presidential approval.
Sarah Hall Ingram, the IRS executive in charge of the tax exempt division in 2010 when it began targeting conservative Tea Party, evangelical and pro-Israel groups for harassment, got more than $100,000 in bonuses between 2009 and 2012.
More recently, Ingram was promoted to serve as director of the tax agency's Obamacare program office, a position that put her in charge of the vast expansion of the IRS' regulatory power and staffing in connection with federal health care, ABC reported earlier today.
Ingram received a $7,000 bonus in 2009, according to data obtained byThe Washington Examinerfrom the IRS, then a $34,440 bonus in 2010, $35,400 in 2011 and $26,550 last year, for a total of $103,390. Her annual salary went from $172,500 to $177,000 during the same period.
The 2010, 2011 and 2012 bonuses were awarded during the period when IRS harassment of the conservative groups was most intense. The newspaper obtained the data via a Freedom of Information Act request.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., described the Ingram awards as "stunning, just stunning."
Bonuses as large as those awarded to Ingram typically require presidential approval, according to federal personnel regulations.
High-ranking career federal civil servants like Ingram are eligible for recognition through citations known as Distinguished and Merit Service awards that can carry with them cash bonuses of anywhere from five to 35 percent of their base salary.
The largest of such awards, however, require presidential approval, according to the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal civil service workforce.
“If the recommended award is over $25,000, the Director of OPM reviews the nomination and forwards his/her recommendation to the President for approval,” according to the OPM guidance.
A key point on OPM’s “checklist” for federal bosses considering an employee for such a bonus is making sure that “the proposed award recipient has not been involved in any action or activity that could cause the President embarrassment …”
Ingram has some history as a government lawyer receiving controversial bonuses. According to The Washington Post, she received a $47,900 bonus for distinguished service in 2004 from President George W. Bush.
Earlier Thursday,The Washington Examinerreported that the IRS paid out more than $92 million in bonuses during the four-year period of Ingram's awards to her and nearly 17,000 other agency employees. Those bonuses averaged more than $5,500 per employee.
Go here for a spreadsheet of the salary and bonus data for IRS employees getting bonuses between 2009 and 2012.
Mark Tapscott is executive editor of The Washington Examiner.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama says the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Steven Miller, has submitted his resignation in the aftermath of an investigation that found the agency improperly targeted conservative groups.
Obama says Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew requested Miller's resignation.
Obama says he also insists that safeguards be put in place to prevent reoccurrence of improper actions.
Obama has been under pressure to act in the aftermath of acknowledgement by top IRS officials that conservative groups were improperly singled out. An investigation by a Treasury inspector general found that the IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review tea party and other conservative groups that were seeking tax exempt status.
Obama spoke from the White House East Room after conferring with Lew and his top deputy.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver a statement at 6 p.m. regarding the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups for special review.
The president will make his remarks after discussing the IRS matter with Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and his top deputy, Neil Wolin.
Obama has been under pressure to act in the aftermath of acknowledgement by top IRS officials that conservative groups were improperly singled out. An investigation by a Treasury inspector general found that the IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review tea party and other conservative groups that were seeking tax exempt status.
Photo credit: OECD / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-NDObamacare is not merely a massive overhaul of the health care system. It is also a substantial expansion of the Internal Revenue Service. That’s because the law relies on the tax collection agency to both enforce its individual mandate and administer the tax credits the law offers to subsidize the purchase of health insurance. Followingrecent revelations that agents in multiple IRS offices, including tax officials in Washington, targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny, a number of former and current Republican legislators are already counseling caution about the agency's role in administering the law.
Concerns about the agency’s oversight of the health law are well-founded—and not only because of general concerns about the agency’s judgment.
For one thing, the IRS appears to have specifically targeted groups that opposed the health care law. According to The Washington Post, “although some of the groups were explicitly labeled ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot,’ others that came under intense scrutiny were focused on challenging the Affordable Care Act — known by many as Obamacare — or the integrity of federal elections.”
In other words, the agency has singled out Obamacare opponents for unusual treatment. That does not speak well of the agency’s ability to fairly carry out its duties under the law.
Perhaps more importantly, however, the agency has already launched an attempt to subvert the health law’s clear statutory language. As I noted earlier today, the text of the legislation specifies that the law’s tax credits for private insurance are available in exchanges created by states. It does not provide for those subsidies to be available in exchanges run by the federal government. Yet the IRS rule regarding the tax credits essentially ignored this, and allowed for the subsidies to be available in both state and federally run exchanges.
What this means is that the IRS is already taking creative liberties with the administrative duties it is assigned under the health law. It’s alreadyattempting to use its power to expand Obamacare beyond the specifics of its statute. It’s already ignoring the text of the law when doing so suits its purposes.
And it has done so with the explicit support of the same top official who claimed that there was “absolutely no targeting” of conservative groups going on at the IRS.
As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon noted last week, former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman insisted in a 2012 congressional subcommittee hearing that the IRS was in no way singling out groups based on political outlook. We now know that to be false.
A year prior, Shulman insisted that the IRS rule regarding premium subsidies in federally run exchanges was “consistent with the language, purpose, and structure” of Obamacare. Tellingly, he did not point to a statute authorizing the IRS interpretation. Admittedly, that would have been difficult, because there isn’t one. As the Congressional Research Service noted in its analysis of the law, a “strictly textual analysis of the plain meaning of the provision would likely lead to the conclusion that the IRS’ authority to issue the premium tax credits is limited only to situations in which the taxpayer is enrolled in a state-established exchange.” [Emphasis added.]
The IRS has already demonstrated dubious political and legal judgment regarding its role in the administration of Obamacare. More officials should question its judgment in matters related to the law. http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/15/irs-sued-for-improperly-seizing-the-medical-records-of-10-million-americans/
Amid a firestorm about the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting conservative groups and wide concern that the tax service will be administering Obamacare, the IRS is also the subject of a class action lawsuit alleging that 15 of its agents improperly seized 10 million Americans’ medical records.
Attorney Robert Barnes filed the lawsuit in mid-March on behalf of a John Doe Company and individuals whose records were seized in California Superior Court, according to a report from the Courthouse News Service.
“This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service (‘IRS’) agents (collectively referred to as ‘Defendants’ herein) during a raid of John Doe Company, in the southern district of California, on March 11, 2011,” the complaint, quoted by Courthouse News, reads. “In a case involving solely a tax matter involving a former employee of the company, these agents stole more than 60,000,000 medical records of more than 10,000,000 Americans, including at least 1,000,000 Californians.”
The complaint explains there was no warrant authorizing the seizure of the medical records and the records were not germane to the IRS search. The complaint alleges that the seizure violated the 4th Amendment, according to the extensive quotes from the complaint complied by Courthouse News.
“These medical records contained intimate and private information of more than 10,000,000 Americans, information that by its nature includes information about treatment for any kind of medical concern, including psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual or drug treatment, and a wide range of medical matters covering the most intimate and private of concerns,” the complaint reads.
The records are believed to concern the medical records of every judge in California, every state court employee in California, members of the Screen Actors Guild and Directors Guild, and people in “all walks of life.”
“The search warrant authorized the seizure of financial records related principally to a former employee of the company; it did not authorize any seizure of any health care or medical record of any persons, least of all third parties completely unrelated to the matter,” the complaint, as quoted by the news outlet explains further.
“[E]ven though defendants knew that the records they were seizing were not included within the scope of the search warrant, the defendants nonetheless searched and seized the records without making any attempt to segregate the files from those that could possibly be related to the search warrant,” it adds. “In fact, no effort was made at all to even try maintaining the illusion of legitimacy and legality.”
The complaint, as quoted by Courthouse News, further alleges that the agents used the company’s facilities to watch basketball, order pizza and Coca Cola “illustrating their complete disregard of the court’s order and the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights.”
The complaint seeks $25,000 in compensatory damages per individual, according to Courthouse News, a declaratory judgment protecting the information seized as well as the return and elimination of the records from all government databases.
AP Spy -Gate http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/congressman-justice-dept-wiretapped-house-representatives-cloak-room_724606.html
Congressman: Justice Dept. Wiretapped the House of Representative's Cloak Room
California congressman David Nunes made the claim yesterday that the Justice Department wiretapped telephones in the House of Representative's Cloak Room, an exclusive part of the Capitol where members are able to privately interact with one another. Nunes made the claim on Hugh Hewitt's radio show.
"I don’t trust the Department of Justice on this," said Hewitt, referring to the subpoenas the Justice Department to obtain the Associated Press's phone records. "Do you, Congressman Nunes?"
"No, I absolutely do not, especially after this wiretapping incident, essentially, of the House of Representative. I don’t think people are focusing on the right thing when they talk about going after the AP reporters. The big problem that I see is that they actually tapped right where I’m sitting right now, the Cloak Room," Nunes respond.
Hewitt was surprised. "Wait a minute, this is news to me," he said.
"The Cloak Room in the House of Representatives," Nunes repeated.
Hewitt again expressed surprise. "I have no idea what you’re talking about," said the radio host.
"So when they went after the AP reporters, right? Went after all of their phone records, they went after the phone records, including right up here in the House Gallery, right up from where I’m sitting right now. So you have a real separation of powers issue that did this really rise to the level that you would have to get phone records that would, that would most likely include members of Congress, because as you know," Nunes claimed.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: "There's been a lot of criticism. The head of the RNC asked for my resignation. I was not the person involved in that decision. But be that as it may, I was recused in that matter as I described in a press conference held yesterday the decision issued the subpoena was made by the people involved in the case."
At today's Capitol Hill hearing with Attorney General Eric Holder at first wasn't sure who subpoenaed the AP's phone records, but later blamed his deputy attorney general:
"I'm trying to find out who authorized the subpoena," Rep. Sensenbrenner said. "You can't tell me if Deputy Attorney General Cole authorized the subpoena. Somebody had to authorize the subpoena because the code of federal regulations is pretty specific that this is supposed to go as close to the top as possible."
"No, what I'm saying is that I can't say as a matter of fact," said Holder. "I have to assume, I say I would probably 95%, 99% certain the deputy attorney general acting in my stead was the one who authorizes the subpoena."
A little bit later, Holder said, "Let me say this: I've been given a note we have confirmed that the deputy was the one who authorized the subpoena."
If there's no written record of recusal, who told DAG Cole that he was running the AP investigation?
Did Holder just sort of … “drift away” from this whole mess after his recusal? Remember, this was no ordinary investigation. Yesterday Holder himself called the leak in the AP case one of the most serious, if not the most serious, he’d ever seen. He must have recognized instantly that there was a chance that reporters’ phone records would be subpoenaed to get to the bottom of it, which would be politically explosive for the White House. And yet he never formally notified anyone that he was backing away, huh? At this point, Obama should fire him even if he’s telling the truth.
Update: Holder says he had to recuse himself because he was a “fact witness”:
The attorney general recused himself because he was interviewed as a “fact witness” — “a possessor of the information that was ultimately leaked” — meaning that he could theoretically have leaked the information about the thwarted terrorist attack that was the subject of the AP report.
If they were looking at Holder as a potential leaker, the leak must have come from very high up. That jibes with Holder’s rhetoric about the seriousness of the situation; they must be looking at someone at or near the cabinet level, potentially, as the AP’s source.
Wouldn’t the AG be a potential “fact witness” in lots of leak cases, though, given the sensitive info he’s privy to? Why recuse himself in this particular case?
Update: Dave Weigel points to this DOJ press release last summer in which Holder announced he was assigning attorneys to lead the leak investigation. That would have been the moment to announce his recusal, but there’s nothing in there about that.
Obvious question: Did he refuse to recuse himself publicly from an explosive national-security investigation because that would have made for particularly bad headlines five months before the election?
Update: More good news from CNS: Holder’s not 100 percent sure which deputy AG actually authorized the AP subpoenas. Simply amazing.
Send to Kindle
Photo credit: OECD / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-NDObamacare is not merely a massive overhaul of the health care system. It is also a substantial expansion of the Internal Revenue Service. That’s because the law relies on the tax collection agency to both enforce its individual mandate and administer the tax credits the law offers to subsidize the purchase of health insurance. Followingrecent revelations that agents in multiple IRS offices, including tax officials in Washington, targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny, a number of former and current Republican legislators are already counseling caution about the agency's role in administering the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment