Today in Washington, D.C. - June 20, 2012:
The White House and Dept. of Justice:
Today, the President Obama asserts executive privileged over documents from the DOJ requested by the House Oversight committee investigating the incident known as Fast and Furious. Many, regardless of political affiliation, find this action by the Obama White House very onerous because Attorney General Eric Holder has been dragging his feet in providing requested documents and this White House action has been taken right before the final deadline and a potential charging of AG Eric Holder with Contempt of Congress.
Executive Privilege goes to the Office of President and Vice President and White House communications and has been exercised by prior presidents. However, the information requested via the U.S House Oversight's investigation was not directed at documents and communications by the White House but at who implemented the program in the DOJ and when did Eric Holder first know about the decision by the DOJ to approve the the gun running activities under Fast and Furious.
Now that the White House has asserted executive privilege over the DOJ's documents, people are beginning to ask if the President or members of his White House staff were involved in the actions that led to Fast and Furious. If not, why this overreach by the White House to cover documents in Departments of the Government? If any member of the White House was involved, there is a major scandal being hidden by the Obama administration. Also, if we cannot trust the Attorney General and be allowed to have our elected representatives to carry out their oversight responsibility, what else may we have to fear from the White House and the Department of Justice? Will we see abuse of the upcoming 2012 election process by the White House and DOJ? We have noted the apparent bullying of of both states, government agencies, businesses and nonprofit organizations. Will we see an even bigger wave of potentially bullying by the DOJ and other departments of the Federal government to advance the current White House's agenda - whatever that agenda may be?
The Congress:
The Senate reconvened today and resumed consideration of S.J. Res. 37, the resolution of disapproval of the EPA’s expensive Utility-MACT regulation, offered by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and voted 53-46 against taking up the resolution.
The Senate then resumed consideration of the farm bill, S. 3240. There are 45 amendments remaining to consider. When all amendments have been disposed of (via a roll call vote, voice vote, withdrawal, or adoption), the Senate will vote on passage of the farm bill, as amended. The bill will require 60 votes to pass. Yesterday, the Senate voted to adopt 6 amendments to the farm bill, and rejected 10 others.
As discussed above, the House Oversight Committee received notice by Eric Holder that the President Obama was exercising executive privledge over DOJ documents and communications. The House Oversight Committee is at this time proceeding with debate on voting to cite AG Hodler with Contempt of Congress.
Yesterday, the House passed:
H.R. 2578 (232-188) — Tto amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act related to a segment of the Lower Merced River in California, and for other purposes."
HR 2938 (343-78) — Gila Bend Indian Reservation gaming but did not vote on the bill.
They postponed debate instructions related to conferees on previously passed HR 4348 Federal Highway bill.
Today the House will debate instructions requirements for conferees on HR 4348 and will debate S. 3187 — "To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise and extend the user-fee programs for prescription drugs and medical devices, to establish user-fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilars, and for other purposes."
Return of the abusive Disclose Act:
Roll Call reports today that Senate Democrats are once again planning to vote on their partisan DISCLOSE Act. “The Supreme Court is expected Thursday to decide on a Montana case that could undercut or reaffirm the court’s controversial 2010 campaign finance decision — and don’t think Senate Democrats aren’t paying attention. Just four and a half months shy of national elections and against the backdrop of super PAC dominance, Democrats still see campaign finance as a winning issue . . . . [Sen. Sheldon] Whitehouse [D-RI] said he has been in conversations with Democratic leaders about ensuring that the DISCLOSE Act gets put on the legislative docket before the elections. And he has an ally in the Senate Democrats’ messaging chief, Conference Vice Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.), who is an original co-sponsor. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he again would bring up the bill to address the Citizens United decision. ‘We’re going to move on the DISCLOSE Act anyway,’ the Nevada Democrat said when asked whether the Supreme Court’s actions in the Montana case would affect the Senate strategy on the issue.”
In his major speech at AEI discussing threats to First Amendment rights, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell explained the DISCLOSE Act: “This is the Democrats’ legislative response to Citizens United, in which the Supreme Court correctly ruled that Congress may not ban political speech based on the identity of the speaker. The DISCLOSE Act aims to get around this ruling by compelling certain targeted groups to disclose the names of their donors, while excluding others, such as unions, from doing the same. . . . What this bill calls for is government-compelled disclosure of contributions to all grassroots groups, which is far more dangerous than its proponents are willing to admit. Because if disclosure is forced upon some but not all, it’s not an act of good government, it’s a political weapon. And that’s precisely what those who are pushing this legislation have in mind. This is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to exposes its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third-party allies. And that should concern every one of us. Those pushing the DISCLOSE Act have a simple view: if the Supreme Court is no longer willing to limit the speech of those who oppose their agenda, they’ll find other ways to do it.”
Meanwhile, President Obama and his allies have stepped up their assault on groups exercising their constitutional rights to political speech. According to The New York Times, “The lawyer for President Obama demanded on Tuesday that Crossroads GPS disclose its donors, saying in a complaint to the Federal Election Commission that the group is plainly a ‘political committee’ subject to federal reporting requirements. In the complaint, obtained by The New York Times, Robert F. Bauer, the campaign’s chief counsel, writes that the group — founded by Karl Rove, among others — can no longer shield the identity of its donors by defining itself as a ‘social welfare’ organization. . . . Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for Crossroads, questioned Mr. Bauer’s motivation, saying that the president’s lawyers only seem to take issue with groups that benefit Republicans. He noted that Mr. Obama’s campaign has embraced Priorities USA Action, a Democratic group.”
And Politico reports today that the Obama campaign is busy promoting this action. “The Obama campaign has started a petition demanding that Crossroads GPS and similar groups disclose the identities of their donors. In an email with the eye-catching subject line, ‘Hell no,’ campaign manager Jim Messina implores supporters to ‘Do what these guys won't do: Let the country know exactly what you stand for by adding your name today.’ . . . The petition comes after the campaign filed a complaint Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission arguing that the groups are political committees and therefore should be subject to disclosure requirements. What the Obama campaign doesn't mention is that Democrats have their own outside groups that are not subject to the requirements.”
As Leader McConnell said, “Those who have the resources and the will to fight these things should be commended. Those who don’t should be able to count on our support. But let’s be very clear: no individual or group in this country should have to face harassment or intimidation, or incur crippling expenses, defending themselves against their own government, simply because that government doesn’t like the message they’re advocating.”
Tags: Washington. D.C, White House, executive privileged, DOJ, Eric Holder, Fast and Furious, House Oversight Committee, US Senate, Disclose Act, US House, bills To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment