Take your pick: "The FBI got fooled by a source, or it knew its source was lying, or it didn’t bother to check, or it was too incompetent to see the obvious."

Excerpt:

The Grassley referral needs be fully declassified, just as the House memo was. The FBI needs to answer straightforward questions about Mr. Steele’s claims, and he needs to provide his version. The FBI got fooled by a source, or it knew its source was lying, or it didn’t bother to check, or it was too incompetent to see the obvious. Take your pick. None of the possibilities look good, especially if you’re a FISA judge.

[Ms. Strassel writes the Journal’s Potomac Watch column.]

READ MORE

Sinaloa cartel floods U.S. with drugs and receives weapons in special immunity deal with Obama administration

(CNSNews.com) – An alleged Mexican drug trafficker awaiting trial in a Chicago federal court claims that the notorious Sinaloa cartel received weapons from “Operation Fast and Furious” under an alleged immunity agreement that the U.S. government made with cartel leaders, in exchange for information on rival gangs.

The defendant in a trafficking case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Vicente Jesus Zambada-Niebla, also claims the immunity deal allowed the criminal cartel to “continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs” into the United States.

He wants the U.S. government to provide documents relating to the botched gun running sting operation along the southwest border, arguing that it would benefit his defense.

Operation Fast and Furious, which began in September 2009, saw the Phoenix office of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives supervise the sale of guns to straw purchasers with the intent of tracing the guns to Mexican drug trafficking organizations and prosecuting their members. The ATF allowed about 2,000 guns to be sold in this manner.

The operation came under congressional scrutiny after it was linked to the December 2010 murder of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry at the hands of Mexican bandits.

An investigative report, spearheaded by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), found that most of the weapons provided to Mexican criminals under the operation were going to the Sinaloa cartel, arguably one of the world’s largest drug trafficking organizations.

In a court pleading filed last July, Zambada-Niebla made the claims about an immunity deal.

READ MORE

Fast and Furious: timeline

The following is a timeline of events surrounding Holder and Congress’ dealings with Operation Fast and Furious:

2009 — Operation Fast and Furious is launched under the supervision of the ATF's Group VII, based out of Phoenix.

March 12, 2010 — Group VII Supervisor David Roth sends an email to the group acknowledging a “schism” in the attitudes of the agents. ATF agents in the group would later testify they were conflicted over the tactics being used. “Whether you care or not people of rank and authority at HQ are paying close attention to this case,” wrote Roth.

July 2010 — Michael Walther, the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), wrote three memos to Holder in which he mentions Operation Fast and Furious. In one memo, Walther advises Holder that NDIC and a Phoenix drug enforcement task force would assist the ATF with an investigation of a suspected gun trafficker, Manuel Celis-Acosta, being run under Operation Fast and Furious.

“This investigation, initiated in September 2009 in conjunction with the Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Phoenix police department, involves a Phoenix-based firearms trafficking ring Manuel Celis-Acosta,” the memo states. “Celis-Acosta and [redacted] straw purchasers are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican drug trafficking cartels.”

Nov. 2010 — Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer sent a weekly memo to Holder notifying him of a sealed indictment against alleged gun traffickers in Arizona by the DOJ’s organized crime and gang section. Breuer wrote that the indictment would remain sealed “until another investigation, Phoenix-based ‘Operation Fast and Furious,’ is ready for takedown.”

Nov. – Dec. 2010 — Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is contacted by whistleblowers within ATF about the tactics used in Operation Fast and Furious.

Dec. 15, 2010 — Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is killed in a firefight in Arizona. Two of the guns found at the scene were sold to suspected straw buyers under the operation.

Jan. 2011 — Grassley meets with Holder and DOJ officials to discuss the whistleblower allegations.

Feb. 2011 — DOJ sends a letter to Grassley denying that the ATF would knowingly sell assault weapons to straw purchasers and that the agency makes every effort to prevent weapons from going to Mexico.

March 2011 — Holder asks the DOJ’s Inspector General to investigate Operation Fast and Furious.

March 8, 2011 — Eleven people are federally indicted for alleged weapons trafficking crimes in connection with Fast and Furious.

March 16, 2011 — Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) sends his first letter to ATF’s acting-director Kenneth Melson requesting documents pertaining to the origin of Fast and Furious and who authorized it.

March 31, 2011 — Issa issues first subpoena on Fast and Furious to DOJ for documents he requested in March.

May 3, 2011 — Holder testifies before the House Judiciary Committee saying, “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”

June 15, 2011 — Issa holds his first hearing on Fast and Furious where former and current ATF agents testified about the controversial tactics employed under the operation and their efforts to stop them. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich, who operates as a legislative liaison to Congress, also testifies that the DOJ was doing everything in its power to assist Issa with his investigation. Republicans have said the DOJ is “stonewalling” their efforts to get information about the operation.

June 29, 2011 — Obama says he will not comment on Fast and Furious further until the IG investigation is complete. “My attorney general has made clear that he certainly would not have ordered gun running to be able to pass through into Mexico,” said Obama. “I'm not going to comment on a current investigation. I've made very clear my views that that would not be an appropriate step by the ATF, and we've got to find out how that happened.”

July 4, 2011 — Melson testifies in a closed setting before Issa and Grassley’s investigators. Melson acknowledges that Fast and Furious was under the jurisdiction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s office.

August 30, 2011 — Holder transfers Melson out of his position as acting director and Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke resigns.

Fast and Furious fallout puts Holder on collision course with Congress

Unraveling the Obama regime

There are two situations in play for the Obama administration that involve serious legal questions and one of them could seriously unravel the viability of Obama's presidency.

First:

During Kagan’s confirmation process, the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her a series of written questions about her involvement in the health-care issue. One question inquired whether she had ever been “asked about your opinion regarding the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation … or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation.” Another question asked her whether she had “ever offered any views or comments” on the same subjects.

Kagan answered both questions: “No.”

In his letter to Attorney General Holder, Judiciary Chairman Smith said: “Yet, documents released by the Department of Justice in response to Freedom of Information Act requests raise questions about that unequivocal denial.”

Judiciary Committee Launches Probe of Kagan’s Involvement in Obamacare

Second:

For those coming in late: Issa and Grassley are investigating the horrifically botched Fast & Furious program that Justice/BATFE had put together, starting in late 2009.

Fast and Furious update: Ken Melson’s secret testimony.

See yesterday's post on this...

Once the basic contours of ObamaCare are in place, they will be all but impossible to change, as Europe and Canada have demonstrated

Mostly 'wonkish' stuff, albeit critically important to the future of every single current and future American citizen, Mr. Grassley's Choice in the Wall Street Journal on July 23, 2009 contained two important paragraphs I'd like to share with you:

Once the basic contours of ObamaCare are in place, they will be all but impossible to change, as Europe and Canada have demonstrated. Decisions about delivering and paying for medical care will over time shift to political and bureaucratic control. The federal government will inevitably grow to a third or more of the U.S. economy from a fifth today, with taxes sure to rise to finance it. In short, this decision could fundamentally alter the nature of the U.S. economy and society—which is precisely the goal of Ted Kennedy, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Pete Stark and other liberals who are pushing this legislation.

Pray that Republicans do not fall into the trap that's been set for them (and call them just to make sure):

Democrats like Chuck Schumer are saber-rattling that they have the votes to pass a reform without Republicans, but this is bluster to lure Senate Republicans into his “bipartisan” trap. The reality is the difficulty that Democratic leaders are having trying to pass these bills with only Democratic votes, as the public begins to understand what a government takeover would really mean. And that’s even before seniors have been told how ObamaCare will steal hundreds of billions of dollars from future Medicare spending in order to appear to be “budget neutral.” As an architect of Medicare Advantage, the program for seniors that provides private options, Mr. Grassley should find that tactic especially galling.

The only way to get a sensible health-care reform in this Congress is to show Mr. Obama that a government takeover won’t work and that he needs to rethink his political strategy. That means exposing and defeating both the House bill and the very similar Senate version that Senator Chris Dodd is moving through Mr. Kennedy’s committee.

Walpingate: Will Congress investigate? Do Democrats ever care about facts?

Sen. Grassley's investigations and the subsequent media coverage have already brought to light several suspicious circumstances surrounding the controversy that some have labeled "Walpingate":

• Prior to his dismissal, Walpin had been calling for action against Kevin Johnson's St. HOPE Academy, which, it has been learned, misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars in AmeriCorps funds. Johnson, a former NBA star, was an outspoken celebrity supporter for the Obama campaign.
  
  
• Even closer to his dismissal, Walpin filed a report critical of what he called "the largest" AmeriCorps project authorized by the Corporation for National and Community Service – a fellows program at the City University of New York – with a price tag, he estimated, of over $80 million. Calling such a large program waste, the Washington Times opined, could not have sat well with the Corporation's chairman, Alan Solomont, who contributed more than $800,000 to Obama's campaign and inauguration.
  
  
• The CNCS is also expected to welcome this week a new senior adviser, Jackie Norris, who since January has been serving as chief of staff for Michelle Obama.

Read the whole thing

Obama's newest trick: he breaks his own law (the one he co-sponsored in the Senate)!

Hope and change! It looks very suspicious. The administration has overtly interfered with the IG in his investigation, and now has tried to fire him, apparently for reporting to Congress. If so, then the White House has abused its power on behalf of a campaign contributor and political ally — an act that would make Richard Nixon blush. I doubt this Congress will hold Obama accountable for it, but kudos to Senator Grassley for not letting it go.

The curious firing of Gerald Walpin gets … curiouser

Obama breaks own 'signing-statement' rules 2 days after issuing them

President Obama failed to consult Congress, as promised, before carving out exceptions to the omnibus spending bill he signed into law — breaking his own signing-statement rules two days after issuing them — and raised questions among lawmakers and committees who say the president's objections are unclear at best and a power grab at worst.

In at least one case, lawmakers charge, Mr. Obama used his first signing statement, on the catch-all $410 billion spending bill, to go beyond the Bush and Clinton administrations in swatting away Congress' attempt to protect whistleblowers.

"Not only is your signing statement contrary to your campaign statements, it also goes beyond the traditional broad signing statements authored by previous presidents," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and a leader in pushing for whistleblower protections, who wrote a letter saying Mr. Obama goes after those who divulge classified information to Congress.

Read more