Apparently Fallon thought he reached the office of Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, but it was a staffer in the Republican Chairman's Office. Fallon said the department wanted congressional staffers to get documents to selected reporters so that officials could comment on them “before the majority” did.
After Issa spokesman Frederick Hill replied that Oversight Committee staffers would have to examine those documents first, the line went silent, and Fallon placed the call on hold for three minutes.
When he returned to the line, Fallon was “audibly shaken,” according to an account of the conversation that Issa recounts in a letter sent to Holder.Change of plans is "beltway-speak" for "damn I just royally screwed up--big time!"
The Justice official then said there had been a “change in plans,” that no documents would be released on Friday and that the main reason for the call was to seek a thaw in relations between the department and Oversight Republicans.
Issa said it’s clear that the Justice official meant to call Democratic staff and argued the mix-up is proof that President Obama’s administration and Cummings have been collaborating to “prejudice the committee’s work through under-the-table coordination.”Fallon claims he didn't call the wrong people and it was a totally normal conversaion.
“This highly partisan and combative approach to oversight by the department shows a disregard for the independent investigatory prerogatives of Congress and a deliberate attempt to influence the course of a congressional investigation,” Issa wrote to Holder, adding that it was “unseemly” for the department to favor one party over the other when it came to sharing information.
The documents, Issa added in the letter, are about Andrew Strelka, a former Justice attorney that once worked for Lois Lerner, the ex-IRS official at the center of the Tea Party controversy.
“There is nothing inappropriate about department staff having conversations with both the majority and minority staff as it prepares responses to formal inquiries,” Fallon said. “That includes conversations between the spokespeople for the department and the committee.”If I was Fallon and made that mistake it wouldn't be coffee in my cup, probably something more like single malt.
As for Hill [the Issa staffer who took the call], Fallon said following Friday’s conversation, “I guess this means he won’t be interested in having coffee.”
Cummings office responded with with a tap-dance and denial:
The aide said that Cummings and his staff “make their own independent decisions about when to release information to the public and do not improperly coordinate with any executive branch agency.”Here's the real truth, coordination between the White House and committee staffers of their party is nothing new and not unique to the Obama administration. The "unique" part, at least in this case is that Fallon called the wrong office and got caught.
“If Chairman Issa’s account is accurate, this sounds like a dumb request from a Justice Department press staffer that Democrats never received,” the aide added.
Issa’s letter leaves some questions unanswered as well. The letter says that the Justice official asked for an Issa staffer by name before giving the pitch that was presumably intended for Cummings’s aides, raising the question of how much collaboration goes on between the Democrats and the administration. Issa added that the Justice official in question — Fallon — had never called his communications department before.
A Democratic staffer on Oversight said it was rich of Issa to complain about selective leaks.
It is however just one more indication that the Obama administration is trying to cover-up the IRS scandal.
11 comments:
This is so perfectly predictable, that the corrupt Obama/Holder DOJ would attempt such a political "dirty trick", and get caught red-handed with their hand literally in the cookie jar. They make what Nixon did, seem like a schoolyard prank by comparison.
The ones who call themselves "atheist" and participate in these activist groups, are NOTHING OF THE KIND-- they are ANTI-CHRISTIANS. REAL atheists couldn't give a rat's rear end about all they perceive as "religious mumbo jumbo" and simply choose not to participate. These activists play directly into the hands of others who attack the Judeo-Christian faiths, such as ISIS/ISIL/JIHADISTS-- and they don't even realize that they lead themselves as sheep to slaughter by doing so, and would be shocked to learn that they would be required to CONVERT OR DIE, under THEIR regime.....
and what will Boehner do about it? NOTHING
That was such a can of worms that was opened back then-- at the same time they were fighting monarchic tyranny from the British, our forefathers were essentially arguing among themselves about the "slavery thing"-- and the "3/5 Compromise" was the result. Fighting tyranny from overseas, while that form of tyranny existed right under their noses so to speak. It also set into motion a "state vs. state" discord, free vs. slave, which some say led inevitably to the War Between The States. It was actually a war between certain States (Confederacy) vs. the Federalists of the North, who started using the power of the federal government of that day to start boycotting the individual Southern States, which led to Secession, and the resulting shooting war. Sadly it could have been avoided, had they actually learned from their British cousins of that day, who simply abolished slavery themselves WITHOUT FIRING A SINGLE SHOT IN THE PROCESS.
Well Boehner has signed off on all the investigation committees such as Issa's....so there's that. Just sayin'. Don't get me wrong though-- I'm NO fan of "Bonehead's".
Insisting on abolishing slavery would have resulted in the Southern states not entering the U.S. They would have created their own country instead.
One with slavery.
There were only two options 1) A single country with slavery. 2) Two countries, one of them with slavery.
A single country without slavery was never a viable option.
BTW, while Britain officially eliminated slavery in 1833, they still had forced labor. (Convict labor and workhouses.) You also need to remember that Britain never relied on slave labor the same way the Southern States did.
Slavery was never going to be peacefully abolished while people in the South viewed it as economically necessary.
(If you want a modern day equivalent try the situation with illegal aliens.)
"The two criminals will have to pay $2,000 to cover expenses incurred by Somerset police."
I see that the local government made sure they got THEIR expenses reimbursed. As for the additional shipping expenses... oh well, tough luck suckas
The deal was made between the prosecutors and the defense. But they are on the same side. Who is looking after the utility company and ultimately it's ratepayers (you and me) and the expenses we incurred by having a ship held up?
When the prosecutors do not represent the public any longer it is time for them to go. It would be nice if the Brayton Point Power Station could begin civil predeedings against these criminals but since they are probably governed by a public utility commission their charter or franchise agreement probably prohibits them from suing members (even criminals) of the public.
Time for a RICO investigation and prosecution against Obama, Cummings and the IRS.
Start the mass killings now. ONLY KIDDING!!! Since people exhale CO2, could you argue that certain people emit more than others and need to be eliminated?
Yes, Speaker Smeagol did sign-off on the various investigations— after many months, (btw: giving the guilty time to destroy the evidence and coordinate their lies, only after the incompetent arrogance of the DumperCrat wing of the Progressive Party had allowed so much of the truth to surface that continued stonewalling became politically impossible!
I know you're not a Speaker Smeagol "fan".
However: too many conservatives & constitutionalists have bought into the notion that having a GOProgressive, any GOProgressive, in office is manifestly better than having a DemonCrap-progressive, in that office!
The delusion that GOProgressives are GOP first, Progressives second, has been so thoroughly drummed-in (...by GOProgressives...), that the mission of "taking back the Republican Party"— which has been the stated mission of conservatives & constitutionalists since FDR's time has
Yes, Speaker Smeagol did sign-off on the various investigations— after many months, (btw: giving the guilty time to destroy the evidence and coordinate their lies, only after the incompetent arrogance of the DumperCrat wing of the Progressive Party had allowed so much of the truth to surface that continued stonewalling became politically impossible!
You state you're not a Speaker Smeagol "fan"; fair enough.
However: too many conservatives & constitutionalists have bought into the notion that having a GOProgressive, any GOProgressive, in office is manifestly better than having a DemonCrap-progressive, in that office!
The delusion that GOProgressives are GOP first, and Progressives second, has been so thoroughly drummed-in (...by GOProgressives...), that the mission of "taking back the Republican Party"— which, btw, has been the stated mission of conservatives & constitutionalists since FDR's time is nearly impossible at this point.
Indeed. The "half-a-loaf" crowd has accomplished their purpose: when adjusting the GOP could have been accomplished in a relatively painless way via "Free Market Forces" and the mechanism of a third party in competition, the GOProgressive used scare mongering of LOTE and "Not voting for Democrat w/the "R" designation is the same as voting for the Democrat w/the "D" designation... and the world will END!!!"[sic] to convince the less solid conservatives (including the exceedingly influential Talk Show hosts demographic) to timidly drag their feet.
This has resulted in a critical— and in my opinion, lethal, delay.
But what most amazes me, is that the same Talk Show hosts who fill the air w/their endless bragging of their love of The Free Market System, its ideals and the Forces that cause it to work, will then blithely run on and on about The Marketplace of Ideas™ but pale at the suggestion that expanding choice in political parties is good and necessary!
They actually belittled and ridicule callers who suggest that the "two party" monopoly isn't serving the best interests of the Citizenry and the Constitution!
Which indicates that they believe in the Free Market... unless the product is something truly important, like politics.
Post a Comment