Hey, if Susan Rice qualifies for a big promotion, why not Victoria Nuland? She's the State Department spokeswoman at the center of the firestorm over the administration's Benghazi talking points -- and if the president has his way, she'll be movin' on up to Assistant Secretary of State:
The State Department spokeswoman who earlier this month found herself in the middle of the controversy surrounding key revisions to the Benghazi talking points appears to be in line for a promotion. The White House announced Thursday that President Barack Obama intends to nominate Victoria Nuland as assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs, a position that requires Senate confirmation...Nuland, who has served as the State Department spokesperson from 2011 until earlier this spring, came under fire from Obama administration critics last week after leaked e-mails revealed she raised concerns with the CIA-prepared talking points on the deadly terror attack last September 11. Specifically, Nuland asked that references to al Qaeda and previous CIA warnings about threats posed to U.S. diplomats in Libya be scrubbed from the document that was used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on news talk shows to explain the administration's understanding of events in Libya.
Those confirmation hearings could get testy. Nuland's contributions to the now-infamous talking points email chain provide the closest thing to smoking-gun evidence of a cover up. She demanded that (accurate) assessments of terrorist involvement be scrubbed, along with references to (accurate) intelligence warnings leading up to the attack about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi. Here's how ABC News described her insistence on misleading edits a few weeks ago:
In one email, previously reported by ABC News, Nuland said that including the CIA warnings "could be used by Members [of Congress] to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that? Concerned …" After some changes were made, Nuland was still not satisfied. "These [changes] don't resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership," Nuland wrote.
These two quotes alone demonstrate how Nuland was primarily concerned about denying Congress (accurate) ammunition to ask why State Department leadership had been derelict and negligent in advance of the deadly terrorist attacks. "Why do we want to feed that?" she asked, apparently unconcerned with, you know, the truth. She also specified that early rounds of alterations to the talking points were insufficiently bowdlerized, which was unacceptable to both her and her "building leadership." To whom might she have been referring, I wonder? Now, Obama would like to elevate Nuland to be among that building leadership. Loyal soldiers must be rewarded for protecting the castle, after all. This move extends another middle finger to House investigators and the families of the Benghazi dead. The message is clear: The president could not care less about what other people think about Benghazi. It's such a non-scandal to the White House that they're conspicuously promoting its key players. The arrogance and "you can't touch me" attitude speaks for itself. This administration is out of control.
Forget promotions, not a single person has been fired over the lethal Benghazi fiasco. The handful of State Department officials who've been "disciplined" are still drawing paychecks, including the top "scapegoat," who was going to be reassigned to a new job as soon as the scandal "blew over." Elsewhere on the accountability score card, at least five Benghazi attackers have been identified and located by the US government. None of them have been detained, however, because the administration is trying to build a legal case against them that could hold up in a civilian American courtroom. Madness. Meanwhile, the Congressional investigation is far from over. The American people are largely supportive of Republicans' efforts to get to the bottom of the issue, which a majority calls "very important." As the Washington Post puts it, based on their polling, "it’s not just Republicans up in arms about Benghazi. That’s a problem for President Obama." I'll leave you with this headline from BuzzFeed:
House Democrats Dismiss Existence Of Obama Scandals
Apparently some of them didn't get the memo.
This short testimony is one of the most powerful I've ever seen.
Dr. Anthony Levatino closes by quoting Obama: "If there is just one thing that we could do that would save just one child don't we have an obligation to try?"
Dear colleagues,
The recent news about the FBI’s seizure of the phone and email records of Fox News employees, including James Rosen, calls into question whether the federal government is meeting its constitutional obligation to preserve and protect a free press in the United States. We reject the government's efforts to criminalize the pursuit of investigative journalism and falsely characterize a Fox News reporter to a Federal judge as a "co-conspirator" in a crime. I know how concerned you are because so many of you have asked me: why should the government make me afraid to use a work phone or email account to gather news or even call a friend or family member? Well, they shouldn’t have done it. The administration’s attempt to intimidate Fox News and its employees will not succeed and their excuses will stand neither the test of law, the test of decency, nor the test of time. We will not allow a climate of press intimidation, unseen since the McCarthy era, to frighten any of us away from the truth.
I am proud of your tireless effort to report the news over the last 17 years. I stand with you, I support you and I thank you for your reporting with courageous optimism. Too many Americans fought and died to protect our unique American right of press freedom. We can’t and we won’t forget that. To be an American journalist is not only a great responsibility, but also a great honor. To be a Fox journalist is a high honor, not a high crime. Even this memo of support will cause some to demonize us and try to find irrelevant things to cause us to waver. We will not waver.
As Fox News employees, we sometimes are forced to stand alone, but even then when we know we are reporting what is true and what is right, we stand proud and fearless. Thank you for your hard work and all your efforts.
Sincerely,
Roger Ailes
Ailes' words come at quite a fitting time with Memorial Day right around the corner.
If you haven't read Roger Ailes: Off Camera by Zev Chafets, I highly recommend it.
Yesterday, I wrote about how the IRS' abuse of innocent Americans was an all-but-infalliible sympton of a government that had grown too big and too arrogant.
Here's another symptom of the same disease: A report from The Nation (of all places!) disclosing the dirty little scam the Center for American Progress has going on. Big companies (who get to remain undislosed!) donate money, and in return, the prominent and connected lefties who work at this liberal "think tank" will, in effect, lobby for you and further your interests in myriad other ways with the prominent and connected lefties who are now controlling our government.
The hypocrisy is stunning. On the one hand, lefties condemn the "money in politics" on the grounds that it will motivate Republicans to side only with the evil "corporate interests" while neglecting the common weal; on the other, they collect hefty "donations" in exchange for helping to advance certain specified corporate interests.
Why do corporations have to play these games? Essentially, it's a protection racket. You need go-betweens who can shield you from unwelcome regulation and intrusion from a government that has grown too big, too powerful and too intrusive.
Why can lefties justify this hypocrisy? Because -- like the IRS' harassment of innocent citizens' or AG Holder's willingness to spy on the press -- it's not really wrong when high-minded types like them do it. And don't expect an Obama-dominated IRS to check out the legality of this (powerful lefty) nonprofit. Harassment only goes one way.
Did Attorney General Eric Holder lie under oath about his involvement in the phone monitoring of reporters? It sure looks like it. Holder was asked last week by Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson about his involvement with prosecuting the press and he claimed he had no involvement. Last night, NBC News reported Holder personally signed off on the secret monitoring of Fox News Reporter James Rosen. In that case, Rosen was named as a "co-conspirator" and treated as a criminal for trying to obtain information from a source. More from Gateway Pundit:
First of all you’ve got a long way to go to try to prosecute the press for publication of material. This has not fared well in American history… In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.
H/T Washington Examiner
No recusal dodges this time. NBC News is reporting that Attorney General Eric Holder personally signed off on a controversial search warrant that targeted Fox News correspondent James Rosen:
Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator” in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private emails, a law enforcement official told NBC News on Thursday...The law enforcement official said Holder's approval of the Rosen search, in the spring of 2010, came after senior Justice officials concluded there was "probable cause" that Rosen's communications with his source, identified as intelligence analyst Stephen Kim, met the legal burden for such searches. "It was approved at the highest levels-- and I mean the highest," said the law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He said that explicitly included Holder.
As you'll recall, the Obama/Holder DOJ treated Rosen as a criminal co-conspirator in order to secretly gain access to Rosen's personal email as well as phone records on up to 30 separate lines -- including Rosen's personal cell number and the home phone of his parents. The disclosure of Holder's role in the case broke just hours after President Obama delivered a wide-ranging speech on national security and counter-terrorism policy, during which he said the following about press freedoms:
Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review. And I have directed the Attorney General to report back to me by July 12th.
Attention, America: Eric Holder -- the man who authorized a truly shocking and intrusive warrant designed to pry into the news-gathering methods of a journalist -- "shares the president's concerns" about freedom of the press. Good to know. And aren't you comforted that Holder has been tasked with reviewing...his own actions and "reporting back" to his boss by mid-summer? Slate's Dave Weigel wins the day with this headline: "Eric Holder Will Lead Investigation Into Journalist Warrant That he Approved." What a farce. Obama has unwaveringly expressed full confidence in Holder, even after his amnesia- and ignorance-addled testimony last week. The last few weeks have prompted low murmurs among influential Democrats about dumping Holder. Let's see if this revelation nudges him closer to the path of Obama's proverbial bus.
There were reports floating around last week that Holder would have signed off on the DOJ's lengthy fishing expedition against the Associated Press because protocols require the Attorney General to do so. Holder was able to deflect those questions and criticisms by citing his recusal from that particular investigation -- which he could neither verify, nor even remember when exactly it happened. (His rationale for the extraordinary measures in that instance has subsequently been debunked by media reports). No such luck this time; he's knee-deep in the Rosen affair. Time for another hearing? Also, NBC's source says the decision to surreptitiously and intrusively monitor James Rosen was approved at the "the highest levels." He or she confirmed that this includes Holder. The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza asks the obvious follow-up question:
Very important question: did Holder or anyone else at DOJ inform the White House of the Rosen warrant?
— Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) May 23, 2013
Did the supposed firewall between this DOJ's investigations and the White House hold firm, or might a few flames have burned through? I'll leave you with NBC newsman Chuck Todd's thoughts on the Obama administration's posture toward the first amendment and journalistic freedoms:
"You can’t look at this and see it as anything other than an attempt to basically scare anybody from ever leaking anything every again. So, they want to criminalize journalism, and that’s what it’s coming down to. If you end up essentially criminalizing journalism when it comes to reporting on the federal government, particularly on national security, and the only place they think they technically can do that is on the issue of national security, what it’s going to do is the impact that we’ve heard the council say this over the weekend: It is going to make whistleblowers and people that might leak and regular sources."
James Goodale, the First Amendment lawyer who represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, wrote the following this week: "The search warrant filed to investigate the Fox News reporter James Rosen proved as many had suspected: President Obama wants to make it a crime for a reporter to talk to a leaker. It is a further example of how President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom."
NRA Life of Duty is out with a new Patriot Profile about "Frog Dogs." This profile features a Navy SEAL who details his journey through battle with his work dog Chopper.
Some SEALs carry ladders, comm gear, breaching tools, explosives and other various kit items specific to the specialty they bring to the fight. Whether Trevor Marshek was rappelling off a cliff, parachuting off the back of a plane, or scaling a wall, his special piece of kit came in the form of a 110-lb. dog with 2" canines. Many warriors go their separate ways after war, but Trevor brought his buddy home with him.
Just a day after arriving on Capitol Hill and insisting that she had done nothing wrong, Lois Lerner is again being proved a liar.
This time, the evidence comes in the form of this post by Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ, who has represented 27 Tea Party organizations in 17 states. He notes she sent 15 intrusive letters to four of his clients, including during the March-April 2012 time frame when Douglas Shulman was assuring Congress that no inappropriate targeting was going on. The IG report states that Lerner was briefed on the inappropriate criteria in June of 2011. That means she had to have been aware of what was going on -- and actively participating in it.
In addition, as Sekulow points out, contrary to claims by the administration, the harassment and abuse of Tea Party groups did not end in March of 2012. See the intrusive questions on this letter (2nd in grouping), dated May of 2013!
It is hard to overestimate the arrogance of Lois Lerner. There is no other viable theory except that she thought the IRS could lie to Congress and dissemble with the inspector general . . . and they'd never get caught. Makes you wonder what else has gone on that no one knows about . . . yet.
Michael Isikoff (a fine investigative journalist, who would have won a Pulitzer during l'affaire Lewinsky had it involved a Republican president) is reporting that Eric Holder himself signed off on the search warrant for James Rosen's emails.
But here's the problem. Today, in his speech, the President said,
Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. I have raised these issues with the Attorney General, who shares my concern. So he has agreed to review existing Department of Justice guidelines governing investigations that involve reporters, and will convene a group of media organizations to hear their concerns as part of that review.
So, in other words, Holder is going to review policies he himself has pushed to the limit and presumably revise them? Isn't that a tacit admission that his actions were improper? And how does the President justify keeping him on if that's the case?
What's more, recall that Holder asserted that he had recused himself from the AP investigation, though somehow the paperwork confirming that recusal was, well, lost (nevertheless, he did nothing to stop it). Why would he recuse himself from the AP investigation, but not from the investigation into Fox News? Was it just that he didn't mind involving himself in the administration's "war on Fox"?
And just how "concern[ed]" can Holder be with "government over-reach" given his unprecedented trashing of the First Amendment in his pursuit of journalists?
Exit questions:
How does this guy keep his job?
Could this possibly be setting the stage for a Memorial-Day-Friday Holder "resignation"?
Exit Dream: that some enterprising soul in the House Judiciary Committee has the gumption to ask Holder if he really -- as stated in the affidavit to get the warrant on Rosen -- that James Rosen really constituted a flight risk.
