CORY BOOKER FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020? (BOOKER vs TRUMP vs OBAMA)

CORY BOOKER FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020? (BOOKER vs TRUMP vs OBAMA):

BOOKER IS A GREAT CANDIDATE BUT DON'T KNOW IF HE CAN RAISE BIG MONEY LIKE OBAMA DID.

BOOKER IS PASSIONATE BUT IT TAKES MORE THAN PASSION TO BECOME U.S. PRESIDENT.

TRUMP STILL PULLS BIG MONEY FROM BUSINESS BILLIONAIRES.

OBAMA ALSO PULLED BIG MONEY FROM BUSINESS BILLIONAIRES.

IN FACT TRUMP BORROWED HIS 2016 WINNING STRATEGY FROM OBAMA'S POLITICAL PLAYBOOK.

OBAMA SET A POLITICAL GENIUS STANDARD HARD TO BEAT FOR ALL FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.

MANY SOUTHERN BLACK VOTERS DON'T KNOW BOOKER.

WILL BLACK VOTERS SHOW UP FOR BOOKER IN LARGE NUMBERS? I DON'T KNOW.

~ FYI:
I DON'T BELIEVE TRUMP IS RACIST, PERHAPS MISGUIDED.

SOMETIMES I REALLY DO MISS "COOL HAND LUKE" OBAMA.

I'M JUST SAYING.


Sources: NJ.com, Raw Story, BBC News, CNN, Youtube


****** Cory Booker's voice challenges the silence of Trump supporters


Every now and then, a political leader seems to capture what is on our minds. Franklin Roosevelt had that ability. So did John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and occasionally Barack Obama. Even Chris Christie could do it until he became intoxicated with his presidential ambitions and his bully ways.

This week Cory Booker found his voice – and ours, too, with just six words.

“She hit a nerve in me.”

Booker was not talking about one of his colleagues in the U.S. senate or even one of his constituents back in New Jersey. His words, spoken during an interview on CNN, were directed at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.

It was evening in Washington, D.C. Booker looked worn out. He was sporting a five o’clock shadow beard when he appeared on CNN.

Hours earlier, in one of his first appearances as a new, very junior Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Booker had listened quietly as Nielson said she “could not recall specific words” when President Trump reportedly cursed a blue streak a week earlier as he criticized an immigration plan suggested by Sen. Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican.

As almost everyone in America has heard, the “specific words” that Trump is said to have uttered are “s---hole” during that immigration discussion. The president was not describing the plan or any of the people in the Oval Office. His words were aimed at Africa, Haiti and El Salvador. Simply put, the president wanted to register his disapproval of immigrants from those “s---hole” nations.

After the meeting broke up, Durbin went public with Trump’s vulgarity, saying Trump was out of line and disrespectful of those nations and their people. Graham backed Durbin up. Neither Trump nor the White House tried to deny the “s---hole” remark – at least not initially.

But as uproar spread across the nation that the president – indeed, any political leader – would describe poor nations like that, Trump had second thoughts. He suggested that he didn’t quite use the “s---hole” phrase.

So what did Trump say?

About a dozen people were in the Oval Office for the immigration discussion. But it seems that everyone except Durbin and Graham came down with a sudden case of hearing loss, amnesia or had taken a monk-like vow of silence.

Actually, that’s not quite correct. After first claiming they did not know what Trump said, two GOP senators who were present for the discussion said that Trump did not say “ s---hole” but “s--- house.”

As if that makes a difference.

But now, here was Kirstjen Nielsen several days later testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Maybe she could recall what Trump actually said. Was it “s---hole” or “s--- house” – or something else?

Instead of shedding light on what happened, Nielsen did her best imitation of Sergeant Schultz, the rotund, dim-witted Nazi prison guard in the 1960’s TV sitcom, “Hogan’s Heroes,” who habitually exclaimed to “know nothing” when asked by his commander whether the American and British prisoners of war were planning to escape.

Nielson first claimed too many people were talking at once so she couldn’t quite determine what was being said. Then, she conceded that she managed to hear what she described as “rough talk.” She just couldn’t recall anything specific. So how did she know the talk was “rough”?

As Nielson offered this lame explanation, the TV footage showed Booker in what could kindly be called a slow burn. When it was his time to speak, his eyes widened and he declared that he was “seething with anger” over Trump’s alleged comments.

He then used his entire 10-minute session that had been set aside for him to question Nielson to lecture her. He mentioned Ghandi and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. He also described his parents’ difficulty in confronting bigotry when they purchased a home in Harrington Park.

Booker's message was simple: Why wasn’t Nielson confronting bigotry – in this case, the words of her boss, the president?

Nielson sat stone-faced.

“I sit here right now because when good white people in this country heard bigotry or hatred, they stood up,” Booker declared.

Nielson still sat stone faced.

When Booker had finished, Nielsen did not address what he said but instead talked about threats from white supremacists. Then Nielson said she believed that the president was trying to suggest in that Oval Office discussion that America ought to have a “merit-based” immigration system – meaning that highly educated immigrants or those with skilled would be admitted.

She didn't have to say that immigrants from “s---hole” nations would be rejected. She didn’t need to. Suggesting a “merit-based” immigration system was her clever way of avoiding any discussion of immigrants from “s---hole” nations – the poorest of the poor.

What is disturbing here is not just the president’s words, but the reaction from those closest to him like Kirstjen Nielson. Simply put: What is it going to take for people in the White House – or, frankly, in the Republican Party – to criticize Trump for stepping over a line?

We shouldn’t be surprised by the silence. Remember Trump’s “rapist” comment about Mexicans? Or when he doubted that John McCain was a war hero? Or when he disparaged the Muslim parents of an Army officer who was killed in Iraq? Or when he mocked a disabled journalist?

Trump loves picking on anyone who is vulnerable. But the uproar over Trump’s litany of outrageous statements was often brief at best and coming mainly from Trump’s critics. Trump’s allies were mostly mute, dulled into tacit acceptance.

This pattern seemed to bother Booker deeply – and rightly so. What does it take for Trump’s buddies to speak up?

And so, when Kirstjen Nielson seemed overcome with amnesia, Booker fired back. And a few hours later, when asked on CNN why he was so bothered, he said, “She hit a nerve in me.”

In that simple sentence, Booker captured the frustration that so many have felt in the first year of Trump’s presidency. He not only strikes a nerve when he opens his mouth, but his supporters strike that same nerve in their silence.

This week, Cory Booker found his voice.

When will Trump’s people find theirs?

US POSTAL SERVICE ILLEGALLY FAVORED HILLARY DURING 2016 ELECTION & TARGETED GOP VOTERS' MAIL (HATCH ACT)

US POSTAL SERVICE ILLEGALLY FAVORED HILLARY DURING 2016 ELECTION & TARGETED GOP VOTERS' MAIL (HATCH ACT):

I WARNED EVERYONE THAT USPS MAIL CARRIERS WERE SPYING ON GOP VOTERS' MAIL IN 2015 & 2016.

ESPECIALLY IN STATES LIKE GEORGIA AND NORTH CAROLINA.

MANY PEOPLE DID NOT BELIEVE ME BUT NOW YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE.

IT'S TIME TO PRIVATIZE THE US POSTAL SERVICE & HOLD USPS WORKERS ACCOUNTABLE.


Sources: ABC News, Fox News, Washington Post


**** USPS takes hearing heat for 'favoring' pro-Clinton union's campaign work


The United States Postal Service took heat during a congressional hearing Wednesday for allegedly violating federal law by “favoring” a union doing pro-Clinton campaign work.

According to a report released Wednesday morning by the Office of Special Counsel, USPS engaged in “systemic violations” of the Hatch Act, a federal law that limits certain political activities of federal employees.

While employees are allowed to do some political work on leave, the report said the Postal Service showed a “bias” in favor of the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) campaign operation, letting employees take leave without pay to participate in pro-Clinton campaign efforts.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee heard testimony from OSC and USPS officials on Wednesday, along with the USPS mail carrier who shared complaints with Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., in October 2016.

“’Postal Service leadership ‘took official actions with the intent of enabling’ the campaign activity of its union, and ‘with a clear understanding of what that activity involved,’” Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said in his prepared opening statement, citing the OSC report.

“Based on these findings, it is legitimate to wonder why no one will be held accountable, how Postal Service leadership allowed this systemic violation of the Hatch Act to go on for twenty years, and is this occurring in other federal agencies?”

Johnson was first notified of the “violations” in October 2016 by Tim Kopp, a letter carrier for the USPS and member of the NALC. Kopp thought the actions were “illegal” and was concerned the Postal Service “incurred unnecessary overtime costs” and “improperly coordinated” with NALC when it released several members for weeks of “union official” leave without pay to participate in partisan campaign work.

“I want things done fairly and I don’t want things done on a partisan issue—the union is always involved in highly political activities and I didn’t want this to be a partisan thing—I wanted this to be a thing where the general public does not lose trust in the postal service,” Kopp told the Senate panel Wednesday. “There are a lot of good employees, but the way this was done—it was a nightmare.”

According to the OSC report, roughly 97 NALC members requested the leave without pay to participate in get-out-the vote efforts in primarily 2016 battleground states: Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The NALC, which endorsed Clinton last June, compensated those USPS workers using the Letter Carrier Political Fund, the union’s PAC.

Officials at multiple levels apparently were involved.

According to OSC Acting Special Counsel Adam Miles, the NALC provided lists of letter carriers to participate in campaign activity to a senior headquarters USPS labor relations official, who then emailed the lists to other USPS officials across the country.

According to Miles, the local officials “interpreted the communications as directives” from USPS headquarters to release the carriers on union official leave without pay.

“The practice also put non-union employees, or union employees who supported other candidates, at a disadvantage,” Johnson said. “If those employees sought unpaid leave for several weeks for campaign activity, they would not have received the same treatment.”

The OSC found an “institutional bias” in favor of union-endorsed candidates, all of which were Democrats.

“USPS, through its longstanding practice of honoring these kinds of requests, failed to administer its programs in a politically neutral manner in violation of the Hatch Act,” The OSC report said.

Committee Ranking Member Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said that the USPS is “emblematic of a systemic problem not limited to one individual or one election cycle.”

“USPS has failed to implement sufficient controls to ensure compliance with the Hatch Act,” McCaskill said.

But USPS Postmaster General Megan Brennan told lawmakers that “senior postal leadership did not in any way guide union leadership in selecting the candidates for whom NALC employees could campaign” and that USPS “did not approve or choose candidates for the unions to support” or “ask the union to advocate for political candidates on behalf of the Postal Service.”

“I also note that our postal unions do not speak for the Postal Service, and the Postal Service does not speak for our unions,” Brennan wrote in her prepared testimony, insisting USPS did not seek to assist the NALC’s “favored candidates.”

Brennan said the practice to grant leave without pay for NALC political activity had been in place for approximately 20 years, but that all violations of the Hatch Act were “unintentional.”

“We will change our practice in consultation with the OSC and based upon OSC’s guidance.

This will ensure that we do not put our people in harm’s way and they do not unintentionally run afoul of the Hatch Act,” Brennan said.

“As we have previously communicated to both this committee and to the OSC, and as the OSC has acknowledged, the Postal Service has always been ready, willing and able to end or modify our practice as appropriate, consistent with OSC’s recommendation.”

COMEY APPEARS TO BE A LOYAL, REBELLIOUS OBAMA HOLDOVER (DRAIN THE SWAMP)

COMEY NOW APPEARS TO BE A LOYAL OBAMA HOLDOVER (DIVIDED FEDERAL GOVT):

TRUMP NEEDS TO DRAIN THE SWAMP OR RISK IMPEACHMENT.

Sources: Fox News, YouTube

**** Trump's personal lawyer to file complaint after Comey testimony , source says

President Trump’s lawyer will file a complaint with the Department of Justice’s Inspector General's Office and the Senate Judiciary Committee after it was revealed Thursday that former FBI director James Comey leaked memos to a friend in order to inform the media about conversations with the president, a source told Fox News.

is not clear when the attorney, Marc Kasowitz, will file the complaint. But the move appears to show that team Trump is trying to go on the offensive after Comey’s testimony.

Kasowitz is focusing on part of the testimony where Comey said he leaked the private conversation he had with Trump in order to prompt the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Russian interference.

“I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday night, ‘cause it didn’t dawn on me originally that there might be corroboration for our conversation; there might be a tape,” Comey said. “And my judgment was I needed to get that out in the public square so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. So I asked a close friend of mine to do it.”

Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and close friend of Comey, has confirmed he leaked contents of one of Comey’s memos to The New York Times. Richman served with Comey in the Southern District of New York and at the FBI.

Kasowitz said in a statement that "Comey’s excuse for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to entirely retaliatory. We will leave it the appropriate authorities to determine whether this leaks should be investigated along with all those others being investigated."

Comey, during his testimony, accused the Trump administration of “spreading “lies, plain and simple” about him and the FBI in the aftermath of his abrupt firing last month, declaring that the administration “defamed him and more importantly the FBI.”

In that testimony he had already disclosed that Trump demanded his "loyalty" and directly pushed him to "lift the cloud" of investigation by declaring publicly the president was not the target of the FBI probe into his campaign's Russia ties.

Comey said that he declined to do so in large part because of the "duty to correct" that would be created if that situation changed. Comey also said in his written testimony that Trump, in a strange private encounter near the grandfather clock in the Oval Office, pushed him to end his investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

SUSAN RICE'S MATA HARI SPYING ON TRUMP TEAM DETAILED & POLITICAL

SUSAN RICE'S SPYING ON TRUMP TEAM WAS EXTREMELY DETAILED & POLITICAL: (MATA HARI)

SPYING ON TRUMP IN 2016 HAD NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH RUSSIA.

GOOGLE IS TRYING TO HIDE THIS STORY.

MANY AMERICANS & US SOLDIERS WERE SPIED ON UNDER OBAMA WHILE ISIL OPERATIVES HAD FREE REIGN.

IS CONGRESS AFRAID TO INVESTIGATE RICE BECAUSE SHE IS A BLACK WOMAN??

LET THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS BEGIN.


Sources: Fox News, The Federalist, Alex Jones, PBS, YouTube


****** Reports in unmasking controversy were detailed, had info about 'everyday lives'



The intelligence reports at the center of the Susan Rice unmasking controversy were detailed, and almost resembled a private investigator’s file, according to a Republican congressman familiar with the documents.


This is information about their everyday lives," Rep. Peter King of New York, a member of the House Intelligence committee said. "Sort of like in a divorce case where lawyers are hired, investigators are hired just to find out what the other person is doing from morning until night and then you try to piece it together later on.”

On the House Intelligence Committee, only the Republican chairman, Devin Nunes of California, and the ranking Democrat Adam Schiff, also of California, have personally reviewed the intelligence reports. Some members were given broad outlines.

Nunes has consistently stated that the files caused him deep concern because the unmasking went beyond the former national security adviser Mike Flynn, and the information was not related to Moscow.

Schiff said in a statement, “I cannot comment on the content of these materials or any other classified documents, and nothing should be inferred from the fact that I am treating classified materials the way they should be treated - by refusing to comment on them. Only the Administration has the power to declassify the information and make it available to the public."

Former National Security Adviser Rice is under scrutiny after allegations she sought to unmask the identities of Trump associates caught up in surveillance - such as phone calls between foreign intelligence targets. Rice denies ever having sought such information for political purposes and has defended her requests as routine.

But the most recent government data shows that unmasking or identifying Americans happens in a limited number of cases. The Office for the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the 17 intelligence agencies, said "...in 2015, NSA disseminated 4,290 FAA Section 702 intelligence reports that included U.S. person information. Of those 4,290 reports, the U.S. person information was masked in 3,168 reports and unmasked in 1,122 reports."

The report said "NSA is allowed to unmask the identity for the specific requesting recipient only under certain conditions and where specific additional controls are in place" and those conditions were met for "654 U.S. person identities" in 2015.

That means Americans were identified in 26 percent of the cases, or roughly one in four intelligence reports.

During his March 20 testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, NSA director Admiral Mike Rogers said only 20 individuals within the agency are authorized to approve those requests.

“They receive specific training, there are specific controls put in place in terms of our ability to disseminate information out of the databases associated with U.S. persons,” Rogers said at the time. What it appears to suggest is that the NSA itself agreed that the instances in which Rice requested unmasking warranted that action.

FBI Director James Comey was less direct. "I don't know for sure. As I sit here, surely more, given the nature of the FBI's work," he testified.

"It would be nice to know the universe of people who have the power to unmask a U.S. citizen's name," South Carolina Republican congressman Trey Gowdy pressed. "Because that might provide something of a roadmap to investigate who might've actually disseminated a masked U.S. citizen's name."

Rice told NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell that the reports were requested by the Obama administration, which announced a probe into the Russian election hacking in early December. Two months earlier in October, before the election, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Homeland Security Department put out a joint statement about Moscow's interference.

Rice told Mitchell, "Fulfilling the president's request for such a report, they went back and scrubbed more reports. They began to provide more such reports to American officials, including myself."

Given the late fall timeline, it is not clear the intelligence reports Rice discussed during the NBC interview, are the same files reviewed by Nunes and Schiff.

Speaking to Fox News Wednesday, President Trump said he believed the former national security adviser may have committed a crime when she sought the identities of the Trump team members. The allegation was first reported by the New York Times.

While not commenting on the individual case, a former senior intelligence official explained the request must be approved by the NSA. Rice would have understood that there is an extensive government paper trail, that can be audited within the NSA, that shows who requested the unmasking, on what basis, and whether it was granted. This raises more questions about Rice, her motivation and whether it was authorized higher up, offering cover.

If approved, the former senior intelligence official said, only the requester, in this case Rice, would receive the information. Based on Fox News’ reporting, the information was shared beyond Rice, but it is not clear if those who received it had a “need to know.”

A spokeswoman for Rice, Erin Pelton, said in an email to the New York Times on Wednesday, “I’m not going to dignify the president’s ludicrous charge with a comment.” Pelton works for Mercury LLC, a crisis management firm.

At the height of the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack fallout, and questions about whether Rice and a former senior intelligence official had misled Congress about the role of an internet video in the deaths of four Americans, Mercury LLC was also tasked with handling the Fox News media inquiries.

Darrell Issa's Unnecessary Contempt Vote Against Holder May Help Sink Romney's Ship In November!

Fist Bump For Eric Holder! Two Thumbs Down For Darrell Issa!

The same Darrell Issa who once Arrested for Felony Car Theft & who Plead Guilty to a Concealed Weapons Charge is now the SAME member of Congress who wants to hold A.G. Eric Holder in Contempt for some E-mails.

A Judge later Dismissed the Felony Car Theft Charges.

Now Fast forward to the 21st Century.

Congressman Issa where is Your Mercy for Eric Holder?

The same type of Mercy previously extended to you via a Judge when you were charged with Felony Car Theft?

Pres. Obama & Eric Holder are being blamed for a Gun Running Operation started under George Bush's Administration as "Wide Receiver" and later re-named "Fast & Furious" under Obama's Administration.

"Wide Receiver" placed thousands of Guns into the hands of Young, BLACK Men living in America, yet NO One in Congress said a Word!

"Wide Receiver" contributed to Thousands of Young, BLACK, Male Americans losing their lives via BLACK on BLACK Crime, yet NO One in Congress EVER opened their mouths to question George W. Bush on the program.

Pres. Obama used "Fast & Furious" to locate & help Destroy Mexican Drug Cartels, but yet the GOP Members of Congress want to FIRE U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

It was NOT Pres. Obama or Eric Holder who Murdered U.S. ATF Agent Brian Terry.

It was a Drug Cartel Leader.

Thus ATF Agent Brian Terry was Killed while in the line of Duty.

YES it was very Unfortunate, however he was Killed while in the line of Duty.

So how can Pres. Obama or Eric Holder be Personally blamed for Terry's Death?

What about the Thousands of BLACK Youth Murdered under George W. Bush's "Wide Receiver" Gun Running Program?

The Mothers of those Young, BLACK Males Murdered with Guns from the "Wide Receiver" Gun Running Operation Cried and Mourned just as ATF Brian Terry's Mother Cried and Mourned his Death at the hands of Mexican Drug Cartel Leaders who possessed Guns from Obama's "Fast & Furious" Gun Running Operation.

Its quite obvious this entire GOP-Sponsored Theater, led by Congressman Darrell Issa is Politically Motivated to Help Mitt Romney.

Instead its turning away Voters, even some GOP Voters.
i.e., its Backfiring!

Pres. Obama is sure to Benefit from this Contempt Vote against Eric Holder and Darrell Issa's Political Career will be Destroyed soon after.

All for the sake of Bitter Partisan Politics.

Thanks Congressman Issa!

Its so Sad!

You could have chosen to use your Congressional Oversight Authority to help Eliminate Medicaid, Medicare Abuse & Fraud, Increase Child Abuse Protection laws, help Eliminate Disability Payment Fraud, Affordable Housing Funding Fraud,

Investigate Widespread Employment Discrimination against Minorities and Women over the age of 40, Food Stamp Fraud, For-Profit School Student Loan Fraud carried out by School Administrators, etc.,

Instead Congressman Issa you chose to Harass America's First BLACK U.S. Attorney General over some E-mails.

E-mails which by the way were already Submitted to Congress Months ago.

This type of foolishness and waste of Taxpayer Money is why Congress currently has a 9% Approval Rating!

Keep Standing Eric Holder!

We have your Back!

GET OUT THE VOTE AND RE-ELECT PRES. OBAMA FOR U.S. PRESIDENT IN 2012!








Why contempt case against Holder may be doomed


For veteran Congress watchers, President Barack Obama's formal claim of executive privilege regarding certain Justice Department documents related to Operation Fast and Furious will generate a sense of déjà vu.

Disputes over legislative access to executive documents occur in almost every presidential administration. Their resolution inevitably entails a set of legal and political considerations that change from episode to episode.

Unfortunately for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, its legal position is uncertain at best, and almost all political considerations would seem to favor the White House.

Whether or not the full House votes Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, the likeliest resolution will be an informal settlement in which the Justice Department expands slightly on its current offer of disclosure, the committee narrows the range of documents it is demanding, or both compromise in a mutual, face-saving gesture.

At least, that would be likely in politically "normal" times.

The form of executive privilege at stake in the current dispute is "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions.

Deliberative privilege is not a legal absolute.

The executive branch concedes that when another branch of government demands privileged documents within the executive's control, they sometimes have to be turned over.

They have to be turned over when the demanding branch can articulate a compelling need for the information to fulfill one of its own constitutional functions -- a need that outweighs the executive branch's interest in confidentiality.

A key problem now for the House Oversight Committee is thus far it has yet to state in a very concrete way why it needs the particular documents it is demanding.

In contrast, the executive branch has articulated a strong and highly specific reason for withholding the documents at issue: Forced disclosure to Congress of internal deliberations concerning how best to interact with Congress would undermine the executive's capacity to function as a co-equal branch.

It would undermine the prospects for future candid deliberations about interactions with the other institutions of government.

Resolving such a dispute sounds like a matter for the courts, but the judiciary is unlikely to be of much practical help now to the House.

If the House brings a civil action to enforce its subpoena, the matter is unlikely to resolved by the courts before the election or, indeed, before the expiration of the current Congress.

The House could ask the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to prosecute Holder for contempt, but the Justice Department long ago took the position -- in a very careful opinion written by then Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson -- that the department is not required by law to prosecute executive officials for contempt when the ground for subpoena noncompliance is a claim of executive privilege.

So that would leave the House with the one remaining legal option of launching an impeachment investigation, which brings us to the political side of things.

The reality Congress faces in separation of powers disputes, no matter how genuine or how principled, is that the public will almost certainly not rally around Congress if it perceives the dispute as more political food fight than anything else.

With no Democrats supporting the committee vote -- and I am guessing few, if any Democrats supporting a contempt citation by the entire House -- that's just what this will look like.

Moreover, as with Whitewater, it will be hard for House Republicans to explain exactly what the problem is. Fast and Furious appears to have been a disaster, but the Justice Department has shared documents freely on Fast and Furious.

The Justice Department sent a letter to Congress in February 2011 that mistakenly denied reports about what the Bureau of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives actually did in Fast and Furious.

But the department has been forthcoming in sharing information about the events leading up to that letter, which Holder subsequently withdrew.

The fight, then, is not about a botched ATF operation or about a botched letter to Congress.

It is about how the attorney general reached his eventual conclusion that Fast and Furious was "fundamentally flawed" and decided how to respond to congressional and other requests for information about a program he now concedes should not have happened.

Politically, this now begins to sound like Whitewater -- a story hardly anyone can follow, which really does not seem to implicate fundamental issues of public policy or official integrity.

(One caveat: The dynamics of this dispute could change if it turns out that Republican Committee Chairman Darrell Issa actually has information that the process of responding to Congress after the February 2011 letter entailed specific instances of corruption.

Were he to bring such specific information to the attention of the White House, it would be consistent with past White House practice to release all documents related to that misconduct.)

A prolonged fight over Fast and Furious led by Republicans will do two things their presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, surely does not want.

It will fill up air space that could otherwise have been spent discussing the economy, and it will intensify the appearance of congressional Republicans as the obstructionists blocking the changes Obama so famously promised.

It also must be said that Issa's past attacks on the administration amply feed a narrative that his subpoena is about politics, not principle.

Having months ago called Obama "one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times" -- in the face of such modern historical escapades as Watergate, Iran-Contra or the Terrorist Surveillance Program -- the chairman is not well-situated to play a Sam Ervin-like role, policing the presidency more in sadness than in angry partisanship.

In short, unless the House has specific information not yet disclosed suggesting the information it seeks is closely linked to the exposure of government malfeasance we have not yet heard about, this fight will end in a standoff or the parties will finally compromise.

To put the matter in yet fuller context, here are some questions and answers about the dispute and the history of executive privilege:

What is executive privilege?

Executive privilege is really an umbrella concept that encompasses a variety of privileges. History's most famous claim of executive privilege -- President Richard Nixon's unsuccessful attempt to withhold the "Watergate tapes" -- was an example of "presidential privacy" privilege.

That privilege covers executive communications when the president is involved.

The executive branch, however, historically claims a much broader privilege, the so-called "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions. The current dispute involves "deliberative privilege."

Where does executive privilege come from?

The Supreme Court has held that the authority of the executive branch to withhold certain documents from mandatory disclosure is rooted in the separation of powers.

The court stated, in United States v. Nixon (1974), that the importance of confidentiality to protect "communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties ... is too plain to require further discussion."

It concluded that "the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties."

In that sense, executive privilege is a form of power that the Constitution never mentions, but which the Supreme Court has found implicit in our constitutional structure. In that respect, it is just like Congress' investigative power, which is also not mentioned in the Constitution.

Why is the president involved in claiming privilege over Justice Department documents?

Withholding documents from Congress is always a sensitive matter, legally and politically. For this reason, presidents have long reserved to themselves the final decision of when and whether to invoke any kind of executive privilege against Congress.

President Ronald Reagan formalized this process in a November 1982, memorandum.

It states: "Historically, good faith negotiations between Congress and the executive branch have minimized the need for invoking executive privilege, and this tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary means of resolving conflicts between the branches.

To ensure that every reasonable accommodation is made to the needs of Congress, executive privilege shall not be invoked without specific presidential authorization."

Why is the White House claiming executive privilege regarding Operation Fast and Furious?

Operation Fast and Furious appears to have been a gravely misbegotten attempt by the ATF to nab drug traffickers in Mexico by allowing lower-level gun traffickers to buy weapons in the United States for the Mexican cartels and then tracing the guns' movement, rather than stopping their export.

One of the guns may have been involved in the December 2010 killing of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

On February 4, 2011, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which mischaracterized the operation.

He incorrectly denied that ATF "knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser who then transported them into Mexico."

As a result, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Issa, has been investigating not only the original operation but also the circumstances that led to the erroneous February 4, 2011, letter.

For his part, Holder directed the Justice Department's inspector general to investigate Fast and Furious and publicly denounced the operation in October 2011 as "fundamentally flawed." The Justice Department has released to Congress more than 7,600 pages of documents revealing how Fast and Furious was initiated and carried out.

What the Issa committee is now demanding, and what the White House and Justice Department are withholding, are documents generated after February 4, 2011, relating to how the Justice Department handled its responses to Congress regarding Congress' oversight of Fast and Furious, following the erroneous Weich letter.

In his June 19 letter to the president seeking the invocation of executive privilege, Holder argued that to disclose these documents would " 'significantly impair' the Executive Branch's ability to respond independently and effectively to matters under congressional review."

More specifically, "Congressional oversight of the process by which the executive branch responds to congressional oversight inquiries would create a detrimental dynamic" that would, in turn, "chill the candor ... of executive branch discussions and 'introduce a significantly unfair imbalance to the oversight process.' "

Is the executive privilege claim valid?

United States v. Nixon held that, with the possible exception of documents pertaining to military and state secrets, executive privilege is not absolute but "qualified."
Under a "qualified privilege," documents that are potentially exempt from mandatory disclosure might still have to be released to another branch of government.

This would happen when the institutional needs of the demanding branch to acquire the information in support of its own constitutional functions are weightier than the harms that would follow should the executive branch be forced to disclose it.

Congress typically takes the position that this balancing process always favors Congress, a proposition with which the executive disagrees and for which there is no judicial precedent.

As matters stand, the executive branch has articulated a strong and highly specific reason for withholding the documents at issue: They would shed no light on any policy issue before Congress and would directly intrude on the executive branch's capacity to figure out how to respond to legislative inquiries, consistent with the executive's own independent constitutional role.

To Congress, the Justice Department is saying, in effect: You can ask us questions, you can judge our answers, but you cannot eavesdrop on the process by which we formulate our answers.

For its part, Issa's committee has not made clear in any concrete terms why it needs the documents it is demanding.

It has not, for example, made a prima facie case of criminal wrongdoing in the Justice Department's post-February 11, 2011, actions, on which the documents now demanded would shed some light.

As long as the dispute remains in this posture, the Justice Department's claim falls well within the executive branch's longstanding interpretation of its prerogatives under the separation of powers.




House Investigator Issa Has Faced Allegations As Well

The man driving the investigation into the General Services Administration, California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, took the top seat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after the GOP won a majority in 2010.

Issa has led several splashy investigations since. But he's also been dogged by allegations of his own.

Issa has made news in recent months by threatening to subpoena Attorney General Eric Holder, and by calling a panel of only men to talk about women's contraception.

The Car Alarm Voice

Issa made his fortune building and selling Viper car alarms. He is the wealthiest member of Congress, worth as much as $450 million. In fact, it's Issa's voice on the popular alarm's signature warning to would-be thieves: "Protected by Viper. Stand back."

What's less well known is how Issa got into car alarms in the first place.

"For years I used to tell everyone that I went into it because my brother was a car thief. Then they found out when I ran for office my brother did spend time in prison as a car thief, and it ruined the whole joke I'd had for 20 years in business," Issa said during an interview with WhoRunsGov.

Issa himself was accused several times of auto theft. In the early 1970s, he and his brother were arrested after police suspected them of stealing a Maserati sports car from a dealership in Cleveland. Issa says the police mistook his identity, and the charges were later dismissed.

Another time, Issa was arrested and eventually pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed weapon. Police found a handgun and a tear-gas gun — plus ammunition for both — in Issa's glove compartment.

Questions In The Past

These stories first arose when Issa ran for the Senate in 1998. An investigative reporter named Lance Williams was looking into the then-candidate's biography.

"He had been a soldier, and he claimed that he was part of an elite bomb detecting unit that guarded President Nixon at the 1971 World Series," said Williams.

Williams called up the Nixon Presidential Library, and was told that Nixon hadn't gone to any World Series games that year. Then Williams looked into Issa's purportedly stellar career in the Army.

"The biography that he was providing the press in the context of his campaign was all wrong. He had a bad conduct rating. He was demoted, and a fellow soldier accused him of stealing his car," said Williams.

Issa eventually took over the company that built car alarms.

Ryan Lizza, a reporter for The New Yorker magazine, detailed Issa's early business moves in a 2011 story.

The Fire

Issa had a warehouse full of electronics that, one night in 1982, caught fire. Investigators later found "suspicious burn patterns," Lizza reported, and found that Issa had done some odd things.

A co-worker claimed that before the fire, Issa had put important electronic prototypes in a fireproof box, and that he'd removed the business's computer and financial files from the building. Investigators also found that less than three weeks before the blaze, Issa had increased the company's fire insurance from $100,000 to more than $400,000.

"So you add the more than quadrupling of the insurance along with the taking the computer and putting the other stuff in a fireproof box, and you can see why both the arson investigators and the insurance investigators pointed a finger, you know, at Issa after this fire," said Lizza.

Issa said he had nothing to do with the fire, but the insurance company refused to pay the claim. The two later settled out of court.

It was in part because of these allegations that Issa lost his Senate bid in 1998. He went on to win his House seat, he worked to recall the governor of California, and now he chairs the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Issa would not talk to NPR about this, but he has told several news outlets over the years that he's surprised the allegations from his past continue to dog him.


Sources: CBS News, CNN, NPR, The Blaze, Youtube

Holder vs Issa: Will Releasing "Fast & Furious" Docs Save Holder's Job? (Stop & Frisk)

As it relates to the "Fast & Furious" Feud between Congressman Darrell Issa & U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, my advice to Eric Holder is this:

Please DON'T Allow Congress To Pressure You Into RESIGNING!

Just Give Congressman Darrell Issa what he's seeking (those "Fast & Furious" Documents), maintain your Professional posture and Keep STANDING STRONG!

We Got You!

Now how about using the U.S. Dept of Justice's Authority to clamp down on NYPD's Racist "Stop & Frisk" Program?




Darrell Issa And Eric Holder Meeting Over Operation Fast And Furious


A Republican House committee chairman said Tuesday he is prepared to follow through on a contempt vote against Attorney General Eric Holder unless the Justice Department provides Congress with documents on a flawed gun-smuggling probe.

The likelihood of a contempt vote on Wednesday rose after Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Holder failed to reach agreement in a 20-minute meeting at the Capitol.

"If we receive no documents, we'll go forward," Issa told reporters.

Holder told reporters he would not turn over documents on the gun-smuggling probe called Operation Fast and Furious unless Issa agreed to another meeting.

The attorney general said he would explain what is in the materials at that time. Holder wants an assurance from Issa that the transfer of the records would satisfy a subpoena from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that Issa chairs.

"We have offered to make materials available, documents available ... to brief on those documents, to answer any questions that might come up with regard to the documents that we produced," the attorney general said.

"The ball's in their court," Holder said. "We made what we thought was an extraordinary offer."

Issa took a different view: "After this meeting I cannot say that I am optimistic" for avoiding a contempt vote, he said.

Issa spokesman Frederick Hill said that at the meeting, "The attorney general indicated he would only be willing to produce a subset of documents that numbered fewer than 1,300 pages if the committee would first agree that the production of these documents would end the committee's investigation of the Justice Department."

Issa declined the offer.

Holder said he is prepared to turn over material detailing how the department arrived at the conclusion that federal agents engaged in a risky tactic called gun-walking. It resulted in hundreds of weapons purchased at gun shops in Arizona ending up in Mexico, many of them at crime scenes. Initially, the department denied that gun-walking had taken place.

"It's a whole variety of material, and it's consistent with what we have already made available – emails, documents of that nature – that really go into the way in which the department handled itself from February of 2011 until December of 2011," Holder said.

The material "pretty clearly demonstrates that there was no intention to mislead, to deceive," Holder said.

Relying on the gun-walking tactic, federal agents from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives abandoned their usual practice of intercepting all weapons they believed to be illicitly purchased. Instead, the goal of gun-walking was to track such weapons to high-level arms traffickers, who had long eluded prosecution, and to dismantle their networks.

Gun-walking has long been barred by Justice Department policy, but federal agents in Arizona experimented with it in at least two investigations during the George W. Bush administration before Fast and Furious.

These experiments came as the department was under widespread criticism that the old policy of arresting every suspected low-level straw purchaser was still allowing tens of thousands of guns to reach Mexico. A straw purchaser is an illicit buyer of guns for others.

The agents in Arizona lost track of many of the weapons in Operation Fast and Furious. Two of the guns that "walked" in the operation were found at the scene of the slaying of U.S. border agent Brian Terry.

Issa's committee has been investigating Fast and Furious for the past year and a half. Holder says the Justice Department has already turned over 7,600 pages of documents.

Issa said he was willing to postpone Wednesday's contempt vote if the attorney general first provided the documents the panel still seeks.

In addition to Holder and Issa, the participants in the meeting were Deputy Attorney General James Cole; Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on Issa's committee.


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, AOL, CNN, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Politico, Youtube, Google Maps

Issa vs Holder: Its About Jobs Issa NOT Contempt Of Court Dude! Where Are The Jobs??

Congressman Darrell Issa's push to hold AG Eric Holder in Contempt will actually hurt the GOP. It will be viewed as Petty by Voters.
Right now Most Voters don't really care about Issa's beef with Holder. We are ONLY focused on JOBS! Where are the Jobs?
Picking a Fight with Holder will be seen by many Voters including GOP Voters, as Vindictive and a Blatant waste of Taxpayer Money!
So Here's a final word for Congressman Darrell Issa: Keep beating that "Fast & Furious" Drum and see where it gets the GOP in November.
Congressman Issa: Sir where are the Jobs?? Does "Fast & Furious" have anything to do with JOBS??? I didn't think so!



Issa Complains Holder Is ‘Not A Good Witness’

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) in a House hearing on Thursday pressed Attorney General Eric Holder about the Justice Department’s response to a subpoena requesting information on the botched ATF operation known as “Fast and Furious.”

Issa said Holder was “not a good witness” and he was unsatisfied with Holder’s answer about whether DOJ had internally pulled material responsive to the subpoena. Issa said there was “hostility” between Holder and himself but Holder said he disagreed.

“With all due respect to Chairman Issa, he says there’s hostility between us, I don’t feel that, you know, I understand he’s asking questions, I’m trying to answer them as best I can. I’m not feeling hostile at all. I’m pretty calm. I’m okay,” Holder said.

Issa has threatened to pursue a contempt resolution against Holder but aides to House Speaker John Boehner (R) have been in discussions with the Justice Department in an attempt to resolve the matter without having House Republicans pursue contempt in an election year.

Fast and Furious was an operation in which agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) instructed gun dealers to sell weapons to individuals they suspected were “straw purchasers” for Mexican drug cartels. Two of the weapons were found at the scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s death. Holder has said he wasn’t aware that guns walked during Fast and Furious until reports became public in early 2011. The Justice Department has said the pursuit of contempt is “unwarranted,” “unprecedented” and “ill-advised.”


Sources: Politico, TPM

Afghanistan War To Continue! Gen. John Allen, John McCain & Condi Rice Say No Early Withdrawal

As long as some members of Congress such as John McCain & Mitch McConnell, have a Vested Financial Interest in War i.e., Government Contractors, our Men & Women in Uniform will continue engaging in Tribal Conflicts we can NOT Win.

The Afghan War is a Tribal War.

It has NOTHING to do with Al-Qaeda because even after Bin Laden's Death, the Taliban's presence still rules that region of the Middle East.

And since President Karzai is a Willing Partner in that Scheme, why are we Wasting Billion$ of U.S. Dollars annually in Resources & Human Lives?

Remaining in Afghanistan for another 3 mos, 6 mos or 12 mos will NOT make a difference!

We've killed Osama Bin Laden so the U.S. Mission is Complete!

Let's just get out & let Karzai govern his Own Country!






U.S. General Sees No Sudden Afghan Drawdown


The top allied commander in Afghanistan told Congress on Tuesday that he had no intention of recommending further American troop reductions until late this year, after the departure of the current “surge” forces and the end of the summer fighting season.

That timetable would defer one of the thorniest military decisions facing President Obama — how quickly to get out of Afghanistan — until after the November elections.

Gen. John R. Allen, a Marine who commands the American-led allied force in Afghanistan, said that he remained optimistic about eventual success there but that it was too early to begin shifting forces. He also acknowledged the deep sensitivities, especially given the current diplomatic crisis with Afghanistan, of handing over complete security control to Afghan forces — including over the commando night raids that American commanders say are critical to the war effort. These are the subject of intense negotiation, he testified.

General Allen said that only after reviewing the results of the next six months of fighting — at the end of which there will be 68,000 American troops remaining there — would he turn his attention to the pace of further reductions in the force.

But he repeatedly said that by the end of next year, Afghan forces would have taken over full responsibility for the fight, allowing NATO’s combat role to be finished by the end of 2014, as currently scheduled.

His testimony came after a troubling, violent period on the ground, beginning with public protests — and a series of murders of American troops by Afghan security forces — following the burning of Islamic holy books by United States military personnel. That was followed by an American soldier’s rampage that left 16 civilians dead, most of them children.

General Allen said that in addition to the criminal inquiry into the massacre, there would be an administrative investigation into the command climate and headquarters organization of the soldier’s unit.

In his opening statement, he did not stray from the line taken by the White House and the Pentagon in recent weeks: that the progress toward what the Obama administration calls and “orderly and responsible” transfer of the fight against insurgents from the American-led alliance to the fledgling Afghan Army is going smoothly and that the schedule should not be altered.

He said he recognized the challenges, and deplored the Koran-burnings and the massacre. But he and members of the committee both described those events as isolated, if unfortunate, and there was little discussion of them at the hearing.

Instead, it focused on the schedule and the mechanics of the withdrawal that lies ahead, a subject that is being reviewed by NATO, whose member states are assembling their leadership in May in Chicago, and in talks between the Karzai government and Washington.

On one sensitive subject, the night raids carried out by Special Operations forces that have unsettled the Afghans but are credited with weakening the Taliban’s command structure, General Allen said the Afghans would be taking over control of them, too, eventually. Twelve Afghan teams are being trained for that purpose, he testified.

But he refused to discuss, when asked, a report in the Wall Street Journal that in negotiations with the Kabul government, the United States was considering subjecting American operations to review by some kind of Afghan tribunal.

He said it was important not to rob the surprise raids of “their momentum, which gives them their effectiveness.” And he said it was “very premature” to say what would be the outcome of the talks.

Ultimately, he said, as the Afghans take control of operations, the requirements of the Afghan constitution would need to be respected.

“Throughout history, insurgencies have seldom been defeated by foreign forces,” General Allen said. “Instead, they have been ultimately beaten by indigenous forces. In the long run, our goals can only be achieved and then secured by Afghan forces. Transition, then, is the linchpin of our strategy, not merely the ‘way out.’ ”

The possibility of an accelerated withdrawal order by President Obama has angered senior Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee. The chairman, Rep. Howard McKeon of California, said, “With our eyes at the exits, I am uncertain whether we will be able to achieve the key tenets of president’s own strategy, due to the constraints that the president, himself, has put in place.”

He made the case that “with friend and foe alike knowing that the U.S. is heading for the exits, our silence is likely viewed as a preamble to retreat. And, in warfare, when the mission becomes redeployment, rather than mission success, the outcome can quickly become disorderly.”

But General Allen emphasized that Afghan security forces are growing stronger, having reached 330,000, and that their buildup remains on track. And James N. Miller, Jr., the acting under secretary of defense for policy, testified that attacks initiated by the enemy continued to fall. They were down 22 percent in the first two months of this year compared with last year, he said, after falling 9 percent in 2011.

“We have seriously degraded the Taliban’s ability to mount a spring offensive of their own,” General Allen asserted. “This spring, they will come back to find many of their caches empty, their former strongholds untenable, and a good many of their foot soldiers absent or unwilling to join the fight.”


Sources: CBS News, CNN, NY Times, Youtube, PBS

Solyndra Scandal Linked To Valerie Jarrett (Did She Rush DOE Loan Procedure?)

Solyndra: A Big Story for the Wrong Reasons

A bankrupt green energy company will create both real and political problems for President Obama today, as the U.S. House of Representatives continues its investigation into how Fremont, California-based Solyndra LLC used its access to the president and his inner circle in order to secure and lose half a billion taxpayer dollars.

Until last Thursday, the investigation into Solyndra had been coming only from the legislative branch of the federal government. In February, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Michigan ) opened a probe into a $535-million loan guarantee awarded to the maker of innovative solar panels by the Obama Department of Energy. That loan followed multiple visits to the White House by Solyndra officers and by George Kaiser, a Tulsa, Oklahoma billionaire and Obama fundraiser. Late in August Solyndra announced it would declare bankruptcy.

Last week, following a cycle of negative news coverage and revelations about the company’s close ties to the president, the executive branch response began with a raid on Solyndra’s headquarters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Energy’s Inspector General. News coverage highlighting DoE Inspector General Gregory Friedman’s hawkishness about insufficient due diligence in making lending decisions suggests the Obama Administration’s image management apparatus is making an effort to show the president takes the Solyndra scandal seriously.

Because of the depth and documentation of Obama’s relationship with Solyndra, as well as new House revelations that White House officials pressed the Energy Department to expedite its lending to the troubled company, the effort to distance him from the scandal will almost certainly fail.

Obama did a photo opp at Solyndra headquarters last year and has emphasized the company’s cylindrical solar panels in his propaganda for green energy subsidies. Kaiser, whose Argonaut Ventures owned a 35 percent stake in Solyndra, bundled nearly $100,000 for Obama’s 2008 campaign. Solyndra executives met with White House executives about 20 times. In the period before and just after the March 2009 loan guarantee (Solyndra eventually borrowed and blew through $527 million), Kaiser met with senior advisors Austan Goolsbee, Pete Rouse and Valerie Jarrett; chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and others.

FBI and Energy both report to the president. While suspicion of overt crime could have triggered the executive-branch investigation, the involvement of these two departments clouds what had been a straightforward congressional investigation. In addition to the risk that Obama appointees can steer investigators away from evidence harmful to the president, the involvement of a competing presidential investigation detracts from what has so far been very effective work by the House.

Shortly after Solyndra announced its bankruptcy, I made the none-too-daring prediction that this scandal would prove to be durable. The figure of a half-billion dollars is easy to understand yet still incomprehensibly large. There is no distance between the president and the scandal. And the company name is memorably goofy enough that there’s no need to add the lame suffix “-gate.”

Ron Bailey remarked earlier that Solyndra is already getting shoehorned into Republocrat he-said-she-said. Although it would be a shame if this lesson in the folly of subsidizing industry degenerated into simple point-scoring, it’s also true that in this case it is because of competitive politics that we know about the scandal at all. Solyndra’s dim financial prospects, its dubious technology and its unlikely survival as anything other than a ward of the state were known before the loan was approved. (In a Business Insider article, Bruce Krasting says the company’s only valuable item may be its net operating loss.) Yet in the period after that loan, Solyndra continued to behave as a green-energy market leader, even attempting an initial public offering. Who knows how much longer the company could have gone on wasting public money, deluding investors and delaying formal bankruptcy, if not for Upton’s investigation?

It’s also clear that “contextualizing” the Solyndra scandal in the way Bailey regretted (by noting that Republicans do it too) only makes the story more infuriating. While Solyndra will be useful as a campaign issue, the real outrage is that the government is proudly putting your money into companies that private investors are unwilling to put their own money into. Once this violation of common sense has taken place, the story can only end, as it appears to have ended here, in suffering and crime. That’s not a corruption of the system. It’s the natural way the system works.




Solyndra's loans were rushed

Republican lawmakers, escalating the political furor over the collapse of a solar equipment manufacturer that received a $528 million government loan, released excerpts from Obama administration emails Wednesday suggesting that the White House pressed federal officials to wrap up their review of the loan quickly for political purposes.

In the emails, officials at the Office of Management and Budget expressed frustration that they were being put under time pressure to sign off on the loan to the company, Solyndra, two years ago so that Vice President Joe Biden could announce its approval at a groundbreaking for a factory.

The White House wanted an announcement that would show progress on job creation.

The disclosure became a focus of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing Wednesday about the loan to Solyndra, which has developed into a political headache for the Obama administration. The administration used the company as a prime example of stimulus-bill dollars creating "green jobs."

But Solyndra recently filed for bankruptcy protection and closed its factory, and its headquarters was raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, apparently in connection with the loan.

The bankruptcy filing and the raid "clearly show that the committee was more than justified in its scrutiny of the deal," said the panel's chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich. "Why did the administration think Solyndra was such a good bet?"

Critics of the loan have focused on whether political considerations played a role in awarding the loan to Solyndra, which the Obama administration denies. But the hearing also cast doubt on the government's competence to assess how sure a bet it is making, regardless of politics.

Officials of the Energy Department's loan office and the White House budget office defended their decisions, which they said were carefully reviewed and not politically inspired. The administration said the emails showed only that the White House wanted to know when a decision would be made for its planning.

"As the emails indicate, there was interest in when a decision would be made because of its impact on whether an event involving the vice president could be scheduled for a particular date or not," said Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman. "But the loan-guarantee decision was merit-based and made by career staffers at the Department of Energy, and the process for this particular loan guarantee began under President George W. Bush."

Suspicions that the administration might have pushed the loan for political reasons have centered on the fact that a major investor in the company is a charitable foundation associated with George B. Kaiser, a billionaire from Tulsa, Okla., who raised $50,000 to $100,000 as a "bundler" for President Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

Logs show that Kaiser visited the White House on several occasions during the spring and summer of 2009, while the loan to Solyndra, based in Fremont, Calif., was being considered. Among the officials he met with were chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Pete Rouse and Valerie Jarrett, both senior advisers to Obama.

"It seems like crony capitalism was trumping the smart decision-making," Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., said at the hearing.

Campaign finance records analyzed by OpenSecrets.org show that there were about 235 other bundlers for the Obama campaign in Kaiser's range, while about 326 bundlers raised significantly larger sums.

Administration officials said the White House meetings were not about Solyndra but rather were related to Kaiser's charitable interest in policy matters such as early-childhood education. The George Kaiser Family Foundation has said that Kaiser "did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan."

Three factors pushed the market price of solar arrays below Solyndra's cost of production, according to experts. The cost of silicon, a key ingredient in competitors' cells but not in Solyndra's, fell sharply. The economic crisis in Europe cut demand for solar cells. And China subsidized a huge increase of solar equipment production, producing a surplus.




Furor Over Loans to Failed Solar Firm

Republican lawmakers, escalating the political furor over the collapse of a solar equipment manufacturer that received a $528 million government loan, released excerpts from Obama administration e-mails on Wednesday suggesting that the White House pressed federal officials to wrap up their review of the loan quickly for political purposes.

In the e-mails, officials at the Office of Management and Budget expressed frustration that they were being put under time pressure to sign off on the loan to the company, Solyndra, two years ago so that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. could announce its approval at a groundbreaking for a factory. The White House wanted an announcement that would show progress on job creation. The emails were first reported by the Washington Post and on the Web site of ABC News, in partnership with iWatch.

The disclosure became a focus of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on Wednesday about the loan to Solyndra, which has developed into a political headache for the Obama administration. The administration used the company as a prime example of stimulus bill dollars creating “green jobs.” But Solyndra recently filed for bankruptcy protection and closed its factory, and its headquarters was raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, apparently in connection with the loan.

The bankruptcy filing and the raid “clearly show that the committee was more than justified in its scrutiny of the deal,” said the panel’s chairman, Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan. “Why did the administration think Solyndra was such a good bet?”

Critics of the loan have focused on whether political considerations played a role in awarding the loan to Solyndra, which the Obama administration denies. But the hearing also cast doubt on the government’s competence to assess how sure a bet it is making, regardless of politics.

Officials of the Energy Department’s loan office and the White House budget office defended their decisions, which they said were carefully reviewed and not politically inspired. The administration said that the e-mails showed only that the White House wanted to know when a decision would be made for its planning.

“As the e-mails indicate, there was interest in when a decision would be made because of its impact on whether an event involving the vice president could be scheduled for a particular date or not,” said Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman. “But the loan guarantee decision was merit-based and made by career staffers at the Department of Energy, and the process for this particular loan guarantee began under President George W. Bush.”

Suspicions that the administration might have pushed the loan for political reasons have centered on the fact that a major investor in the company is a charitable foundation associated with George B. Kaiser, a billionaire from Tulsa, Okla., who raised $50,000 to $100,000 as a “bundler” for President Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Logs show that Mr. Kaiser visited the White House on several occasions during the spring and summer of 2009, while the loan to Solyndra was being considered. Among the officials he met with were the chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and Pete Rouse and Valerie Jarrett, both senior advisers to Mr. Obama.

“It seems like crony capitalism was trumping the smart decision-making,” Representative Steve Scalise, Republican of Louisiana, said at the hearing.

Campaign finance records analyzed by OpenSecrets.org show that there were about 235 other bundlers for the Obama campaign in Mr. Kaiser’s range, while about 326 bundlers raised significantly larger sums.

Administration officials said the White House meetings were not about Solyndra but rather were related to Mr. Kaiser’s charitable interest in policy matters like early childhood education. Mr. Kaiser has declined to comment directly about the meetings. But the George Kaiser Family Foundation has said that “he did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan.”

While Mr. Kaiser’s connection to the Obama campaign and to Solyndra, based in Fremont, Calif., have helped draw attention to the loan, he was not a major topic of discussion at the hearing on Wednesday. Republicans did, however, press those testifying on whether the Solyndra bankruptcy offered proof that the government should not be lending to companies that have trouble raising money from private investors.

“In this time of record debt, I question whether the government is qualified to act as a venture capitalist, picking winners and losers in speculative ventures and shelling out billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat,” Mr. Upton said.

Three factors pushed the market price of solar arrays below Solyndra’s cost of production, according to experts. The cost of silicon, a key ingredient in competitors’ cells but not in Solyndra’s, fell sharply. The European economic crisis cut demand for solar cells. And China subsidized a huge increase of solar equipment production, producing a surplus.

While taxpayers could lose the $528 million the company borrowed from the Treasury, Jeffrey D. Zients, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, said that the system for evaluating such loans was sound. He said it was inevitable that some cutting-edge firms would fail but that over all, the investments would prove worthwhile. He did allow, “The lesson learned here is that marketplaces can change even more rapidly than one would have anticipated.”

Executives from Solyndra are scheduled to testify before the subcommittee next week.

Meanwhile, the White House provided about 900 pages of e-mails this week to the committee, which had asked for all correspondence between Obama aides and Solyndra executives. Most of the correspondence concerned logistics for a visit by Mr. Obama in the spring of 2010.

However, several e-mails from the company to the White House flagged and sought to discredit a handful of articles that had questioned the company’s financial viability as far back as July 2010. A Solyndra official, David Miller, called one such report baseless and noted that Solyndra “had no intention of going out of business” and that its goal was to be “a true success story for this administration to point to.”

Another Solyndra e-mail, from this past May, informed the White House that “things are going well” at the company and that it had “good market momentum, the factory is ramping up and our plan puts at cash positive later this year. Hopefully, we’ll have a great story to tell toward the end of the year.”

A White House official, Greg Nelson, replied: “Fantastic to hear that business is doing well — keep up the good work! We’re cheering for you.”



Solyndra "Scandal" Is Washington Business as Usual

I haven't written much about the California solar company Solyndra, which recently went bankrupt after receiving over $500 million in taxpayer money as part of the Department of Energy's program of loan guarantees for renewable energy companies. Short story: the sudden demise of the California-based company—which went out of business on Aug. 31, costing more than 1,000 employees their jobs—raised speculation that the Obama Administration may have channeled money toward Solyndra for political reasons.

Republicans in the House launched an investigation, and turned up emails that seemed to show White House staffers pushing officials at the Office of Management and Budget to sign off on the loans in time for a major public appearance by Vice-President Joe Biden at Solyndra's headquarters.

On Sept. 14 , a House subcommittee held hearings on the Solyndra affair, and Republican representatives tried to portray the Solyndra loans, and the White House's renewable energy support policy, as an expensive, politically motivated failure.

My response: meh. TIME's Michael Grunwald has covered this from the start, and while he's unhappy—to say the least—with executives at Solyndra for misleading the government on its financial health, the solar industry more broadly is doing well, thanks in part to the money the Obama Administration has channeled towards more successful companies. And it's worth noting that in addition to government loan guarantees, Solyndra also scored over $1 billion in private capital—including from GOP-friendly investors like the Walton family of Wal-Mart.

Solyndra turned out to be a bad investment—the company failed in part because it made the wrong bet on solar technology, failing to foresee that silicon prices would drop drastically.

Bad investments are a part of business, especially a cutting-edge industry like renewable energy, and failure is a necessary ingredient for innovation. (Just ask the famously fired Steve Jobs.) The idea that the collapse of one solar company discredits the entire solar industry is absurd.

Still, many Republicans would argue that the real question here is whether government policies like loan guarantees and subsidies can actually help support companies and create new jobs rather than simply engendering failure and waste. That's a fair debate to have. But the haters are being hypocritical.

Nosing for federal money and federal support is the name of the game in Washington—otherwise the expense accounts of lobbyists on K Street wouldn't be so generous.

Oil and gas and coal companies all spend millions in lobbying, putting former government regulators on their payrolls to ensure that policy goes their way.

House Speaker John Boehner himself has received more than $1.5 million from the coal industry—money that was spent well. It's not just Republicans—Democrats from oil or coal states know to look out for industry.

And it's not just the energy industry either—every major business sector is happy to lobby in Washington and bend legislation to their favor. That's the way things work—or don't, I suppose.

If Solyndra threw its weight around Washington to pull in that $500 million-plus loan guarantee, the firm was only copying its more entrenched competitors. In fact, maybe it was a sign that the renewable energy industry was finally ready for prime time. You can criticize the White House for spending public money foolishly in support of one of the President's signature policy objectives: building green jobs. But there's nothing here that makes the Solyndra debacle special. It's business as usual.


View Larger Map

Sources: Bloomberg TV, CNN, NY Times, Open Secrets, Reason.com, TIME, Twin Citizens.com, USA Today, Washington Post, Youtube, Google Maps