Fast and Furious Scandal Rocks Obama Justice Department

I don’t believe we’ve seen a more corrupt, politicized and incompetent Department of Justice (DOJ) in modern political history than we have now under President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. And I never thought I’d write those words after suffering eight years of Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration.
But check this out as reported by The Associated Press:

The Justice Department replaced three officials Tuesday who played critical roles in a flawed law enforcement operation aimed at major gun-trafficking networks on the Southwest border.
The department announced that the acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the U.S. attorney in Arizona had resigned and an administration official said a prosecutor who worked on the operation was reassigned to civil cases.
The operation, known as Fast and Furious, was designed to track small-time gun buyers at several Phoenix-area gun shops up the chain to make cases against major weapons traffickers.…
A congressional investigation of the program has turned up evidence that ATF lost track of many of the more than 2,000 guns linked to the operation.

In essence, the ATF, with the full approval of the DOJ, allowed guns to be sold and sent to the Mexican drug cartels in the hopes of having them show up at crime scenes in Mexico! This reckless craziness seems to have resulted in, among other crimes, the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was killed in a shootout with Mexican criminals in December, 2010. Fast and Furious guns were found at the scene of his death.
And that is why this week the Acting ATF Director Kenneth E. Melson was transferred to a make-work position in the DOJ and the U.S. Attorney in Phoenix resigned.
But Eric Holder still has his job! (I suspect that Melson wasn’t reassigned for the Fast and Furious fiasco itself but because he told Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) that the senior officials at the DOJ were trying to suppress information about the scandal. Rep. Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) deserve great credit for ferociously investigating and exposing this scandal.)
(And now today we know the White House was kept abreast of this criminal enterprise run by the Obama administration appointees. In classic scandal-control fashion, the Obama gang seems to have leaked this blockbuster information on the Friday before the Labor Day holiday in the hopes no one notices a key piece of information in what could very well be the biggest scandal of this presidential administration.)
At any rate, to get to the bottom of the Fast and Furious scandal, our investigators already filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with ATF and another division within the Obama DOJ on July 13, 2011. Here’s what we’re after:

All records of communications, contacts and correspondence between Director Kenneth E. Melson and any official, officer and employee of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General regarding ATF Phoenix Operation Fast and Furious.
All records prepared for or submitted to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform related to Director Melson’s interview with the committee on July 4, 2011.
All records of communication between any ATF official, officer or employee (including Director Melson and ATF Phoenix Special Agent in charge William Newell) and any official, officer or employee of the Drug Enforcement Administration regarding Operation Fast and Furious.
All records regarding, concerning or related to the October 26, 2009 meeting/telephonic conference call between Director Melson, DAG David Ogden, AAG Lanny Breuer, DEA Administrator Michelle Leonhart, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and other Justice Department officials regarding the Southwest Border Strategy (including, but not limited to, any agendas, minutes, transcripts, notes or presentations).

(As detailed in this Townhall story, that October 26, 2009, meeting between top DOJ officials might just shed some light on this egregious scandal.)
We’re also trying to obtain correspondence between the ATF and some Washington Post reporters who wrote glowing pieces about the ATF gun-busting campaign. We think it’s important to find out if the Obama ATF ran the Fast and the Furious operation as part of a press effort to advance their anti-Second Amendment agenda through a liberal media outlet.
And one would suspect that the anti-American Obama administration was desperate to blame “American guns” for the Mexican violence. Not to mention that it all distracts from the fact that one of the key reasons for the drug gang-fueled violence in Mexico is the unsecured border that allows the drug/human trafficking trade to thrive!
As you may have already guessed, given the Obama administration’s penchant for illegal secrecy, we have yet to receive substantive responses to our various requests. So you can expect a lawsuit (or lawsuits) to be filed very soon.
And when we do receive documents I will continue to keep you up to date in this space regarding what we find.
I know many of you have contacted us about this scandal and I want to assure you all that your Judicial Watch is on it.

Uncle Omar Obama’s Wild Ride

Meet the new face of the Obama administration’s dangerous and unlawful approach to illegal immigration. His name is Onyango Obama. And yes, he is related to the president. According to the August 31 edition of The Boston Globe:

The uncle of President Obama arrested here last week on drunken driving and other charges has been a fugitive from deportation since 1992, according to two federal law enforcement officials with knowledge of the case.
Onyango Obama, who is from Kenya and is known as the president's Uncle Omar on his father's side, had lived a quiet life in Massachusetts until last Wednesday, when police said the car he was driving darted in front of a police cruiser, nearly causing the officer to hit his car.
The federal officials, who spoke about Obama's immigration status on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak about the case, said Obama had been told to leave in 1992, but he did not go.

Uncle Omar, whose blood alcohol content was nearly twice the legal limit, is the brother of Obama’s infamous “Auntie Zeituni,” who was previously “discovered” living illegally in the Boston area. She was granted asylum despite having disobeyed a 2004 deportation order.
(Click here to read a statement I offered to the press on the whole sordid “Uncle Omar” mess. The bottom line, as I note in my statement, is that “Uncle Omar is exactly the kind of person that local police would have been able to easily keep off the streets as a result of new immigration laws in states such as Arizona and Georgia, which are being challenged in court by the Obama administration.”)
But here’s the good news for Uncle Omar (and the horrible news for anyone concerned about the illegal immigration crisis and the rule of law). He’s probably not going anywhere. And neither are millions of other illegal aliens living in the shadows, including convicted criminals.
The Obama administration announced last week that it would effectively halt any enforcement actions (on an alleged “case-by-case” basis) against any illegal alien who hasn’t committed any other serious crime.
As reported by Newsmax:

The Obama re-election campaign jumped into full operational mode with an announcement by Janet Napolitano, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary, that illegal aliens in deportation proceedings — whether border-crossers or visa overstays — who have yet to commit an additional crime, will be allowed to remain in the United States and obtain work permits.…
Low-priority cases, which she believes waste enforcement resources, will be dismissed in defiance of existing U.S. immigration laws passed by Congress and signed into law by previous presidents.

So that’s it. After more than a year of denying that “stealth amnesty” was the official illegal immigration policy of the Obama administration, the Obama gang has finally fessed up. Illegal aliens will not be deported or pursued. Amnesty is here.
And don’t believe the Obama administration’s lies when it comes to illegal aliens with criminal records. We already know from documents we uncovered in July that Obama administration officials are actively considering the dismissal of charges against illegal alien criminals, even those convicted of violent crimes! (If you need anecdotal evidence, just look at how Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) handled the case of the nun-killing illegal alien.)
As if that were not enough to get your blood boiling, JW now has even more evidence of the Obama administration’s contempt for the law and the U.S. Constitution. While Uncle Omar was busy endangering the public, our investigators were sifting through 2,600 pages of documents we uncovered from the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) as a result of two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits. And look at what we found: The records detail an orchestrated campaign by the Obama administration to suspend deportation proceedings against “one of the DREAM [Act] kids” and other illegal aliens, even though Congress had not passed the legislation!
The DREAM Act would have permitted certain immigrant students who have grown up in the U.S. to apply for temporary legal status, eventually obtain permanent legal status, and become eligible for U.S. citizenship if they go to college or serve in the U.S. military. It could initially provide amnesty for over one million illegal immigrants and would have cost over $6 billion a year. Despite repeated attempts by liberal members of Congress and the Obama administration to push this legislation through, the DREAM Act has failed to garner enough votes.
But that didn’t stop the Obama administration from bulldozing forward anyway, creating and implementing law, all on the administration’s unconstitutional own initiative. The details:

• In an April 20, 2010, email from Melissa Crow, former DHS Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Office of Immigration and Border Security, to Roxana Bacon, Chief Counsel for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Crow states: “Since we met, I’ve done my best to encourage ICE to grant deferred action in the DREAM Act cases…brought to my attention.”
• An email chain about “one of the DREAM [Act] kids” who was being detained by authorities suggests confusion at DHS regarding how to handle requests for “deferred action” from illegal alien students. In the email chain, ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) Chief of Staff Suzanne Barr writes to DHS Deputy Press Secretary Matthew Chandler, “we r f’ed up,” to which Chandler responds, “Yep. And we wonder why pp’l FOIA us.” The student was granted a stay of removal for six months.
• In response to a USA Today inquiry into whether aliens are required to carry identification, DHS General Counsel John R. Sandweg writes, “Ugh. Yes. Fed law does require aliens to carry their paperwork. I don’t know if it is a criminal offense, but this provision has gone relatively unnoticed by media and [redacted].…I think some groups of aliens are exempted from this requirement as they don’t really have paperwork (folks who were issued deferred action). Either way, it is not routinely enforced.”
• In a memo from Mariela Melero, Chief of the Office of Public Engagement of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas, entitled “Stakeholder Input of Administrative Reforms,” Melero sets forth suggested reforms “outside of Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” which includes the opinion that the director – unless otherwise required by law – has the authority to judge if the evidence presented for deferred action is “probably true.” Another reform would allow a 501(c)(3) organization [such as Project Vote/ACORN, perhaps!] in “good standing…to design and implement voter registration programs at USCIS offices across the country.”

The Obama administration’s decision to suspend the deportations of most illegal aliens has been subject to intense scrutiny since 2010, when the press uncovered a United States Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) memo that contemplated various “administrative alternatives” to bypass Congress and implement stealth amnesty for illegal aliens.
A subsequent Houston Chronicle story exposed an effort by the administration to suspend the deportations of illegal aliens who supposedly have not been convicted of any “serious” crimes. Documents uncovered by Judicial Watch show that DHS officials misled Congress and the public about the scope of the immigration enforcement policy change, which gave wide latitude to local immigration officials to dismiss illegal alien deportation cases.
And then came the Obama administration’s public announcement that, indeed, illegal aliens of “low priority” will no longer be deported. The administration denied that this was a blanket or categorical amnesty, but these new documents show otherwise.
The documents show that the Obama administration is obviously lying about its stealth amnesty activities and indicate an alarming contempt for Congress and the rule of law. Frankly, these documents show that Obama immigration officials don’t even know what the law is!
The Obama administration cannot simply pick and choose which federal immigration laws it will enforce. In its zeal to curry favor with the illegal alien lobby and secure Hispanic votes for a second term, the Obama administration is exercising raw executive power to change the law by granting illegal aliens amnesty in a way that strikes at the heart of our constitutional system and the rule of law. This is a festering constitutional crisis on which we will keep you updated.

Judicial Watch Sues Obama HUD for Documents Regarding Violation of ACORN Funding Ban

Time after time, we have found that this administration cares not one whit about following basic laws. What does it mean for Congress to pass and the president to sign a law banning a corrupt organization and its affiliates from receiving federal funds? Apparently the Obama administration could care less. As you will recall, the Obama Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded a grant of $79,819 to ACORN spin-off Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA), despite the fact that Barack Obama signed the ACORN funding ban in October 2009. (And despite the fact that the organization was nailed for misappropriating taxpayer funds!)
We want to know how the HUD can justify this decision. So we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on August 19, 2011, against HUD to obtain records related to the department’s approval of AHCOA as an official “housing agency.”
Pursuant to our FOIA request filed on June 8, 2011, we want access to the following information:

• Any and all records concerning or relating to the approval of Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA) as a housing agency under Section 106(a)(2) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968. This request includes, but is not limited to, a copy of all HUD-9900 forms and supporting documentation submitted by, or on behalf of, AHCOA, as well as all records of communication regarding AHCOA’s approval.
• Any and all records of all applications(s) for grants submitted by AHCOA to HUD.

Judicial Watch’s FOIA request was received by HUD on June 13, 2011, (according to postal records). The agency was required to respond by July 12, 2011. This is about as narrow and simple a document request that Judicial Watch makes. But as of August 19, 2011, the date of Judicial Watch’s complaint, HUD hasn’t turned over a single document, or even indicated when a response can be expected.
AHCOA was previously known as ACORN Housing Corporation, Inc., an ACORN offshoot. ACORN filed for bankruptcy on November 2, 2010. However, as we’ve pointed out many times in this space, the organization lives on in the form of numerous state organizations and various ACORN-allied entities, such as AHCOA.
Importantly, none of these ACORN entities or spin-offs are supposed to receive federal funds! President Obama signed into law legislation known as the Defund ACORN Act on October 1, 2009, and other congressional actions that cut off most federal funds to ACORN “or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations.” Following an ACORN lawsuit challenging the funding ban, the federal courts in New York upheld the constitutionality of the restrictions on August 13, 2010. In June 2011, the Supreme Court refused to hear ACORN’s appeal of this funding ban.
And yet, a Judicial Watch investigation revealed that on March 1, 2011, despite the ban, HUD announced a $79,819 federal grant to AHCOA to “educate the public and housing providers about their rights and obligations under federal state, and local fair housing laws.”
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) did issue a controversial advisory opinion in September 2010 stating that AHCOA is not an “allied” organization of ACORN and is therefore not subject to the funding ban. But this is ludicrous. The government’s own website listing federal expenditures identifies the organization receiving the $79,819 grant as “ACORN Housing Corporation Inc.,” and lists ACORN’s New Orleans, Louisiana, address. And AHCOA maintains the same board of directors, executive director, and offices as its predecessor, ACORN Housing Corporation, Inc.
The organization, whether known as ACORN Housing Corporation or Affordable Housing Corporation of America is corrupt and has no business receiving taxpayer funds. As recently as one year ago, ACORN/AHCOA was criticized by HUD’s Inspector General in two separate investigations for misappropriating funds from federal grants.
A November 8, 2010, report by the Inspector General, for instance, documented fraudulent activity by ACORN/AHCOA, finding that the ACORN front group “inappropriately expended more than $3.2 million from its fiscal years 2004 and 2005 grants for the elimination of lead poisoning in its housing program.” The misappropriation included the use of funds “not identified in its grant application’s detailed budgets,” including “campaign services” and “grant fundraising activities.”
(The GAO reported in June 2011 that ACORN and its “potentially related organizations” received over $48 million for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. Despite the 2009 ACORN funding bans, the GAO found that 11 government agencies had taken no steps to implement the bans until at least August, 2010.)
Look, there is no practical difference between ACORN Housing and this rebranded spin-off. And it should go without saying that the federal government should not grant taxpayer funds to an organization with a history of misappropriating federal funds. The ACORN groups’ close connections to Obama shouldn’t guarantee them tax money in violation of law. This grant is a violation of the ACORN funding ban law and an embarrassment for the Obama administration.
And unfortunately, here we have yet another instance of the Obama administration stubbornly refusing to respect the Freedom of Information Act and the rule of law. It seems these days that the Obama administration has opened up yet another war – a war on transparency.
(By the way, the three lawsuits mentioned here today were all filed on the same day by Judicial Watch’s legal team. Kudos to them and our investigators for keeping up the pace against this overreaching Obama administration!)

JW Sues to Find out How Much Taxpayers Spent on Michelle Obama’s Family Trip to Africa

In June, while members of Congress and the Obama White House were debating how to save the country from the debt ceiling crisis, First Lady Michelle Obama decided to take a nice little family vacation to South Africa and Botswana. Of course, the Obama administration line was that this trip was all business. But given the fact that Michelle Obama’s family members were along for the ride, visiting tourist sites around the two countries…well, forgive me for being suspicious.
And how much did all of this cost? We don’t know.
That’s why this week Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the United States Air Force to obtain records related to the trip (which took place June 21-27, 2011). Judicial Watch is seeking the documents to determine details about the trip, and in particular, a breakdown of the costs to taxpayers.
Specifically we’re after the following information through our FOIA request (filed on June 28, 2011):

• Any and all records concerning mission taskings of First Lady Michelle Obama’s June 21-27, 2011 trip to South Africa and Botswana.
• Any and all records concerning transportation costs for Mrs. Obama’s June 21-27, 2011 trip to South Africa and Botswana.
• Any and all passenger manifests (DD-2131) for Mrs. Obama’s June 21-27, 2011 trip to South Africa and Botswana.

The Air Force acknowledged receiving our request on July 6, 2011. A response to the request was due within 20 working days, or by August 3, 2011. However, as of August 19, 2011, the date of the complaint, the Air Force has failed to produce the records requested or respond with a date that they will be forthcoming.
Michelle Obama claimed the reason for the trip was to encourage young people living in South Africa and Botswana to get involved in national affairs. However, accompanied by her daughters Malia and Sasha; her mother, Marian Robinson; and her niece and nephew, Leslie and Avery Robinson, the trip also included such tourist events as visits to historical landmarks and museums, as well as a visit with Nelson Mandela, described by Mrs. Obama as “surreal.” The trip ended with a private family safari at a South African game reserve before the group returned to Washington on June 27.
In the face of a ballooning federal debt and a sinking economy, our question is simple but important: How much did the trip cost?
An analysis by White House Dossier (the blog of White House reporter Keith Koffer, who writes for CongressDaily, National Journal, Roll Call and Politico), the cost to taxpayers for the C-32, the specially configured military version of the Boeing 757 that transported the Obama group back and forth to Africa, cost $430,000 alone. This cost is based on an estimated charge of $12,723 an hour, which is what the Department of Defense charges other federal agencies for use of the aircraft.
If a military cargo plane was included – which typically accompanies a First Lady – the cost of transportation could have escalated by another $200,000, which brings the total to $600,000.
Overall, White House Dossier estimates the total cost could be as high as $800,000, but notes that certain costs, such as Secret Service protection, the care and feeding of staff people, and pre-trip advance work done by administration officials in Africa, cannot be determined without examining records.
That’s why we filed our lawsuit.
On the surface, the trip seems to have been totally unnecessary and was as much an excuse for the Obama family to go on a safari as it was a mission intended to advance the nation’s business in Africa. That’s why we’re after the “mission taskings” information as well. (And, yes, we’re also investigating Mrs. Obama’s controversial vacation trip to Spain that took place last year.)
This is not the first time the Obamas have been accused of wasting taxpayer dollars for personal benefit in the middle of the financial crisis. Remember their infamous “date night” in 2009? Judicial Watch uncovered how the First Couple spent $11,000 taxpayer dollars in Secret Service costs alone so they could go from here in DC up to New York for dinner and a Broadway show. Press reports suggest the President and his entourage, which included White House staff and the press corps, used three military aircraft for the jaunt.
I’ve often said that at the center of the problem of corruption is a sense of entitlement on the part of our elected officials. The Obamas felt entitled to their date night, so who cares if it was on the taxpayer’s dime? Michelle Obama felt entitled to a high-six-figure (at least) trip to Africa with her family.
Just like Nancy Pelosi felt entitled to luxury military travel for her many trips back and forth to her San Francisco district (and other places).
You may recall we uncovered documents indicating that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s military travel cost the United States Air Force $2,100,744.59 over a two-year period — $101,429.14 of which was for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol. And most recently, we uncovered documents showing the widespread use of luxury military aircraft by Members of Congress on Speaker-authorized congressional delegation trips (CODELS).
This nonsense has to stop!

Is the Justice Department Partnering with Scandal-Plagued Project Vote?

That is the question at the center of a new Judicial Watch investigation.
On August 19, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain records related to the agency’s communications with Estelle Rogers, a former ACORN attorney who currently serves as the Director of Advocacy for the ACORN-connected organization Project Vote, President Obama’s former employer.
Judicial Watch is investigating the extent to which the Obama DOJ and Project Vote are partnering in a national campaign to use the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA) to register more individuals on public assistance, widely considered a key voting block for the Obama 2012 campaign.
Here’s what we’re after with our FOIA request filed on June 23, 2011: “All records of communications between the Department of Justice and Estelle Rogers, Director of Advocacy for Project Vote. The timeframe for this request is January 2, 2009, to June 23, 2011.”
The DOJ was required by law to respond to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request within 30 working days, or by August 5, 2011. (U.S. Postal Service records indicate the DOJ received Judicial Watch’s request on June 28, 2011.) As of the lawsuit’s filing, the DOJ has neither produced the records requested nor responded with the date when they will be forthcoming. (Nothing new there.)
Now, we already know that Project Vote is corrupt. We also know that the organization is putting a full-court press on key swing states to manipulate voter registration laws in order to “get out the vote” for Obama and the Democrats in 2012. And leading that charge is Estelle Rogers.
Rogers, a former attorney for ACORN, is a primary contact person on policy matters at Project Vote on both state and federal levels and has been actively involved in voter registration issues. By threatening lawsuits under Section 7 of the NVRA, Project Vote has aggressively sought to force election officials in various states to increase the registration of people receiving public assistance. (Under Section 7, states are required to offer voter registration services at all public assistance agencies, including unemployment offices and food stamp offices.)
And this corrupt campaign is working.
Just a few weeks ago, Judicial Watch released documents obtained from the Colorado Department of State showing that ACORN and Project Vote successfully pressured Colorado officials into implementing new policies for increasing the registration of public assistance recipients during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons. Following the policy changes, the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies was four times the national average! Project Vote also sought a “legislative fix” to allow people without a driver’s license or state identification to register to vote online.
This is nothing new. Project Vote and ACORN have both been linked to serious incidents of voter registration fraud, including criminal activity. In fact, Project Vote’s “Field Director” Amy Busefink, who handled the online registration campaign for Colorado, entered an Alford plea to two gross misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters in Nevada while working for ACORN. (An Alford plea is a guilty plea where the defendant does not admit the act or assert innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.)
In addition to pursuing public agency registration cases in Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia and New Mexico, Project Vote also filed a lawsuit on April 19, 2011, in partnership with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), against the State of Louisiana alleging violations of the NVRA.
And where does the DOJ fit into all of this? That’s what we’re investigating.
We do know that less than three months after the Project Vote/NAACP Louisiana lawsuit, on July 12, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division/Voting Section sued the state on the same grounds, claiming that “Louisiana officials have not routinely offered voter registration forms, assistance and services to the state’s eligible citizens who apply, recertify or provide a change address for public assistance or disability services.”
The DOJ had previously sued the State of Rhode Island on March 11, 2011, alleging violations of the NVRA. (Project Vote posted a nice little press release on its website promoting the lawsuit.) Ultimately, the DOJ lawsuit led to policy changes intended to increase the number of voter registration applications processed by “public assistance and disability service officers.” These two lawsuits, filed within five months of each other, are the first such lawsuits filed by the DOJ since 2007. So it’s not as if this is a common practice.
In our opinion, there is certainly the appearance that Project Vote and the Obama DOJ are working in tandem in the lead-up to the 2012 elections. After all, this is the same DOJ that partnered with the ACLU to attack Arizona over its get-tough illegal immigration law and with the NAACP on the decision to drop its voter intimidation lawsuit against the Black Panthers. This DOJ, like no other, is owned and operated by radical leftist special interest groups.
And remember, Barack Obama has deep connections to Project Vote. He served as the Illinois Executive Director of Project Vote in 1992. His campaign paid more than $800,000 to an ACORN organization to help “get out the vote” in his successful primary campaign against then-Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Our concern is that Project Vote’s activities remain a threat to the integrity of our elections. The fact that Project Vote is bullying states to attack election security reforms in order to register Obama’s “Food Stamp Army” comes as no surprise. But it appears that the Obama DOJ is using the same playbook as Project Vote – to the detriment of clean elections.
The American people deserve to know if the nation’s highest law enforcement agency has become nothing more than a political tool to help this scandalous ACORN-front group re-elect Barack Obama. And yet again, this DOJ can’t seem to be bothered to comply with basic open records FOIA law. So we are now in court to force them to respond.
Incredibly, the day after we announced our lawsuit, the Obama campaign announced that it would be running its own voter registration drive under the very name of “Project Vote.” If the Obama campaign doesn’t care if it is identified with the same “Project Vote” that did so much to try to corrupt the 2008 presidential elections, then one ought to be concerned about what is in store for the integrity of our elections next year!

Appeals Court Rules Fannie/Freddie Docs Can be Kept Secret by Obama Administration

So far the U.S. government has bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of at least $130 billion, and perhaps as much as $1 trillion. And yet, the Obama adminsitration continues to stonewall the release of documents that could shed light on why Fannie and Freddie failed, thereby sending the economy into a tailspin from which we have yet to recover. (Those records are housed at the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) now that Fannie and Freddie are owned and operated by the federal government.)
Judicial Watch is especially interested in documents related to the political contributions of Fannie and Freddie. And we’ve gone to court to get our hands on them. Unfortunately, our efforts sustained another setback when an appellate court sided with the government and ruled that Fannie and Freddie’s records are not subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law and may continue to be kept secret:

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has been the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since 2008. Judicial Watch filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) asking the FHFA to disclose records of Fannie and Freddie that show how much money they gave to political campaigns. But it is uncontested that no one at the FHFA has ever read or relied upon any such documents. The district court held that the documents are not agency records subject to FOIA, and we agree.

So, in other words, because no one at the FHFA, the agency in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has “read or relied upon” the documents, they are not considered agency records under FOIA, and cannot be released. (Here’s an idea. Maybe someone at FHFA should read the documents so someone in the government might have a clue as to why these two institutions failed so miserably.)
We obviously, strenuously disagree with that Alice-in-Wonderland logic, as explained in our appellate brief: “In every meaningful way, the FHFA is lawfully in control of these records. There is nothing contingent, hypothetical, indefinite, or limiting about this plain statutory language vesting the FHFA with both legal custody and lawful control over the records.” Our lawyers are considering what the next step should be in this important legal battle.
But even though the record is incomplete with regard to Fannie and Freddie, we do know of one major factor in their demise: the corrupt relationship between the two mortgage giants and their congressional conspirators, who looked the other way while Fannie and Freddie continued their reckless lending policies. That’s why we’re after these records.
Members of Congress received more than $4.8 million in political contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a ten-year period.
According to OpenSecrets.org from 1998 through 2008, the top ten recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's political largesse are as follows: Senator Dodd (D-CT), then-Senator Obama (D-IL), Senator Kerry (D-MA), Senator Bennett (R-UT), Rep. Bachus (R-AL), Rep. Blunt (R-MO), Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA), Senator Bond (R-MO), Senator Shelby (R-AL), Senator Reed (D-RI). Senator Dodd, the top recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee responsible for regulating the mortgage industry. Notably, President Obama was a top recipient of campaign monies despite being in the Senate for only three years.
Still, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The documents currently being withheld by FHFA likely contain a treasure trove of information related to the inner workings of these two government-controlled agencies. That’s why Judicial Watch is fighting so aggressively to get hold of them.
But just because the Obama administration thinks the details of the collapse of Fannie and Freddie are none of your business, that doesn’t mean they’re going to stop taking your money.
According to The Washington Post:

Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance house, said Monday that it will ask for an additional $1.5 billion of taxpayer money to make up for losses stemming from weak housing markets.
The request falls on the heels of an announcement last week by Freddie Mac’s sister organization, Fannie Mae, that it will need $5.1 billion to make up its shortfall. The two coincide with Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the U.S. government’s credit rating from AAA status to AA+, which has the potential to affect the institutions’ lending and collecting abilities.

(The Associated Press is also reporting that in an act of abject desperation the Obama administration plans to be the world’s largest landlord: “The Obama administration may turn thousands of government-owned foreclosures into rental properties to help boost falling home prices. The Federal Housing Finance Agency said Wednesday it is seeking input from investors on how to rent homes owned by government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.”)
The story of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the story of the entire bailout scheme. The government continues to “invest” trillions of taxpayer dollars to prop up failing private institutions with no end in sight. And the Obama administration continues to stonewall and obfuscate even as it asserts government control of 90% of the housing market.
I don’t know about you but it seems that we’re in the same sorry spot three years after the bailouts/government takeovers that “rescued” our economy. Our credit has been downgraded, the stock market is on a rollercoaster, our government continues its gangster ways in attempting to run the private sector, the government-controlled housing market continues to be a mess, and our banks stand on a precipice. Unless our nation reckons with the government corruption behind the ongoing financial crisis, I suspect our economy (and our republic) will continue to flounder.
That is why Judicial Watch has been in tireless pursuit of these records, and indeed any records, related to Fannie and Freddie and the bailouts. If you want to read more about our bailout investigations and lawsuits, please click here.
Let me close with a note of praise to our investigative and legal teams. The legal and administrative shennanigans we face from this Obama administration (and, frankly, any administration) require patient, persistent, and smart litigators and investigators who are not put off by Big Government games and intensive court iitigation. And, of course, I am grateful for your support of Judicial Watch that provides our team with the resources necessary for our “David versus Golaith” battles with government lawyers and their well-funded allies on the Left.

Obama Justice: Will Not Investigate Radical Hispanic Group That Attacked Civil Rights Activist

If you needed any more evidence of the level of corruption that exists inside the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) when it comes to enforcing civil rights statutes, here it is.
As I mentioned in this space several months ago, on March 15, 2011, civil rights activist Ted Hayes testified, by invitation before the Judiciary Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates, against providing taxpayer dollars for in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens. Shortly after his testimony, Mr. Hayes was subjected to vicious retribution by a radical Hispanic group known as “The Timmytop,” which posted a hate video on a YouTube channel that included racist smears and death threats.
The video begins with the message “[expletive] you ‘Mayate,’” which is reportedly a racist and derogatory term used to smear African-Americans and “dark skinned” people. The video then streams a series of racist images including: The silhouette of a man hanging from a noose; photos of Mr. Hayes adjacent to photos of monkeys and bananas; and doctored photos of Mr. Hayes pictured with a gun next to his head. The video, which runs two minutes and nine seconds, concludes with the message “Your [sic] FREE Now Mayate go back to Africa.”
The video has since been removed from its original placement on YouTube, but it is available on Judicial Watch’s website here. (If you choose to watch it, please be warned that it is extremely offensive and unfit for young eyes.)
You might think that this type of vile behavior would earn the interest of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. (That’s what we thought, too.) After all, this is the division at the DOJ that is responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations of civil rights, including, and perhaps especially, those that could have a chilling effect on the First Amendment. In this case, you have the intimidation of a witness through death threats and humiliation.
Judicial Watch filed a complaint with the DOJ regarding the matter on April 28, 2011, calling for a full investigation. And recently we received a response directly from the office of Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez (of Black Panther scandal fame). It was short and sweet:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted an investigation into the matter referenced in your letter. We and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California reviewed the results of that investigation and concluded that this incident does not constitute a prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes. Accordingly we cannot authorize a criminal prosecution of this matter.

That’s it. No further explanation. No review of the evidence “reviewed” by the DOJ. Not even a concession that the treatment of Mr. Hayes was reprehensible and wrong. Just a flat out rejection and a lame reference to the DOJ’s general commitment to “combating violations of federal law that are motivated by racial or ethnic bias.”
So here we have another in a long line of examples of corruption at the Obama DOJ concerning the enforcement of civil rights laws. Apparently the enforcement of civil rights at the DOJ no longer has anything to do with violations of the law. It’s all about racial preferences and partisan politics.
Put another way, had Ted Hayes been a left-wing activist testifying on behalf of illegal alien tuition and attacked by white “conservatives,” Perez would have sprung into action. Trust me on that.
How do I know? Just look at the record!
First, consider the Black Panther scandal discussed in the first Weekly Update story. The DOJ dismissed it’s own voter intimidation lawsuit filed against members of Black Panthers, who hurled racial epithets and threatened white voters at a polling station in 2008. The Obama adminstration said no political appointees were involved in this decision. In fact, Perez himself testified to this effect. This testimony was false. JW uncovered evidence that indeed political appointees at the highest levels inside the Obama DOJ were involved. And why is this important?
According to The Washington Post, “[DOJ attorney J. Christian] Adams and a Justice Department colleague have said the [Black Panther] case was dismissed because the department is reluctant to pursue cases against minorities accused of violating the voting rights of whites.”
Describing the environment over at the Obama DOJ, Christopher Coates, a DOJ attorney, testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that there exists at the DOJ “…a deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of whites who have been discriminated against.”
So, we know that the DOJ is involved in the race-based selective enforcement of civil rights laws. (Our friends (and client) over at Pajamas Media have also exposed the radical leftists being planted in the career ranks at DOJ, which further explains why a conservative seeking protection can get no justice at Justice.)
Now, Mr. Hayes is black. But he’s not in left-wing lock-step with the Obama administration on the issue of illegal alien tuition. And his attackers just happen to be part of a key voter block for the Obama 2012 re-election campign. So Mr. Hayes evidently is not entitled to any protection under law.
Remember, too, the immigration issue addressed by Mr. Hayes in the testimony that led to threats on his life. The Obama DOJ has taken a “La Raza” approach to the issue, allowing illegal alien sanctuary cities to thrive, while attacking states that want to crack down on illegal aliens. The Obama administration has also begun dismissing deportation cases against a wide range of illegal aliens, including those convicted of violent crimes.
Mr. Hayes is on the opposite side of the fence of Obama on these issues. And it is his politics that seem to define how the DOJ responded to his case. Which is just shameless and unlawful. This is yet another scandal in the Obama/Holder DOJ that ought to result in a new attorney general.

New Court Ruling in Black Panther Scandal

Judicial Watch earned a victory in court on August 4 in its pursuit of documents related to the Obama administration’s Black Panther scandal. (This gets a bit technical, so hang with me.)
In short, a federal court rejected a claim of the “attorney work-product doctrine” by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for documents prepared after the government dismissed its case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense on May 15, 2009. (The work-product doctrine shields materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from release. The Obama administration was using it to try to protect documents sought by JW through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and a related lawsuit.)
Several members of the New Black Panther Party were accused of engaging in voter intimidation during the 2008 presidential campaign.
In his August 4, 2011, decision, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected the Obama DOJ’s arguments that documents prepared after the government dismissed its case (against the Black Panthers on May 15, 2009) could be withheld under the “attorney work-product privilege” exemption. Judge Walton explained:

Although an injunction remains in place in the New Black Panther Party case…the filing of the motion for voluntary dismissal largely marked the end of the litigation. As such, the documents prepared subsequent to that event were not prepared in contemplation of litigation and are thus outside the scope of the work-product privilege.

Because the case had essentially ended on May 15, 2009, Judge Walton found that “it is difficult to see how” the 24 documents created after May 15, 2009, “were prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation, which is the testing question the Court must answer in evaluating the DOJ’s work-product claim.”
Although Judge Walton found that the DOJ improperly withheld the 24 documents under the attorney work product doctrine, he concluded that the documents were properly withheld under the deliberative process privilege. (This is the exemption that intends to protect the internal processes of the executive branch. The idea is that by guaranteeing confidentiality, the government is in a better position to receive candid advice and recommendations. In our experience, the government often uses this privilege broadly and inappropriately to stonewall the release of information to the public.)
Judge Walton also found that the DOJ failed to satisfy its burden of showing that the 24 documents may be withheld in their entirety. Under the deliberative process privilege, the DOJ may only withhold information that is “predecisional and deliberative.” Judge Walton explained:

As it stands now, the description of the DOJ’s segregation efforts is too general for the Court, and the plaintiff, to evaluate whether any factual material in these documents is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the deliberative material and would thus permit the DOJ to withhold the documents in their entirety.

Judge Walton provided the DOJ a second chance to satisfy its burden by submitting “a renewed motion for summary judgment accompanied by a declaration or other documentation that solely addresses the segregability issue.”
(The DOJ’s renewed motion for summary judgment is due September 30, 2011. Judge Walton hopes to rule by February 3, 2012.)
Importantly, Judge Walton also stated that if the Obama DOJ fails to “provide adequate detail regarding why these documents cannot be segregated, the DOJ will be required to disclose the non-exempt portions to [Judicial Watch].”
So additional documents could be forthcoming, which would help Judicial Watch to complete the public record on this race-tinged scandal.
Let’s review what we know so far…
According to a DOJ document previously produced to Judicial Watch, top political appointees at the DOJ were involved in the decision to dismiss its voting rights case against the New Black Panther Party, including Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, the third highest ranking official at the Obama DOJ.
Attorney General Eric Holder also received “an update on a planned course of action in the NBPP” from Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King dated May 12, 2009, just three days before the case was dismissed, according to a Vaughn index uncovered by Judicial Watch. (A Vaughn index describes documents being withheld from disclosure under FOIA and the basis for the withholdings.)
The documents JW uncovered through this Vaughn index include descriptions of internal DOJ email correspondence that directly contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision.
So now you see why it is so important to force the release of as much information as possible about this scandal, and to find out why the Obama administration is going to such extraordinary lengths to shield this information from the public.
We already know the Obama administration’s claim that political appointees were not involved in this decision is patently false. And now DOJ officials continue to fight tooth-and-nail to stonewall the release of additional information. What else do they have to hide? This new court ruling means that we may pry loose some additional information on this voter intimidation scandal and perhaps get to the truth in the matter.
Of course, one of the major discoveries emerging from this scandal is the Obama DOJ’s racist and preferential application of civil rights laws. And if you’d like to know more about this problem, then please read on.

Voter Fraud Front and Center

With little more than a year before the 2012 elections, the press has started to sharpen its focus on the candidates. Judicial Watch, meanwhile, is deeply concerned about the integrity of the electoral process — especially given the rampant voter registration fraud caused by the “community organization” ACORN and its partner in crime Project Vote in the last several election cycles. (Do not believe the rumors that ACORN is defunct. As I’ve said before, the organization has splintered into organizations across the country and they are prepared to wreak havoc in 2012. Project Vote is going strong, and hasn’t changed its stripes.)
On Tuesday, I moderated a Judicial Watch educational panel entitled “The Voter Fraud Threat to Free and Fair Elections” at Judicial Watch’s headquarters here in Washington, DC.
My guests were: John Fund, a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy and the upcoming The Threat of Voter Fraud to Free and Fair Elections; Christian Adams, former Department of Justice Attorney in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division; and Catherine Engelbrecht, Founder of both King Street Patriots and True the Vote.
It was about as good a panel as we’ve ever hosted, and viewing it will educate, worry and motivate you. You can click here to watch a video of the panel, which was also streamed live over the Internet. We will have a written transcript on our website very soon.
Following our educational panel, on Thursday we released documents obtained from the Colorado Department of State showing that ACORN and its affiliate, Project Vote, successfully pressured Colorado officials into implementing new policies for increasing the registration of public assistance recipients during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons. And, as you might expect, following the policy changes the percentage of invalid voter registration forms from Colorado public assistance agencies was four times the national average!
See what I mean by chaos and havoc?
We got these documents through a Colorado Open Records Act request filed with the Colorado Office of the Secretary of State. They include approximately 400 internal emails related to a complaint by ACORN and Project Vote that the state of Colorado was in violation of Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). (Under Section 7, states are required to offer voter registration services at all public assistance agencies, including unemployment offices and food stamp offices.)
Here’s how the ACORN/Project Vote intimidation campaign unfolded, as detailed in these documents, which number more than 1,000 pages.
In a May 14, 2008, “pre-litigation” letter, ACORN and Project Vote complained to the State of Colorado that it was in violation of the NVRA, and subsequently set up a meeting with Colorado officials to discuss the matter. According to the documents, that meeting took place on July 2, 2008, at ACORN’s offices.
Evidently, the State of Colorado did not move fast enough with its “reforms” because on June 9, 2009, Project Vote election counsel Donald Wine II threatened Colorado officials with litigation: “CDHS [Colorado Department of Human Services] has had a year and a half to comply with the NVRA. We are left with no choice but to prepare for litigation.”
The threat worked like a charm. The Colorado Office of the Secretary of State immediately went to extreme measures to accommodate the demands made by ACORN and Project Vote, including:

• Offering to help push a “legislative fix” to allow people without a driver’s license or state identification to register to vote online. According to a January 27, 2010, email from Director of Division of Elections Judd Choate, “The Secretary’s office would support such a fix. We just need a legislator on board and begin the process of drafting the bill.”
• Sending spreadsheets of voter registration data to Project Vote on a bi-weekly basis for more than two years.
• Posting a Project Vote-produced presentation on the Colorado Secretary of State website.
• Hosting several meetings between Project Vote personnel and representatives of state welfare offices.
• Ensuring that changes to voter registration forms were approved by Project Vote.

As a result of this collaboration between ACORN, Project Vote and Colorado officials, the number of voter registrations at Colorado public assistance agencies rose from 3,340 in 2007 to almost 44,000 in 2010. (In a February 15, 2011, email to Project Vote, Christi Heppard, Special Projects Coordinator for the Elections Division of the Colorado Department of State, wrote, “…I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the numbers.”)
But here’s the problem. The collaboration also led to a large number of invalid and duplicate voter registrations. A total of 8% of rejected registration forms came from public assistance agencies in Colorado in 2009-2010. This is more than four times the national average of 1.9% for that same time period.
Shocking? Not when you learn a little more about the people involved in Colorado’s welfare voter registration campaign.
According to the documents, Amy Busefink, who at the time was under indictment on 13 voter registration violation charges in Nevada, managed the online programs for Project Vote nationally, including Colorado’s. Busefink ultimately entered an Alford plea to two gross misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters. (An Alford plea is a guilty plea, where the defendant does not admit the act and assert innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.)
Democrat Bernie Buescher, who served as Colorado Secretary of State from January 2009 through January 2011, and is a party to some of these emails, received support from the Secretary of State Project, an organization funded in part by liberal financier George Soros, and organized by the leftist group Moveon.org. Buescher also campaigned with former State House Speaker Terrance Carroll for a proposed bill that would have implemented universal mail-in balloting, same-day voter registrations and pre-registration of 16-year-olds. Facing stiff opposition from county election clerks, the bill was tabled on April 21, 2010.
Colorado officials bent over backward to abide by the demands of ACORN/Project Vote, which an activist facing criminal charges helped run. So it comes as no surprise that there was a sharp increase in voter registration irregularities. (Colorado’s U.S. Senate election was mighty close in 2010. So who knows if all the ACORN games may have called the results into question!)
Here’s another deeply disturbing twist in this story. While Colorado officials took measures to satisfy the demands of Project Vote related to the registration of public assistance recipients, Buescher sought a waiver from the Obama administration that would have allowed a delay in sending out ballots in time for the military to vote in the last election. The Department of Defense rejected the request.
Apparently Colorado’s concern for voting rights of its citizens did not extend to military personnel in the state!
These documents may specifically refer to the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, but they are extremely relevant today. Nothing has changed. The ACORN/Project Vote gang has not gone away, and continues to try by hook or by crook to register Obama’s “Food Stamp Army” to vote in an effort to keep him and other leftist allies in office next year. (Judicial Watch’s interest is in the rule of law and protecting the integrity of our elections, not the success or failure of individual candidates for office (we neither support nor oppose candidates.))
And don’t expect the Obama Justice Department to do anything about it. They’ve already turned a blind eye to ACORN corruption that benefited Obama’s election in 2008. Don’t forget: Obama used to work for the ACORN-connected Project Vote, and has said he’s “been fighting alongside” ACORN his entire career. It’s up to your Judicial Watch to investigate ACORN and its numerous spin-offs.
If we’re going to protect the integrity of the 2012 elections, attention must be paid to the continuing nefarious activities of ACORN/Project Vote.
Rest assured we’re up to the task.

Judicial Watch Beats Back FBI Effort to Censure Agents

A few weeks ago, I told you that Judicial Watch is investigating a decision by the Obama Justice Department to shield from prosecution a radical terrorist who was involved in financing the terrorist group Hamas. His name is Omar Ahmad and he is one of the co-founders of the radical Council on American Islamic Relations (known as CAIR).
We think it’s important that the American people know why our federal government is protecting terrorists and terrorist-fronts (such as CAIR) here at home, while our men and women in uniform continue to spill their blood fighting terrorists abroad. It makes a mockery of the sacrifice of our military and military families, and represents a nonsensical approach to national security to say the least.
This is a battle we have been fighting for a very long time. Judicial Watch has been heavily involved in exposing the financial networks that make terrorism possible going back almost ten years now. In the days after 9/11, Judicial Watch called on the Bush administration to investigate and, if necessary, shut down terrorist front groups. (We listed them by name.) We also published a special report demonstrating how these terrorist financial networks operate and who operates them.
Perhaps most importantly, we took on the case of two FBI agents — Special Agent Robert Wright and retired Special Agent John Vincent — who were silenced by the FBI when they attempted to expose the government’s mishandling of terrorism investigations in the days before 9/11.
Both Wright and Vincent had worked on a critical investigation, known as Vulgar Betrayal, which uncovered a money laundering scheme in which United States-based members of the Hamas terrorist organization were using nonprofit organizations to recruit and train terrorists and fund terrorist activities. The Vulgar Betrayal investigation ultimately resulted in the FBI’s seizure of $1.4 million in funds which were targeted for terrorist activities — this was a first in U.S. history (and came before 9/11).
But when Wright attempted to publish a manuscript based on his experiences in Vulgar Betrayal, which included an account of the critical and dangerous failings of the FBI, he was censured. (Under an agreement they signed upon joining the FBI, Wright and Vincent were required to seek FBI approval prior to publishing material related to their work.) The FBI also prevented Wright and Vincent from speaking to a New York Times reporter investigating the matter.
At every turn, the FBI stonewalled their efforts, engaging in a series of inexplicable reversals and delays, ignoring its own regulations, and blatantly violating their First Amendment rights. Moreover, after Wright spoke out against the FBI’s behavior in a 2003 press conference, the FBI targeted him for dismissal.
Keep in mind, the FBI subjected these two agents to this type of attack for simply trying to provide a public service and prevent another 9/11!
Judicial Watch pursued justice in this case for nine long years, and in the end justice was served. First, Judicial Watch was successful in helping Special Agent Wright keep his job with the FBI. Then after a nine-year battle, in May 2009, Judicial Watch earned a court victory and ultimately a settlement on behalf of Wright and Vincent.
In her court ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler excoriated the FBI’s censorship and emphasized the public importance of the lawsuit:

This is a sad and discouraging tale about the determined efforts of the FBI to censor various portions of a 500-page manuscript, written by a former long-time FBI agent, severely criticizing the FBI’s conduct of the investigation of a money laundering scheme in which United States-based members of the Hamas terrorist organization were using non-profit organizations in this country to recruit and train terrorists and fund terrorist activities both here and abroad.
The FBI also sought to censor answers given by both Plaintiffs to a series of written questions presented to them by a New York Times reporter concerning Wright’s allegations about the FBI’s alleged mishandling of the investigation. In its efforts to suppress this information, the FBI repeatedly changed its position, presented formalistic objections to release of various portions of the documents in question, admitted finally that much of the material it sought to suppress was in fact in the public domain and had been all along, and now concedes that several of the reasons it originally offered for censorship no longer have any validity.

Judicial Watch is proud to have played a role in helping to beat back the FBI’s illegal effort to censor criticism by its own agents. Wright and Vincent sought to blow the whistle in order to help prevent other terrorist attacks like 9/11. They should have been commended, not attacked.
By the way, I highly suggest you click over to Special Agent Wright’s new website and see for yourself the chronology of his effort to publish his manuscript. And why our continued efforts regarding the likes of Omar Ahmad and CAIR are so critical.