Investigate Eric Holder, Child Porn
Investigate Eric Holder, Child Porn
An Obama Administration official has been spending your tax dollars to watch child porn all day…every day.
Barack Obama refuses to speak out against a member of his Administration who has spent countless hours viewing child pornography on his government-issued computer that you – the taxpayer – bought and paid for.
Who is the culprit? An Assistant United States Attorney under Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder.
Following an internal investigation, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) said that the Assistant U.S. Attorney admitted to viewing child porn on his computer for several hours every day. Shocking? But not quite as shocking as this – the U.S. Attorney’s Office will not prosecute the former Holder Assistant Attorney General for breaking the law.
More:
Paid for by Christian Response Alerts which advocates on behalf of the interests of Christians everywhere. Donations to Christian Response are not tax deductible.
http://www.christianresponsealerts.com/2011/09/investigate-eric-holder-child-porn/
Attorney General Eric Holder Disgusted by Personal Attacks at Fast and Furious Hearing
"But understand something. What I’ve done — I’m proud of the work that I’ve done as attorney general of the United States. And looked at fairly– I think that I’ve done, you know, a pretty good job. Have I been perfect? No. Have I made mistakes? Yes. Do I treat the members of this committee with respect? I always hope that I do. And what you have just done is, if nothing else, disrespectful. And if you don’t like me, that’s one thing, but you should respect the fact that I hold an office that is deserving of respect."
Attorney General Eric Holder faced attacks on his character and tenure as attorney general at a congressional committee hearing on the gun program known as “Fast and Furious,” which was run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Holder defended his record but the hearing yielded little information about the gun trafficking investigation. Instead, Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee attacked Holder for previous testimony, his role in the pardoning of Marc Rich at the end of the Clinton administration and his decision to open a criminal investigation into torture by CIA operatives against terrorism detainees.
The House committee has been investigating the actions by ATF and Justice Department officials involving the gun trafficking case that resulted in about 2,000 guns being allowed to go to drug cartels and criminal groups in Mexico. The ATF operation took a tragic toll when two guns linked to the operation were found near slain U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry on Dec. 14, 2010.
A staff memo prepared by congressional investigators working for the committee with Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, released before the hearing offered a new detail about the ATF’s failure to identify two targets in its gun trafficking case. However, the issue was glossed over by committee members in their questioning.
The report noted that one of the two members of a drug cartel had already been identified in a DEA wiretap log and was under investigation by the DEA and the FBI.
The report noted, “DEA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had jointly opened a separate investigation specifically targeting these two cartel associates. As early as mid-January 2010, both agencies had collected a wealth of information on these associates. Yet, ATF spent the next year engaging in the reckless tactics of Fast and Furious in attempting to identify them.”
“During the course of this separate investigation, the FBI designated these two cartel associates as national security assets. In exchange for one individual’s guilty plea to a minor count of ‘Alien in Possession of a Firearm,’ both became FBI informants and are now considered to be unindictable.” the report said. “This means that the entire goal of Fast and Furious – to target these two individuals and bring them to justice – was a failure.”
Holder faced some tough questioning about why the Justice Department has turned over only 6,400 pages of documents when the Justice Department inspector general has access to an estimated 80,000 pages of documents as part of the internal review.
“It appears as though we’re being stonewalled, and there’s something that’s being hidden,” said Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind.
Justice Department officials have said that the inspector general’s review allows the internal DOJ investigators to have access to all grand jury materials and all unredacted documents such as wiretap transcripts.
“I’ve heard, you know, the magic word here, ‘cover-up,’ and I want to make clear that there is no attempt at any kind of cover-up. We have shared huge amounts of information. We will continue to share huge amounts of information,” Holder said later in the hearing.
Holder faced a torrent of questions about his character and his time at the Justice Department.
Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y., asked Holder, “So let me ask it this way: How many more Border Patrol agents would have had to die as a part of Operation Fast and Furious for you to take responsibility?”
Holder bristled at the question telling the congresswoman, “You know, I mean, really, is that the way in which you want to be seen, you want to be known? You know, I should be held accountable for, certainly, my role in whatever I did or didn’t do in connection with the supervision of Fast and Furious, but I’m attorney general of the United States and I should also be accountable and perhaps even given some credit — imagine that — given some credit for the things that this Justice Department has done under my leadership, whether it deals with national security, revitalized antitrust, revitalized civil rights enforcement effort. And so one has to balance all of these things.
“I get up every day and try to do the best job that I can. I have great faith in the people who work in the department. And, you know, that kind of question, I think, is, frankly — and again, respectfully — I think that’s beneath a member of Congress,” Holder said.
Although Issa tried to limit the scope of the hearing to only focus on Fast and Furious controversy, Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., blasted Holder for his handling of the Marc Rich pardon and for Holder’s decision to reopen a criminal investigation into abuse and torture of terrorism detainees by CIA operatives and interrogators.
“Given the decision to almost engage in character assassination, I’m going to respond to at least some of that.” Holder said. “I’m the attorney general of the United States. OK? And when it comes to deciding what I’m going to investigate, how I’m going to investigate, I take into account a wide variety of things. The decision I made to open up those CIA matters — and I was aware that this was something that was opposed by a great many people … that investigation has run its course. We are at a point where we are about to close those investigations.”
Towards the end of the hearing, Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, told Holder that he should resign and said, “You either lied or you were grossly incompetent in your actions when it came to finding out about Fast and Furious and your handling of this matter.”
Labrador then showed the committee a series of statements Holder had made about the Marc Rich pardon, which drew the ire of a disgusted attorney general.
“That was among the worst things I think I’ve ever seen in Congress,” Holder said, “You took a whole series of statements out of context, with no context.”
Holder added, “The Marc Rich thing was considered in my confirmation, talked about it then. There is a whole bunch of things that I could say about what you just did, and maybe this is the way you do things, you know, in Idaho or wherever you’re from. But understand something. What I’ve done — I’m proud of the work that I’ve done as attorney general of the United States. And looked at fairly– I think that I’ve done, you know, a pretty good job. Have I been perfect? No. Have I made mistakes? Yes. Do I treat the members of this committee with respect? I always hope that I do. And what you have just done is, if nothing else, disrespectful. And if you don’t like me, that’s one thing, but you should respect the fact that I hold an office that is deserving of respect. And, you know, maybe you’re new to this committee. I don’t know. I don’t know how long you’ve been here. But my hope would be that, you know, we can get beyond that kind of interaction, that kind of treatment of a witness, whether it’s me or somebody else, because I think in some ways what you did was fundamentally unfair, just not right.”
source:
Re: Investigate DOJ's refusal to prosecute AUSA for child porn!
An Assistant United States Attorney General (AUSA) was found to have child pornography on his government-issued computer and admitted to viewing pornography for the majority of every work day. Yet, the Department of Justice is refusing to pursue this case and prosecute the former AUSA, and even kept the AUSA on as a federal prosecutor months after the child porn was found on his computer.
I'm asking that you join Sens. Grassley and Coburn and demand an investigation into the Administration's child porn scandal. The public deserves to know why the Obama administration concealed this federal crime from the public and why the DOJ is refusing to prosecute this crime.
Americans want to be assured that their children will be protected from child predators -- be it on Main Street or on the Internet. And when a federal employee is caught spending taxpayers' dollars to view child porn, we expect justice, and we demand an investigation.
No one is above reproach, including members of the Obama administration, which is why I'm asking that you call for an investigation into this miscarriage of justice.
I want to know who knew what and when they knew it, and who was involved in covering this up and concealing this crime from American taxpayers.
Thank you for your time and attention to this urgent matter.
Sincerely, https://secure.conservativedonations.com/cra_childporn/?a=2566
I was only able to take in parts of Attorney General Eric Holder’s just-completed Senate testimony. But that was enough to see that “Bush did it” is going to be the Democrats’ excuse for the inexcusable “Fast & Furious” operation conducted by ATF on the Obama administration’s watch.
On the Obama administration’s watch. That is the biggest problem with the Democrats’ strategy. Fast & Furious did not begin until 2009, months after the end of the Bush administration. Given that, one might think that even today’s Democrats would be unable with a straight face to lay this disaster at the feet of Obama’s predecessor. But then one wouldn’t know today’s Democrats.
The key to their strategy is conflating two very different programs: Operation Fast & Furious and a Bush era ATF initiative known as “Operation Wide Receiver.” In the questions from Judiciary Committee Democrats (principally, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer — there may have been others but, again, I didn’t see the entire hearing), it emerged that Wide Receiver began in 2006, when Alberto Gonzales was the Bush administration attorney general. Senator Schumer took pains to describe Wide Receiver as involving the “tracing” of firearms that crossed into Mexico. As we shall see, Wide Receiver’s notion of tracing was night-and-day different from the tracing involved in the reckless gun-walking approach employed by Fast & Furious. Obviously, however, Democrats hope that if they get enough help from their friends in the media, the public will miss the distinction.
Schumer made much of the happenstance that a briefing, said to have included information on Wide Receiver, was prepared for Michael Mukasey in late 2007, after he succeeded Gonzales as AG. (This is an amusing contradiction in the Democrats’ strategy: If a memo addressed to Holder in the middle of Fast & Furious emerges, you’re supposed to understand that, as attorney general, he is way too busy to read every memo; but if a memo is found to have been addressed to Mukasey or Gonzales years before Fast & Furious began, you should see them as the architects of gun-walking!)
Schumer pointed out that AG Mukasey had met with his counterpart, the Mexican attorney general, after the briefing, and that he had expressed a commitment to stanch the flow of guns to destinations south of the border. Schumer took these unremarkable facts, added the gloss that Wide Receiver involved gun tracing, and wildly theorized that it was very likely the subject of gun-walking came up in the Mukasey briefing — even though both Schumer and Holder conceded that they did not really know what was discussed at the briefing or even who was present at it (details you might figure Holder would be up on if it actually showed that this whole Fast & Furious fiasco was a Bush creation).
It was left to Republican Senators Charles Grassley and John Cornyn to lay bare some crucial distinctions between to two ATF operations. Wide Receiver actually involved not gun-walking but controlled delivery. Unlike gun-walking, which seems (for good reason) to have been unheard of until Fast & Furious, controlled delivery is a very common law enforcement tactic. Basically, the agents know the bad guys have negotiated a deal to acquire some commodity that is either illegal itself (e.g., heroin, child porn) or illegal for them to have/use (e.g., guns, corporate secrets). The agents allow the transfer to happen under circumstances where they are in control — i.e., they are on the scene conducting surveillance of the transfer, and sometimes even participating undercover in the transfer. As soon as the transfer takes place, they can descend on the suspects, make arrests, and seize the commodity in question — all of which makes for powerful evidence of guilt.
Senator Schumer’s drawing of an equivalence between “tracing” in a controlled-delivery situation and “tracing” in Fast & Furious is laughable. In a controlled delivery firearms case, guns are traced in the sense that agents closely and physically follow them — they don’t just note the serial numbers or other identifying markers. The agents are thus able to trace the precise path of the guns from, say, American dealers to straw purchasers to Mexican buyers.
To the contrary, Fast & Furious involved uncontrolled deliveries — of thousands of weapons. It was an utterly heedless program in which the feds allowed these guns to be sold to straw purchasers — often leaning on reluctant gun dealers to make the sales. The straw purchasers were not followed by close physical surveillance; they were freely permitted to bulk transfer the guns to, among others, Mexican drug gangs and other violent criminals — with no agents on hand to swoop in, make arrests, and grab the firearms. The inevitable result of this was that the guns have been used (and will continue to be used) in many crimes, including the murder of Brian Terry, a U.S. border patrol agent.
In sum, the Fast & Furious idea of “trace” is that, after violent crimes occur in Mexico, we can trace any guns the Mexican police are lucky enough to seize back to the sales to U.S. straw purchasers … who should never have been allowed to transfer them (or even buy them) in the first place. That is not law enforcement; that is abetting a criminal rampage.
As Sen. Cornyn pointed out, there is another major distinction between Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious. The former was actually a coordinated effort between American and Mexican authorities. Law enforcement agents in both countries kept each other apprised about suspected transactions and tried to work together to apprehend law-breakers. To the contrary, Fast & Furious was a unilateral, half-baked scheme cooked up by an agency of the Obama Justice Department — an agency that was coordinating with the Justice Department on the operation and that turned to Main Justice in order to get wiretapping authority.
By the time Cornyn was done drawing this stark contrast between Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious, Holder was reduced to conceding, “I’m not trying to equate the two.” That is big of him given that the two cannot be equated. But the attorney general seemed fine with the effort to equate them — to make them one and the same — when it was Schumer asking the questions. Expect the effort to continue. “Bush did it” may be a tired defense, and in this instance a preposterous one, but it’s the one the Democratic base loves to hear.
source:
.jpg)
