Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
DoJ Stalls Lawsuit on Fast & Furious Records
Tom Fitton
January 22, 2013
The Obama administration is pushing gun control in the wake of the Sandy Hook, Connecticut, shootings. President Obama is using the murders as a pretext to undermine the Second Amendment and collect data on lawful gun owners. But this administration won't come clean on its own gunrunning operation, Operation Fast & Furious, which led to the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and countless Mexican citizens.

In fact, the Obama administration last week filed an outrageous court motion saying it doesn't have to answer to the American people, or abide by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) at all in this scandal!

This filing was made in our FOIA lawsuit seeking access to Operation Fast & Furious records withheld from Congress by President Obama under executive privilege on June 20, 2012. Our attorneys responded almost immediately. And so this week we filed a brief in response to the Department of Justice (DoJ) motion, which calls upon the court to impose an indefinite delay in considering our lawsuit.

Rather than respond substantively to our FOIA, the DoJ argued in court that our lawsuit should be subject to a stay of proceedings because it is "ancillary" to a separate lawsuit filed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee against the DoJ. The Court "should let the process of negotiation and accommodation [between the House Committee and the DoJ] run its course, and then decide with the input of the parties whether and how this action may appropriately proceed at that time," the DoJ argued, effectively abrogating the FOIA. The Obama DoJ even suggested that the Judicial Watch litigation might encourage the Congress to fight harder to get the same documents in separate litigation.

So the American people are supposed to wait until Congress and the White House figure this out?

Judicial Watch countered that the FOIA demands a response, that its lawsuit is more straightforward than the House lawsuit and is ripe for consideration on its merits. A decision on the House Committee lawsuit, meanwhile, could be delayed for months, if not years:

This notion that [Judicial Watch's] lawsuit is in some way inferior [to the House lawsuit] is simply incorrect. [Judicial Watch] has as much of a right under the law as the House Committee to seek access to records of Defendant. In fact, since Defendant does not challenge [Judicial Watch's] claim on jurisdictional grounds, it could be reasonably argued that [Judicial Watch's] right is greater – it is certainly clearer and simpler – than that of the House Committee...Whereas [Judicial Watch's] FOIA lawsuit is ripe for adjudication on the merits, the House Committee suit could be months, if not years, away from reaching the same stage.

The DoJ also argued that Judicial Watch's lawsuit might somehow interfere with negotiations between the president and Congress. (As if these negotiations have been at all productive!) Judicial Watch countered: "Regardless of any potential resolution in that case, Defendant in this action will still be required to satisfy its obligations under FOIA, including justifying its withholdings. [Judicial Watch's] lawsuit simply does not vanish if and when the House Committee suit is resolved."

And we conclude: "[Judicial Watch] has a statutory right to the requested records and to have Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's FOIA request reviewed by this Court. [Judicial Watch's] claim is now ripe for adjudication, and [Judicial Watch] is prepared to brief the issues. Defendant simply seeks to delay the date that it must justify its claims of exemption. Defendant has not demonstrated why [Judicial Watch's] rights should be immoderately and oppressively delayed; it has only disparaged the public's right to request records of its government. For the foregoing reasons, [Judicial Watch] respectfully requests that Defendant's request for an indefinite stay of the proceedings be denied.

By way of review, Fast & Furious was a DoJ/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) "gunrunning" operation in which the Obama administration reportedly sold guns to Mexican drug cartels in hopes that they would end up at crime scenes.

Congressional investigators, led by Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, have fought to secure records related to the Fast & Furious program, but the DoJ continues to withhold responsive records from disclosure. On June 20, 2012, President Obama made a highly controversial decision to assert Executive Privilege in order to shield the DoJ's Fast & Furious records from disclosure. Executive privilege is reserved to "protect" White House records, not the records of federal agencies, which must be made available, subject to specific exceptions, under the FOIA.

The president's assertion of executive privilege came just hours before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to respond to congressional subpoenas for Fast & Furious records. On June 28, 2012, Congress voted 255-67 to hold Holder in contempt. (A number of Democrats joined the vote, while other Democrats, endorsing lawlessness, walked out in protest.) A second vote, 258-95, authorized the pursuit of records through civil litigation in the courts. Moreover, documents uncovered by CBS News seem to indicate that Holder may have perjured himself during congressional testimony, detailing what he knew about Fast & Furious and when he knew it.

It is beyond ironic that the Obama administration has initiated an anti-gun push as it seeking to keep secret key documents about its very own Fast & Furious gun-walking scandal.

Getting beyond the Obama administration's smokescreen, this lawsuit is about a simple principle: the public's right to know the full truth about an egregious political scandal that led to the death of at least one American and countless other people. The American public is sick and tired of the Obama administration trying to rewrite the FOIA and other laws in an effort to protect this president and his appointees. Americans want answers about Fast & Furious killings and lies. I'll let you know how this court skirmish turns out.

This article was originally published at JudicialWatch.org. Refer to original article for related links and important documentation.

Tom Fitton is the President of Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server