Obama 'Admin' to Ban Religious, Racial Profiling.

Obama 'Admin' to Ban Religious, Racial Profiling. (Wapo).

The Obama adminstration will formally announce new limits on racial profiling on today, but the policy changes won’t apply to local police departments.

Under the new regulations from the Justice Department, racial profiling will be banned from national security cases for the first time.

The FBI will not be permitted to consider gender, national origin, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity in deciding whether to open cases. These new rules will be introduced in addition to existing prohibitions on considering race and ethnicity.

However, state and local law enforcement, which have faced charges of racism in light of the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, will only have to follow these regulations when they work on federal task forces.

Otherwise, the Department of Justice’s curbs are just guidelines, and they are not obligated to adhere to them in their own communities. Hmmm.....I wonder if Israel is included? Read more at the Washington Post.

Holder Ignores Grand Jury, Says Federal Investigation “Remains Ongoing”

Holder Ignores Grand Jury, Says Federal Investigation “Remains Ongoing”. (Matzav).

Attorney General Eric Holder released a statement after news came down that Darren Wilson would not be indicted for the murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri:

“While the grand jury proceeding in St. Louis County has concluded, the Justice Department’s investigation into the shooting of Michael Brown remains ongoing. Though we have shared information with local prosecutors during the course of our investigation, the federal inquiry has been independent of the local one from the start, and remains so now. Even at this mature stage of the investigation, we have avoided prejudging any of the evidence. And although federal civil rights law imposes a high legal bar in these types of cases, we have resisted forming premature conclusions.

“Michael Brown’s death was a tragedy. This incident has sparked a national conversation about the need to ensure confidence between law enforcement and the communities they protect and serve. While constructive efforts are underway in Ferguson and communities nationwide, far more must be done to create enduring trust.

The Department will continue to work with law enforcement, civil rights, faith and community leaders across the country to foster effective relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve and to improve fairness in the criminal justice system overall.

In addition, the Department continues to investigate allegations of unconstitutional policing patterns or practices by the Ferguson Police Department.

“Though there will be disagreement with the grand jury’s decision not to indict, this feeling should not lead to violence. Those who decide to participate in demonstrations should remember the wishes of Michael Brown’s parents, who have asked that remembrances of their son be conducted peacefully. It does not honor his memory to engage in violence or looting. In the coming days, it will likewise be important for local law enforcement authorities to respect the rights of demonstrators, and deescalate tensions by avoiding excessive displays-and uses-of force.”

Sharpton: "We were not surprised" at the grand jury's decision, which is why we wanted to take it to federal gov't at the start. #Ferguson

— Conflict News (@rConflictNews) November 25, 2014

JW Obtains IRS Documents Showing Lerner in Contact With DOJ about Potential Prosecution of Tax-Exempt Groups.

JW Obtains IRS Documents Showing Lerner in Contact With DOJ about Potential Prosecution of Tax-Exempt Groups.HT: JudicialWatch.

May 9, 2013, email reveals IRS plans to meet with Department of Justice over whether to prosecute groups that “lied” about plans for political activity 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released a new batch of internal IRS documents revealing that former IRS official Lois Lerner communicated with the Department of Justice (DOJ) about whether it was possible to criminally prosecute certain tax-exempt entities. The documents were obtained as a result of an October 2013 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) after the agency refused to respond to four FOIA requests dating back to May 2013.
The newly released IRS documents contain an email exchange between Lerner and Nikole C. Flax, then-Chief of Staff to then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller discussing plans to work with the DOJ  to prosecute nonprofit groups that “lied” (Lerner’s quotation marks) about political activities. The exchange includes the following:

• May 8, 2013: Lerner to Flax

I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs.

I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…

• May 9, 2013: Flax to Lerner

I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?

Lerner then “handed off” scheduling the issue to Senior Technical Adviser, Attorney Nancy Marks, who was then supposed to set up the meeting with the DOJ.  Lerner also decided that it would be DOJ’s decision as to whether representatives from the Federal Election Commission would attend.

“These new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the DOJ could prosecute the very same organizations that the IRS had already improperly targeted,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“The IRS emails show Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is now implicated and conflicted in the IRS scandal.  No wonder we had to sue in federal court to get these documents.”Read the full story here.

Video - The 'Just Us' Dep Eric Holder Shoots Down Rep. Gohmert's Contempt Threat: 'You Don't Want to Go There!'

The 'Just US' Department - Obama’s attorney general appoints Obama donor to investigate Obama’s IRS.

The 'Just US' Department - Obama’s attorney general appoints Obama donor to investigate Obama’s IRS.HT: DailyCaller.

President Barack Obama’s deputies have picked one of his political donors to investigate the IRS’ attack on independent political groups during the 2012 election, according to California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House investigations committee.

“We request you immediately remove Ms. [Barbara] Bosserman from the ongoing investigation,” said a Jan. 8 letter from Issa to Attorney General Eric Holder.

The secret selection of Barbara Bosserman, a lawyer in the Department of Justice’s civil rights division, was revealed by a committee investigation after the DOJ stonewalled the legislators.

Bosserman contributed $6,100 to Obama’s political campaigns from 2008 to 2012.

“By selecting a significant donor to President Obama to lead an investigation into inappropriate targeting of conservative groups, the Department has created a startling conflict of interest,” said Issa’s letter.

“It is unbelievable that the Department would choose such an individual to examine the federal government’s systematic targeting and harassment of organizations oppose to the President’s policies… Please provide a comprehensive explanation of the decision to assign Ms. Bosserman to the DoJ/FBI investigation of the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups,” the letter continued.Hmmmm....As Issa said from day One 'The most corrupt administration EVAH.Read the full story here.

Video - Eric Holder 1995: We Need to “Just Really Brainwash People Into Thinking About Guns in a Vastly Different Way”

Republican Plan in the make To Impeach Eric Holder

Republican Plan in the make To Impeach Eric Holder.(HuffingtonPost).

A group of House Republicans plan an effort to oust Attorney General Eric Holder by year’s end, Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) told the Gainesville Sun.

“It’s to get him out of office — impeachment,” said Yoho, who was a large-animal veterinarian before winning election last year. “It will probably be when we get back in [Washington]. It will be before the end of the year. This will go to the speaker and the speaker will decide if it comes up or not.”
Yoho’s chief of staff, Cat Cammack, said the congressman wants Holder fired for issues that include the Fast and Furious sting operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that left federal agents’ weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. One of the guns was found at the 2010 scene of a Border Patrol agent’s killing.
"Obviously there is a lot frustration with our attorney general. You can name the botched programs," Cammack said. "Fast and Furious has been one of the number one complaints we get in our office and why no one has been held accountable."Read the full story here.

HOLDER PERJURY?? TWO JUDGES SAID NO Before Holder Got James Rosen Warrant

Animation by Doug Ross.

HOLDER PERJURY?? TWO JUDGES SAID NO Before Holder Got James Rosen Warrant.HT: Yidwithlid.

Lizza's report says:

The Obama Administration fought to keep a search warrant for James Rosen’s private e-mail account secret, arguing to a federal judge that the government might need to monitor the account for a lengthy period of time.

The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay.

Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.

Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.

Once again Eric Holder has been caught in a lie, however this time there may be a smoking gun search warrant. Remember when this was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history? That didn't work out very well did it? Read the full story here.

Video - Mark Levin: "Holder Lied Under Oath - I Assume House Committee Will Charge Him With Perjury."

On Friday’s Mark Levin Show: Mark talks about AG Eric Holder’s testimony regarding the Associated Press and says that he lied when he said he didn’t know about them targeting journalists. We know that Holder signed off on the DOJ going after James Rosen of Fox News. Will Holder be held accountable for deliberately lying to Congress? Mark calls for a Special Prosecutor in the IRS case, the Associated Press case and others.

Obama admin Stand up Comedy Show - Holder backs warrant requirement for most email searches.

Obama admin Stand up Comedy Show - Holder backs warrant requirement for most email searches.(TheHill).

Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the Justice Department will likely support legislation requiring law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant before accessing private online messages, such as emails or Facebook messages.

 "It is something that I think the Department will support," Holder said in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

He urged Congress to exempt "certain very limited circumstances" such as civil investigations. "But the more general notion of having a warrant to obtain the content of communications from a service provider is something that we support," Holder said.Read the full story here.

Video - Attorney General Holder 'Fast and furious' To Issa: Your Conduct Is ‘Unacceptable’ And ‘Shameful’

Judicial Watch, Legal Insurrection Blog, Sue D.C. Police, Attorney General for Prosecution Decision Documents on NBC’s David Gregory Gun Law Violation.

Judicial Watch, Legal Insurrection Blog, Sue D.C. Police, Attorney General for Prosecution Decision Documents on NBC’s David Gregory Gun Law Violation.HT: JudicialWatch.

D.C. Attorney General Refused to Prosecute “Meet the Press” Host despite Acknowledging “the clarity of the violation” of the Law

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on behalf of the politics and law blog Legal Insurrection, run by law professor William A. Jacobson.  The FOIA lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, seeking access to records concerning the decision by the District of Columbia not to prosecute David Gregory, the host of the NBC news show “Meet the Press,” after Gregory violated District of Columbia law by displaying a high-capacity ammunition magazine during a broadcast interview   (Jacobson v. District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General, et al. (No. 13-0003283)).

On Sunday December 23, 2012, Meet the Press host David Gregory interviewed the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre concerning firearms policy in the United States.  During the course of the interview, Gregory exhibited a high-capacity ammunition magazine.  The possession of such an ammunition magazine was a clear violation of the law of the District of Columbia.  D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b).
Gregory displayed the ammunition magazine on air despite the fact that, according to the D.C. OAG, “NBC was clearly and timely advised by an MPD employee that its plans to exhibit on the broadcast a high capacity magazine would violate D.C. law, and there was no contrary advice from any other federal official.”  In early January, the MPD announced that it had completed its investigation and presented the case to the OAG “for a determination of the prosecutorial merit of the case.”
On January 11, 2013, D.C. Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan sent a letter to NBC saying that his office would not prosecute Gregory, “despite the clarity of the violation of this important law.”  The Attorney General added, “There is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter. . . .”

On January 14, 2013, Legal Insurrection submitted a District of Columbia FOIA request to MPD and OAG seeking access to the following records:

1. The January 9, 2013 letter from Lee Levine on behalf of David Gregory, referenced in the letter dated January 11, 2013 from Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan to Mr. Levine which was publicly disclosed on that date.
2. All communications between the District of Columbia Office of Attorney General and/or Metropolitan Police Department, on the one hand, and legal counsel for David Gregory and/or NBC News, on the other hand, with regard to the incident involving the display on television by Mr. Gregory of an alleged high-capacity ammunition clip (the “Gregory incident”).
3.  All documents in the possession of the MPD and OAG regarding the Gregory incident, to the extent not exempted from disclosure under applicable law, including but not limited to witness statements, evidence review and possession records, interview notes, and forensic testing.

On February 20, 2013, OAG informed Legal Insurrection that it was withholding certain requested records, including the January 9, 2013 letter from NBC attorney Lee Levine, as well as responsive emails between OAG and MPD.  The OAG also withheld in their entirety an affidavit and warrant responsive to the Legal Insurrection request.  On April 17, 2013, MPD informed Legal Insurrection that it was withholding responsive records as well.  The Legal Insurrection FOIA lawsuit asks the court to declare OAG and MDP in violation of the law and to order them to produce the records without further delay.
According to Professor Jacobson: “The documents being withheld will help shed light on the details of this highly publicized non-prosecution, which raised issues as to whether well-connected and famous D.C. insiders were treated as any other citizen in a similar situation.  I appreciate Judicial Watch assisting in this search for the truth.”

“Judicial Watch is pleased to be representing Legal Insurrection and Professor Jacobson in this important matter of equal justice under the law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The way Gregory’s prosecution decision was handled undermines confidence in the fair administration of justice.  If Gregory shouldn’t be prosecuted then no one should be – and the law should be rescinded.  In the meantime, we hope the courts end the cover-up of the circumstances of the Gregory investigation.”

Judicial Watch Statement on the Nomination of Thomas Perez as U.S. Secretary of Labor.

Judicial Watch Statement on the Nomination of Thomas Perez as U.S. Secretary of Labor.HT: JudicialWatch.

‘Thomas Perez has shown a glaring inability to follow his sworn duties to tell the truth and dispassionately apply the basic constitutional tenet of equal justice under law.’

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today regarding the nomination of Thomas Perez to be the next Secretary of Labor in the Obama Administration:

“During his time as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Thomas Perez has shown a glaring inability to tell the truth and dispassionately apply the basic constitutional tenet of ‘equal justice under law.’

“Time and again in recent years, Judicial Watch has exposed Mr. Perez’s repeated attempts to undermine those seeking to assure that the laws of the land are applied equally to those of all races. Mr. Perez’s attacks on election integrity measures such as voter ID were so far off base that he helped the DOJ earn a reputation as a partisan campaign arm for the Obama reelection campaign.

“As Secretary of Labor, Mr. Perez would be in a position to push policies which broadly discriminate against American workers who failed to meet his own, thoroughly racialist worldview. Furthermore, based upon his relentless record both in and out of government, there can be little doubt that he would continue to put his personal preference for illegal immigrants above the rights of all workers of any race to equal employment opportunity.

“Mr. Perez is a terrible, hyper-partisan choice for Labor Secretary. Honest Democrats and Republicans who want the Labor Department to be run well should look skeptically at his nomination.”

In November, 2010, Judicial Watch produced documents obtained from the Obama Department of Justice in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit directly contradicting sworn testimony by Perez before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the DOJ decision to abandon its own voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense. The Black Panther Party had been charged with threatening and intimidating white voters outside a Philadelphia polling station on Election day 2008.
In July 2012, Judicial Watch obtained a ruling in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that Perez had, indeed, lied under oath about the involvement of “political leadership” in the DOJ decision. In the ruling, Judge Reggie B. Walton declared:

“The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.”

The DOJ’s Office of Inspector General recently released a report entitled “A Review of the Operations of the Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division,” which confirms the court’s ruling: “We believe that these facts evidence ‘involvement’ in the decision by political appointees within the ordinary meaning of that word,” and that Perez’s statements, “did not capture the full extent of that involvement.” The report also documents that Perez does not believe in the race neutral application of certain civil rights laws.
Also in 2012, Judicial Watch discovered that Perez may have colluded with St. Paul, Minnesota, officials to persuade the city to take the extraordinary step of withdrawing its cert. petition from the Supreme Court docket in a case involving “disparate impact” discrimination. Documents obtained by Judicial Watch under the Minnesota Data Practices Act showed that St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing arranged a meeting between Perez and Mayor Chris Coleman a week before the city’s withdrawal from the case, captioned Magner v. Gallagher. Following Perez’s visit, the city withdrew its case and thanked DOJ and officials at HUD for their involvement.
Documents and a staff briefing with the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform revealed in September 2012 that, in exchange for St. Paul dropping its case before the high court, DOJ stopped two whistleblower claims against the city with the power to restore $180 million in violated HUD grants to the U.S. taxpayer. The Wall Street Journal confirmed Judicial Watch’s concerns in an investigation of its own and noted that the issues are “likely to get high billing” at Perez’s confirmation proceedings.
Perez is a former president of the board of Central American Solidarity Association of Maryland, CASA de Maryland, a group whose recent filings with the IRS describe its chief goals as helping all people “participate and benefit fully” in American society, “regardless of their immigration status.” In opposing the Perez nomination, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Jeff Sessions (R-AL), described CASA, which was supported by Hugo Chavez, as “a fringe advocacy group that has instructed illegal immigrants on how to escape detection, and also promoted illegal labor sites and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.”
Perez helped spearhead the DOJ’s attack on SB 1070, Arizona’s illegal immigration enforcement law, also the DOJ’s legal attacks against states that attempted to implement voter integrity measures in 2012, including Voter ID laws.

Holder Shruggs Off Being Held In Contempt of Congress – He Has No Respect For Them, Either

Holder Shruggs Off Being Held In Contempt of Congress – He Has No Respect For Them, Either.HT: NiceDebb.

Wow, this is really disturbing. We have an Attorney General who was held in criminal contempt of Congress, and who holds the United States Congress that did so, equally in contempt. He says that being held in contempt of Congress is no biggie because he doesn’t respect the 255 House members (including 17 Democrats) who voted in favor of it.
We are not in a good place, America:

Via ABC News:

In a wide-ranging, exclusive interview Wednesday, ABC News’ Pierre Thomas asked Holder how he reacted when House Republicans voted with 17 Democrats to hold him in contempt of Congress last June over ATF’s “Fast and Furious” gun scandal.
“It’s something that I think was unfortunate,” Holder said. “I think it’s a result of this kind of partisan sport that I think we engage in here in Washington far too often.”
Holder said the votes it didn’t bother him, considering who cast them.
“But I have to tell you that for me to really be affected by what happened, I’d have to have respect for the people who voted in that way,” Holder told ABC News. “And I didn’t, so it didn’t have that huge an impact on me.”

That’s our highest law enforcement officer in the land, speaking. Presumably, he does have ample respect for the 100 Democrats who haughtily left the House floor during the vote.
Our government is completely dysfunctional.Read the full story here.

Secret Service shuts down ‘Fire Holder’ protest outside White House

Secret Service shuts down ‘Fire Holder’ protest outside White House.(DC).Secret Service agents shut down a protest outside the White House on Monday where about 30 young protesters demanded President Barack Obama fire Attorney General Eric Holder. Agents on scene claimed a backpack abandoned on a sidewalk was a “suspicious package,” closing the Pennsylvania Avenue pedestrian mall in front of the White House, and the adjoining Lafayette Park, from protesters and tourists. All pedestrian traffic, including media, was forced to retreat to side streets. Officers roped the streets off with bright yellow crime scene tape and brought in bomb-sniffing K-9 dogs. After waiting on the sidewalk behind the police line for about half an hour, a middle-aged woman came forward to claim the backpack, telling agents that she had put her small bag on the ground so she could take a photograph with her family. She declined to be interviewed. The protesters had a National Park Service protest permit from 10 a.m. to noon. Agents began clearing the crowd at 10:43 a.m., giving little information to protesters and tourists as they forced them out of the area. Organizer Oliver Darcy told The Daily Caller that he didn’t believe the protest’s premature end was an accident. Darcy noted that he and others were demanding the president fire his attorney general over a scandal the White House doesn’t want to talk about. “To me, it seems like a bit of an overreaction to evacuate the entire — like — I don’t know. Was the White House evacuated?” Darcy said. “On Pennsylvania Avenue, they shut the entire block down, you know? From my judgment, it seemed like an overreaction, but I don’t work for the Secret Service and I know they take this stuff very seriously.” “It did seem very odd that during a protest of Attorney General Eric Holder and Barack Obama in front of the White House that all of a sudden there was a mysterious bag left — accidentally, right?” Darcy continued. “I really don’t know, but she [the backpack's owner] looked like she was pretty sincere that she left it accidentally, but I’m not a secret service agent so I don’t know what the protocol is. … I’ve taken part in multiple protests in front of the Supreme Court, in front of the Capitol Building, in front of the White House. Never have I seen anything like this before.” Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary told The Daily Caller later that law enforcement was not trying to chill protesters’ free speech rights. “We had an unattended package, and we cleared it for public safety,” he said.Hmmmm.......Remember: President Obama signed bill H.R. 347 (also known as the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011) into law.Read and see the full story here.

Obama Contributor, Who Helped Enact Assault-Weapons Ban, Ran ‘Fast and Furious’.

Obama Contributor, Who Helped Enact Assault-Weapons Ban, Ran ‘Fast and Furious’.(CNSNews).Via: InfidelBloggers.By By Fred Lucas.Dennis K. Burke, who as a lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1990s was a key player behind the enactment of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, and who then went on to become Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano’s chief of staff, and a contributor to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential primary campaign, and then a member of Obama's transition team focusing on border-enforcement issues, ended up in the Obama administration as the U.S. attorney in Arizona responsible for overseeing Operation Fast and Furious.
When Obama nominated Burke to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, Burke told the Arizona Capitol Times he believed he understood what the president and his attorney general wanted him to do.
“There’s clearly been direction provided already by President Obama and Attorney General Holder as to what they want to be doing, and this is an office that is at the center of the issues of border enforcement,” said Burke.
Over the course of several days, CNSNews.com left multiple telephone messages with Burke for comment on this story. He did not respond.From 1999 to 2003, Burke was chief deputy and special assistant to Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano.
In 2003, when Napolitano became governor, Burke became her chief of staff. He stayed in that job until the fall of 2008, when he left to help Democratic political campaigns, including then-Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) records show that on Jan. 9, 2008, while working as Gov. Napolitano’s chief of staff, Burke contributed $2,000 to then-Sen Obama’s presidential primary campaign. Since 1997, according to FEC records, Burke has contributed a total of $16,350 to various Democratic candidates.
After Obama was elected in November 2008, Burke joined his presidential transition team, serving on the Immigration Policy Working Group.
Eight days before Obama’s inauguration, on Jan. 12, 2009--while Burke was working on the transition team--Obama met with Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the Mexican Cultural Institute in Washington, D.C. At that meeting, Obama “pledged” to take action to stop the flow of guns from the United States to Mexico.
Obama also decided to put Burke’s old boss, incoming Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in a leadership role in making the gun-trafficking problem a top priority.
“President-elect Obama expressed support for efforts in the border states in both the United States and Mexico to eradicate drug-related violence and stop the flow of guns and cash,” incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement at the time. “He told President Calderón that he intends to ask the Secretary of Homeland Security to lead an effort to increase information sharing to strengthen those efforts. He pledged to take more effective action from the United States to stem the flow of arms from the United States to Mexico.”
When Napolitano became Homeland Security secretary, Burke moved from the Obama transition team to become her senior adviser. On Feb. 25, 2009, a little more than a month after Obama had made his “pledge” to Calderon, Napolitano testified in the House Homeland Security Committee. She stressed that stopping the flow of guns to Mexico was a top priority of the Obama administration and key focus of her work.Responding to a question about violence on the border, Napolitano said the administration was going to work with the Mexican government on the issue. Then she said: “Secondly, it is looking at, government-wide, at what we can do to stop the southbound export of weaponry, particularly assault-type weapons and grenades that are being used in that drug war.”Hmmmm...........This is for me the most important phrase in the whole article:

"He told President Calderón that he intends to ask the Secretary of Homeland Security to lead an effort to increase information sharing to strengthen those efforts. He pledged to take more effective action from the United States to stem the flow of arms from the United States to Mexico."

Any questions left who ordered "Fast and Furious"?Read the full story here.

Video - Judge Napolitano: It’s Difficult to See How ‘Fast and Furious’ Could Fall Into Protected Executive Privilege Categories.

HT: Fox News.