They Did What !

On Wednesday, April 23, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Congressman Robert Wexler had the following exchange with FBI Director Robert Mueller (see transcript below).

It is important that mainstream media bring Director Mueller's responses to the attention of the public. His answers, or rather one answer repeated over and over, that he "adhered to our protocols" is evasive, non-responsive, and unacceptable. The people and agencies in Washington are public servants but seem to think they have no accountability to that public.

According to the preamble of the code of ethics for professional journalists:

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

If the media is to live up to its own professional code, then journalists are obligated to hold these public servants accountable for their actions or lack of action by bringing this information into the arena of public discussion.

We need to write, call and email journalists asking them to do their part by bringing this transcript to the attention of the public as a way to start and sustain public discussion. Director Mueller and other public servants must be held accountable and not allowed to avoid and sidestep Congressional oversight by giving non-answers, or using "national security" and "executive privilege" as excuses for not responding at all.

(TRANSCRIPT:)

Robert Wexler: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, in January of 2006, the New York Times reported that the NSA wireless wiretapping program had produced thousands of leads each month that the FBI had to track down, but that no Al-Qaeda networks were discovered. During a July 17, 2007 briefing, FBI deputy director John Pistole indicated that the FBI was not aware of any Al-Qaeda sleeper cells operating in the United States. In August of 2007 Congress passed the Protect America Act, giving the intelligence community greater access to electronic communications coming into and out of the United States. I have two questions in this regard.

RW: Has the FBI found any sleeper cells yet? One…

RW: Two. Has the NSA’s wireless wiretapping programs either before the Protect America Act or after led to the prosecution and conviction of any terrorists in the United States?

Robert Mueller: Well, as to your first question as to whether we have found affiliates or, as you would call them, cells of Al-Qaeda in the United States, yes we have. Again, I cannot get into it in public session, but I would say yes we have. With regard to the relationship of a particular case or individual to the terrorist surveillance program, again that is something that would have to be covered in a closed session.

RW: Alright, Mr. Director. An LA Times article from October, 2007 quotes one senior federal enforcement official as saying quote “the CIA determined they were going to torture people, and we made the decision not to be involved” end quote. The article goes on to say that some FBI officials went to you and that you quote “pulled many of the agents back from playing even a supporting role in the investigations to avoid exposing them to legal jeopardy” end quote.

RW: My question Mr. Director, I congratulate you for pulling the FBI agents back, but why did you not take more substantial steps to stop the interrogation techniques that your own FBI agents were telling you were illegal? Why did you not initiate criminal investigations when your agents told you the CIA and the Department of Defense were engaging in illegal interrogation techniques, and rather than simply pulling your agents out, shouldn't’t you have directed them to prevent any illegal interrogations from taking place?

RM: I can go so far sir as to tell you that a protocol in the FBI is not to use coercion in any of our interrogations or our questioning and we have abided by our protocol.

RW: I appreciate that. What is the protocol say when the FBI knows that the CIA is engaging or the Department of Defense is engaging in an illegal technique? What does the protocol say in that circumstance?

RM: We would bring it up to appropriate authorities and determine whether the techniques were legal or illegal.

RW: Did you bring it up to appropriate authorities?

RM: All I can tell you is that we followed our own protocols.

RW: So you can’t tell us whether you brought it; when your own FBI agents came to you and said the CIA is doing something illegal which caused you to say don’t you get involved; you can’t tell us whether you then went to whatever authority?

RM: I’ll tell you we followed our own protocols.

RW: And what was the result?

RM: We followed our own protocols. We followed our protocols. We did not use coercion. We did not participate in any instance where coercion was used to my knowledge.

RW: Did the CIA use techniques that were illegal?

RM: I can’t comment on what has been done by another agency and under what authorities the other agency may have taken actions.

RW: Why can’t you comment on the actions of another agency?

RM: I leave that up to the other agency to answer questions with regard to the actions taken by that agency and the legal authorities that may apply to them.

RW: Are you the chief legal law enforcement agency in the United States?

RM: I am the Director of the FBI.

RW: And you do not have authority with respect to any other governmental agency in the United States? Is that what you’re saying?

RM: My authority is given to me to investigate. Yes we do.

RW: Did somebody take away that authority with respect to the CIA?

RM: Nobody has taken away the authority. I can tell you what our protocol was, and how we followed that protocol.

RW: Did anybody take away the authority with respect to the Department of Defense?

RM: I’m not certain what you mean.

RW: Your authority to investigate an illegal torture technique.

RM: There has to be a legal basis for us to investigate, and generally that legal basis is given to us by the Department of Justice. Any interpretations of the laws given to us by the Department of Justice….
(talking over each other)

RW: But apparently your own agents made a determination that the actions by the CIA and the Department of Defense were illegal, so much so that you authorized, ordered, your agents not to participate. But that’s it.

RM: I’ve told you what our protocol was, and I’ve indicated that we’ve adhered to our protocol throughout.

RW: My time is up. Thank you very much Mr. Director.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 08:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

It’s hard to decide whether to laugh or cry. I was channel surfing news broadcasts this morning and there on MSNBC was Joe Scarborough talking on the phone to Howard Wolfson of the Clinton campaign who claimed Clinton gave “a winning debate performance last night” and called it “a game-changing" moment. While Wolfson was speaking there was a box at the bottom of the screen showing debate winner statistics: Obama 68%, Clinton 22%.

I watched what ABC stretched-credibility-to-call-a-debate last night and for the first hour felt like I was caught in a butter churn. Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos shamed themselves and insulted the public by going round and round about Rev. Wright, Obama’s “bitter”, comment and flag pins. Finally, perhaps noticing how one-sided their “gotcha game” was, they threw in Hillary’s sniper-fire-in-Bosnia lie. There was no mention of her self-aggrandizing claim about her part in bringing peace to Ireland which Ireland itself sniggers about.

I also went on-line at ABC and MSNBC and read the comments and winner scoring. My last check on ABC’s comment site last night had over 8700 comments with at least 90% of them blasting ABC, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos calling the debate embarrassing, shameful, a farce, and other less polite negative names. The comments were over 15,000 by this morning but the percentages remained the same. The polling which last night had over 24,000 respondents was running 68% for Obama, 24% for Clinton and 7% for a tie. The respondent numbers climbed to over 57,000 by this morning but the statistics did not change.

So what happened this morning? The pundits spent their time talking to each other about the butter churning topics, while the public continued to post comments declaring their total lack of interest in these things and expressing disappointment and frustration because the “debate” wasted their time on such subjects. Never has it been so clear how totally out of touch the MSM is with what the public thinks and wants. While they stroke their own egos telling us what we think, they are totally clueless and out of touch with our reality.

If you are interested in reading an in-depth analysis of Clinton and Obama and how they compare and contrast, check out the article in the current issue of The New York Review of Books entitled "Molehill Politics" by Elizabeth Drew. It's online at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21231.

Drew defines Molehill Politics as “making a very big deal in the press about something that’s a very small deal” an apt description of last night’s debate and this morning’s coverage of it.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Wouldn’t you think that six years would be more than enough to pass a law meant to stop federal employees from stealing taxpayers’ money? Apparently not since the GAO* reported misuse of government credit cards in 2002 but the Government Credit Card Abuse Prevention Act wasn’t introduced until 2007 and is still stalled in the Senate.

Why is it taking so long to pass this bill? More to the point, why do we even need a new law? Aren’t fraud, stealing and misappropriation of funds already illegal? Perhaps one of the problems is that Washington refers to “government funds” instead of more properly calling it “taxpayer’s money.” It is after all our money intended to fund a government that is supposed to operate in our interests. If, as the OMB** says, the goal for the abuse of purchase cards is zero, why wasn’t a zero tolerance policy instituted in 2002?

Instead we now have a new GAO report about federal employees’ misuse of government credit cards in 2005 and 2006. Upsetting as that is, what is really outrageous is the mealy mouthed discussions and lack of action by those who are responsible for oversight and enforcing consequences for this misappropriation of our money.

It seems pretty straightforward: These federal employees have stolen taxpayers' money; They should be fired, prosecuted, and required to pay restitution. We need a special law for this? It takes over six years to get this special law in place? Who are these people in Washington and where exactly are their heads?

According to the new GAO review, 41 percent of roughly $14 billion in purchases were unauthorized or not properly received. 41percent of $14 billion is over $5.7 billion

G.S.A.*** administrator, Lurita Doan, said that many oversight measures were already in place but admitted there was room for improvement. I’d say $5.7 billion in problem purchases indicates the oversight measures aren’t very effective and “room for improvement” is a colossal understatement. Doan added that using the purchase cards saved about $1.8 billion in administrative costs each year. Perhaps that “savings” would be better used for oversight and accountability controls. Especially since that savings offsets only about 32 percent of the $5.7 billion problems.

The GAO recommendations seem to consist mainly of sending memos and reminders to agencies to be more vigilant about the authorizations and uses of the purchase cards. Say what? Isn’t that what manager and supervisor positions are all about? And what reasonably honest and at least minimally intelligent person needs to be reminded that taking things like iPods, computers, and LCD monitors that don’t belong to you, is stealing? Or that spending taxpayers’ money on suits, lingerie, Match.com, and a girlfriend’s breast augmentation is illegal? Send memos indeed! What are we paying agency managers and supervisors for if they have to be reminded it is their job to see that their subordinates are not treating taxpayers’ money like personal slush funds?

Why do we continue to allow our money to support such chronic incompetence – in federal agencies and in Congress? It is way past time to vote the incompetent out of office and elect people who will clean house in the agencies.

*GAO – Government Accountability Office - supports the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and helps improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. Known as "the investigative arm of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog." THEY GET A "D"

**OMB – Office of Management and Budget - predominant mission is to assist the President in overseeing the preparation of the federal budget and to supervise its administration in Executive Branch. In addition, OMB oversees and coordinates the Administration's procurement, financial management, information, and regulatory policies. In each of these areas, OMB's role is to help improve administrative management, to develop better performance measures and coordinating mechanisms, and to reduce any unnecessary burdens on the public.
THEY GET AN "F"

***GSA – General Services Administration - mission is to "help federal agencies better serve the public by offering, at best value, superior workplaces, expert solutions, acquisition services and management policies." GSA consists of the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), the Public Buildings Service (PBS), and various Staff Offices, including the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs (OCIA). Eleven Regional Offices extend GSA’s outreach to federal customers nationwide. THEY GET AN "F"

Congress - supposed to support government of the people, by the people and for the people. THEY GET AN "F"

Posted by Trish Purcell at 08:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)