Latest news with #OperationFastandFurious
The Hill
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
The House is awash in subpoenas as Epstein inquiry expands
Congress has been rightly criticized for not pushing back sooner against executive branch encroachments on first branch constitutional prerogatives. Congress's relative somnolence is understandable though not wholly excusable. The silence on the Hill has been due in large part to the unilateral party control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. There is a certain grace period observed at the outset of a new administration while it gets its ducks in a row on policy and legislative priorities. Missteps and overreach inevitably occur and usually are met by majority party tolerance and inaction on the Hill. This Congress has followed the norm and oversight was overlooked except by the lone voices of protest on the minority party side of the aisle. Last month we witnessed the first cracks in the stone dam. It occurred on July 22 in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. There, in the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement chaired by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), ranking member Summer Lee (D-Pa.) offered a motion to subpoena the Justice Department for the complete files of Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died by suicide in prison in 2019. The motion surprisingly carried on an 8-to-2 vote with three Republican members joining all Democrats to adopt the motion. Two of the subcommittee's Republicans, including Chairman Higgins, voted against the motion. The subcommittee subsequently adopted by voice vote a motion offered by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to subpoena the deposition testimony of a host of former government officials from both parties, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, six former attorneys general and two former FBI directors. One of the subpoenaed former officials, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, was asked on ' Meet the Press ' last Sunday whether he would comply with the subpoena. He wouldn't commit, explaining that conversations were ongoing to determine exactly what information the committee wanted. Program moderator Kristen Welker pressed him, noting that he was the first attorney general in history ever to be held in contempt of Congress in 2012 for his refusal to testify on 'Operation Fast and Furious,' tracking illegal gun sales. 'Do you have any regrets about that now,' and, 'will that be informing your decision now?' Holder explained that the information sought in that instance was 'confidential' internal executive branch communications and, presumably privileged (though only the president can invoke executive privilege). The White House and Justice Department did not attempt to prosecute Holder for criminal contempt of Congress in 2012. Whether the other subpoenaed former attorneys general and FBI directors will take their lead from Holder's decision this time will be interesting to watch. What makes the Epstein files disclosure demand especially unique today is President Trump's apparent flip-flop on the issue of disclosure from his previous use of it as one of the major issues on which he campaigned. It was a symbol of bringing down the ruling elites and draining the Washington swamp. That commitment has waned. As pressure grew, the president belatedly directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek release of sealed grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case. That request was denied by a Florida judge. Meanwhile, the president has put out the word that it's 'time to move on.' The Supreme Court's decision in McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927 held that Congress has an inherent right to compel testimony and conduct oversight as part of its constitutional lawmaking functions. The case was an offshoot of the Teapot Dome oil leasing scandal of the early 1920s. In that instance, a Senate select committee was inquiring into why former Attorney General Harry Daughety did not investigate the matter when it first broke. It had subpoenaed Mally Daugherty, the attorney general's brother and president of a bank at the heart of the scandal. When Mally refused to comply with the subpoena he was cited for contempt of Congress and found guilty. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court and upheld Mally's conviction. That 1927 decision did not turn off the spigot and witnesses today are still challenging subpoenas and inviting contempt citations. Whether a contempt citation is prosecuted is solely at the discretion of the Justice Department. The failure by the Justice Department to prosecute Holder's contempt of Congress citation in 2012 could well be a precursor to another prolonged battle of the branches. This time Congress could potentially wind-up with a sawed-off limb. Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, 'Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial' (2000), and, 'Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays' (2018).
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Will Absorbing the ATF Into the FBI Rein in Each Agency's Abuses?
By appointing FBI Director Kash Patel as acting head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), President Donald Trump took a step towards reining in a federal agency justifiably viewed by many as a threat to self-defense rights. He also signaled that he may consolidate government bodies that overlap in their responsibilities. Fans of big government and opponents of privately owned firearms won't like the move, but the idea of combining the agencies is hardly unprecedented. After all, President Bill Clinton had the same idea three decades ago. "ATF welcomes Acting Director Kash Patel to ATF, who was sworn in and had his first visit to ATF Headquarters in Washington, D.C. today," the ATF posted on X on February 24. "We are enthusiastic to work together for a safer America!" Patel takes over from Steven Dettelbach, who resigned just before Trump took office. Dettelbach presided over an ATF seen as even more hostile to gun owners than has historically been the case. The announcement of Patel's new role at the ATF came after the anti-gun Brady Campaign had already denounced Patel's confirmation by the Senate as FBI director, calling him a "known gun rights extremist and conspiracy theorist." The group also wasn't happy when Attorney General Pam Bondi fired former ATF Chief Counsel Pamela Hicks for "targeting gun owners." It's fair to assume the Brady Campaign is equally displeased with Patel's new job leading the ATF along with the FBI. But it's impossible to credibly argue that the ATF doesn't need a shakeup. After all, this is a federal agency that ran guns to criminal gangs in Mexico as part of a bizarre and failed "investigation," manipulated mentally disabled people into participating in sting operations—and then arrested them, lost thousands of guns and gun parts, killed people over paperwork violations, and unilaterally reinterpreted laws to create new felonies out of thin air (which means more cause for sketchy investigations and stings). The federal police agency obsessively focused on firearms has long seemed determined to guarantee itself work by finding ever more things to police. But what about putting the same person in charge of both the ATF and the FBI? How does that make sense? Well, there's a lot of overlap in the responsibilities of federal agencies. During the ATF's "Operation Fast and Furious" gunrunning escapade in Mexico, it coordinated—badly—with the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). During its 2012 investigation of that fiasco, the Justice Department Inspector General "conducted interviews with more than 130 persons currently or previously employed by the Department, ATF, the DEA, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)" on its way to identifying "a series of misguided strategies, tactics, errors in judgment, and management failures that permeated ATF Headquarters and the Phoenix Field Division." Merging agencies—if that's where this is headed—might improve internal communications by clarifying chains of command and eliminating interagency competition. It might also reduce the ATF's singleminded focus on demonstrating its importance by making sure there are people violating gun laws—even if violations have to be manufactured—so there is always somebody to arrest and parade on TV. A larger multipurpose agency—basically, a supercharged FBI—should be able to shift gears from one crime focus to another if there aren't enough violators. Maybe. Merged agencies should also be more efficient, since they won't duplicate each other's infrastructure. At least, that was the idea when the Clinton administration's National Performance Review, later rebranded the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, proposed the idea. "More than 140 agencies are responsible for enforcing 4,100 federal criminal laws," the 1993 review noted. "Unfortunately, too many cooks spoil the broth. Agencies squabble over turf, fail to cooperate, or delay matters while attempting to agree on common policies." The performance review, headed by then-Vice President Al Gore, recommended merging the DEA into the FBI to "create savings in administrative and support functions such as laboratories, legal services, training facilities, and administration." It then suggested assigning the law enforcement functions of the ATF to the FBI and its regulatory and revenue functions to the IRS. Done right, you wouldn't need as many agents for the combined agency, and you would have lower overhead. But—and this is a big concern—done wrong, you'd end up with a supercharged federal enforcement agency with all the hostility to civil liberties its old components embodied when separate, but now with lots more clout. When he took charge of the FBI, Patel became the leader of an agency that has long served as a sort of political police. Its abuses date back decades and never seem to go away, just to morph into new ways of targeting anybody who criticizes whoever is currently in power. "The FBI entraps hapless people all the time, arrests them, charges them with domestic terrorism offenses or other serious felonies, claims victory in the 'war on domestic terrorism,' and then asks Congress for more money to entrap more people," John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer and whistleblower, wrote in 2021. That means there's already a problem that needs to be addressed, or it could infect a combined agency rather than taking the sharp edges off the ATF. Also troubling is that before his nomination to head the FBI, Patel made comments suggesting he wants to target his own political enemies. He's backed off those threats, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee he's committed to "a de-weaponized, de-politicized system of law enforcement completely devoted to rigorous obedience to the Constitution and a singular standard of justice." But it's worth watching what he does with his roles at the separate FBI and ATF before combining the two agencies into something more dangerous. Or maybe the Trump administration won't take the next step of formally integrating the ATF and the FBI. Self defense advocates have long called for ATF leadership that isn't actively hostile to gun owners. If all Patel does is rein in the ATF so that Americans get a few years of relief from that agency's abuses, that's a victory itself. But eliminating a much-loathed federal agency would be even better. The post Will Absorbing the ATF Into the FBI Rein in Each Agency's Abuses? appeared first on
