This guy is something else. Really? Why are you still in office, and not in jail, General Holder?
From the article:
If you visit the Justice Department's website right now, you'll see a link (pictured above) to "Accomplishments Under the Leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder." Buried on page 15 of the document, which was prepared in late October and published just after President Obama was reelected, is the claim that the Justice Department "has demonstrated its historic commitments to transparency." The Obama administration has broken those "historic commitments" many, many times since the early days of 2009, but you wouldn't know that from the DOJ's whitewashing of Holder's tenure.
Let's start with the first claim:
"Since 2009, the Department has released records in full or in part in more than 94 percent of the cases where records were processed for disclosure, and when records were released, they were released in full, with no information withheld, for more than 70 percent of such requests."
That 94 percent rate works only if you omit the tens of thousands of requests the DOJ does not "process for disclosure" each year. For example, the DOJ processed 63,992 requests in 2011, according to its annual FOIA report. It responded in full to 28,719 requests, and partially to 7,576 requests. The rest were rejected for reasons ranging from legitimate to murky. So what the DOJ is really saying is that it honored 94 percent of the requests it didn't reject outright. But really, it rejected 45 percent of the requests it received in 2011.
The accomplishment memo makes claims that are impossible to verify, such as this one: "The Department also made more discretionary releases of information than the previous administration." There is no category for "discretionary release" in the annual FOIA report or on FOIA.gov.
The memo also makes the relatively modest claim that "The Department has reduced the size of its FOIA backlogs under Attorney General Holder’s leadership." Yet a former FOIA specialist in the DOJ said earlier this year that the department was grossly inflating the backlog math.
The final transparency claim (and one should note that these are all with regard to FOIA, as if that single category represented the full extent of the government's transparency obligations) is this:
Since the issuance of Attorney General Holder's new FOIA guidelines, the Department's Office of Information Policy, which is responsible for encouraging agency compliance with the FOIA, has issued government-wide guidance on a range of issues implementing practices that provide for greater transparency and a more effective FOIA administration across the government.
About that: Earlier this month, The National Security Archives reported that "sixty-two out of ninety-nine government agencies have not updated their FOIA regulations since US Attorney General Eric Holder issued his March 19, 2009 FOIA memorandum." There is nothing to parse here.
If you want to know what DOJ really accomplished on the transparency front under Eric Holder, here's a great list compiled by the National Security Archives in 2011:
-selective and abusive prosecutions using espionage laws against whistleblowers as ostensible "leakers" of classified information, with more "leaks" prosecutions in the last three years than all previous years combined, at a time when expert estimates of over-classification range from 50 to 90%;
-persisting recycled legal arguments for greater secrecy throughout Justice's litigation posture, including specious arguments before the Supreme Court in 2011 in direct contradiction to President Obama's "presumption of openness";
-retrograde proposed regulations that would allow the government to lie in court about the existence of records sought by FOIA requesters, and also prevent elementary and secondary school students – as well as bloggers and new media – from getting fee waivers, while narrowing multiple other FOIA provisions;
-a mixed overall record on freedom of information with some positive signs (overall releases slightly up, roundtable meetings with requesters, the website foia.gov collating government-wide statistics) outweighed by backsliding in the key indicator of the most discretionary FOIA exemption, (b)(5) for "deliberative process," cited by Justice to withhold information a whopping 1,500 times in 2011 (up from 1,231 in 2010).
The lies and corruption keep piling up in this administration. By the end of the next 4 years, the stench will be unbearable.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/er...lf-for-tr#fold
- CuteOldGuy
- 12-12-2012, 01:20 AM
- gnadfly
- 12-12-2012, 05:49 AM
When are you going to "get over it?" Nevermind the stench and the corruption. Its like you want the tide of reparations to stop. Why don't you come over and join the party while there's something left in this country's teets?
Jeez.
Jeez.
- markroxny
- 12-12-2012, 09:11 AM
- timpage
- 12-12-2012, 09:37 AM
- CJ7
- 12-12-2012, 10:08 AM
This guy is something else. Really? Why are you still in office, and not in jail, General Holder?
From the article:
If you visit the Justice Department's website right now, you'll see a link (pictured above) to "Accomplishments Under the Leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder." Buried on page 15 of the document, which was prepared in late October and published just after President Obama was reelected, is the claim that the Justice Department "has demonstrated its historic commitments to transparency." The Obama administration has broken those "historic commitments" many, many times since the early days of 2009, but you wouldn't know that from the DOJ's whitewashing of Holder's tenure.
Let's start with the first claim:
"Since 2009, the Department has released records in full or in part in more than 94 percent of the cases where records were processed for disclosure, and when records were released, they were released in full, with no information withheld, for more than 70 percent of such requests."
That 94 percent rate works only if you omit the tens of thousands of requests the DOJ does not "process for disclosure" each year. For example, the DOJ processed 63,992 requests in 2011, according to its annual FOIA report. It responded in full to 28,719 requests, and partially to 7,576 requests. The rest were rejected for reasons ranging from legitimate to murky. So what the DOJ is really saying is that it honored 94 percent of the requests it didn't reject outright. But really, it rejected 45 percent of the requests it received in 2011.
The accomplishment memo makes claims that are impossible to verify, such as this one: "The Department also made more discretionary releases of information than the previous administration." There is no category for "discretionary release" in the annual FOIA report or on FOIA.gov.
The memo also makes the relatively modest claim that "The Department has reduced the size of its FOIA backlogs under Attorney General Holder’s leadership." Yet a former FOIA specialist in the DOJ said earlier this year that the department was grossly inflating the backlog math.
The final transparency claim (and one should note that these are all with regard to FOIA, as if that single category represented the full extent of the government's transparency obligations) is this:
Since the issuance of Attorney General Holder's new FOIA guidelines, the Department's Office of Information Policy, which is responsible for encouraging agency compliance with the FOIA, has issued government-wide guidance on a range of issues implementing practices that provide for greater transparency and a more effective FOIA administration across the government.
About that: Earlier this month, The National Security Archives reported that "sixty-two out of ninety-nine government agencies have not updated their FOIA regulations since US Attorney General Eric Holder issued his March 19, 2009 FOIA memorandum." There is nothing to parse here.
If you want to know what DOJ really accomplished on the transparency front under Eric Holder, here's a great list compiled by the National Security Archives in 2011:
-selective and abusive prosecutions using espionage laws against whistleblowers as ostensible "leakers" of classified information, with more "leaks" prosecutions in the last three years than all previous years combined, at a time when expert estimates of over-classification range from 50 to 90%;
-persisting recycled legal arguments for greater secrecy throughout Justice's litigation posture, including specious arguments before the Supreme Court in 2011 in direct contradiction to President Obama's "presumption of openness";
-retrograde proposed regulations that would allow the government to lie in court about the existence of records sought by FOIA requesters, and also prevent elementary and secondary school students – as well as bloggers and new media – from getting fee waivers, while narrowing multiple other FOIA provisions;
-a mixed overall record on freedom of information with some positive signs (overall releases slightly up, roundtable meetings with requesters, the website foia.gov collating government-wide statistics) outweighed by backsliding in the key indicator of the most discretionary FOIA exemption, (b)(5) for "deliberative process," cited by Justice to withhold information a whopping 1,500 times in 2011 (up from 1,231 in 2010).
The lies and corruption keep piling up in this administration. By the end of the next 4 years, the stench will be unbearable.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/er...lf-for-tr#fold Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
you should stick to wiki, really.
- CuteOldGuy
- 12-12-2012, 11:00 AM
Nah, WPF has the Wiki account wrapped up.
No one thinks its odd that Holder is praising himself for stuff that never happened? But you can call me names, but Holder is the one praising himself for transparency that doesn't exist.
No one thinks its odd that Holder is praising himself for stuff that never happened? But you can call me names, but Holder is the one praising himself for transparency that doesn't exist.
- CJ7
- 12-12-2012, 11:28 AM
- timpage
- 12-12-2012, 11:30 AM
Nah, WPF has the Wiki account wrapped up.Holder isn't corrupt and hasn't done anything even remotely criminal. You repeating it over and over doesn't make it so. Sorry that you're incapable of understanding these simple things.
No one thinks its odd that Holder is praising himself for stuff that never happened? But you can call me names, but Holder is the one praising himself for transparency that doesn't exist. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
- Whirlaway
- 12-12-2012, 11:34 AM
Definitive Proof That Eric Holder Lied to Congress About Obama's Medical Marijuana Crackdown
Mike Riggs|Jun. 15, 2012 12:04 pm
Attorney General Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee last week that his department was not prosecuting medical marijuana businesses that are in compliance with state law. In the week since, drug reform advocates have culled together an overwhelming amount of evidence that Holder either lied to the committee, or—as seems to have been the case with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm's "Operation Fast and Furious"—is oblivious to what his department is doing outside Washington, D.C.
Just to review, here's what Holder told the House Judiciary Committee:
Asked about what critics have charged is an overly aggressively enforcement campaign and broken administration promises — including in states that have legalized cannabis for medical purposes — Holder denied the charge.
"This is inconsistent with the little thing called the facts," Holder said in testimony in front of the House Judiciary committee.
Holder told the committee that the Justice Department is not using "limited resources to go after people acting in conformity with state law."
"One has to deal with the reality that there are certain people who took advantage of the state law and a different policy that this administration announced...and have come up with ways they are tkaing advantage of those state laws and going beyond what those states have authorized," Holder said.
That's from Politico. The Washington Times filed a similar dispatch. What Holder said, in other words, isn't up for debate. Neither is the truthiness of what he said: Holder lied.
Steph Sherer of Americans for Safe Access called Holder out last week. Now here's Eric Sterling pointing out that the DOJ has threatened to prosecute state employees who comply with their states' marijuana laws:
U.S. Attorneys have threatened state governors that the Justice Department would prosecute state employees who are carrying out state law.
In June 2011, the threats were so real they worried New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R), a former U.S. Attorney himself.
In Delaware, this spring U.S. Attorney Charles Oberly, III, threatened to prosecute state employees while state officials were developing the regulations to fine tune the state law. In that case the Justice Department was trying to prevent any possibility that anyone could be in "conformity" with state law! Governor Jack Markell actually stopped state employees from going forward in the regulation writing process.
In the adjacent state of Maryland, Gov. Martin O'Malley was so alarmed by Oberly's threat, he announced, before the General Assembly could even mark-up a bill in committee, that he would veto any bill that was sent to him!
Last September, the BATF, a unit of the Justice Department, advised all federally licensed firearms dealers that it would be a crime if they sold a firearm to anyone they knew was a state-licensed medical marijuana patient.
In the week since Holder lied, Reuters reported that the Justice Department is using asset forfeiture laws to target landlords of pot shops. If they don't evict medical marijuana outfits, Justice can seize their buildings:
A civil statute designed primarily to seize the assets of drug trafficking organizations is now being wielded by federal prosecutors in California in an unconventional and little-noticed attack on medical-marijuana shops in the state.
Prosecutors have brought more than a dozen lawsuits seeking the forfeiture of commercial properties that house marijuana shops. The actions pressure owners to either evict these controversial tenants or face costly legal battles or the loss of their buildings.The goal is to scare owners into cutting their ties to such tenants and to help the Justice Department combat the medical marijuana industry, estimated at $1.7 billion annually, without confronting it head-on with costly and potentially embarrassing criminal prosecutions, industry sources and legal experts said.
And here's another case in which the Feds shut down a dispensary that local government approved of:
DEA agents raided the El Camino Wellness Center at 2511 Connie Drive early Monday morning. They also raided the homes of the center’s executive directors, according to a press release from Americans for Safe Access.
“The community is in shock because El Camino Wellness Center was a model dispensary that had hosted tours of the facility for numerous members of City Council, as well as state and local officials,” according to local ASA representative Courtney Sheats. “There has been nothing clandestine about its operation.”
Unlike Fast and Furious, Holder isn't claiming that he didn't know about Obama's medical marijuana crackdown when it was happening. It's happening right now, and he says it's not. Amazing.
Mike Riggs is an associate editor at Reason magazine.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/15/de...-holder-lied-t
Mike Riggs|Jun. 15, 2012 12:04 pm
Attorney General Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee last week that his department was not prosecuting medical marijuana businesses that are in compliance with state law. In the week since, drug reform advocates have culled together an overwhelming amount of evidence that Holder either lied to the committee, or—as seems to have been the case with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm's "Operation Fast and Furious"—is oblivious to what his department is doing outside Washington, D.C.
Just to review, here's what Holder told the House Judiciary Committee:
Asked about what critics have charged is an overly aggressively enforcement campaign and broken administration promises — including in states that have legalized cannabis for medical purposes — Holder denied the charge.
"This is inconsistent with the little thing called the facts," Holder said in testimony in front of the House Judiciary committee.
Holder told the committee that the Justice Department is not using "limited resources to go after people acting in conformity with state law."
"One has to deal with the reality that there are certain people who took advantage of the state law and a different policy that this administration announced...and have come up with ways they are tkaing advantage of those state laws and going beyond what those states have authorized," Holder said.
That's from Politico. The Washington Times filed a similar dispatch. What Holder said, in other words, isn't up for debate. Neither is the truthiness of what he said: Holder lied.
Steph Sherer of Americans for Safe Access called Holder out last week. Now here's Eric Sterling pointing out that the DOJ has threatened to prosecute state employees who comply with their states' marijuana laws:
U.S. Attorneys have threatened state governors that the Justice Department would prosecute state employees who are carrying out state law.
In June 2011, the threats were so real they worried New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R), a former U.S. Attorney himself.
In Delaware, this spring U.S. Attorney Charles Oberly, III, threatened to prosecute state employees while state officials were developing the regulations to fine tune the state law. In that case the Justice Department was trying to prevent any possibility that anyone could be in "conformity" with state law! Governor Jack Markell actually stopped state employees from going forward in the regulation writing process.
In the adjacent state of Maryland, Gov. Martin O'Malley was so alarmed by Oberly's threat, he announced, before the General Assembly could even mark-up a bill in committee, that he would veto any bill that was sent to him!
Last September, the BATF, a unit of the Justice Department, advised all federally licensed firearms dealers that it would be a crime if they sold a firearm to anyone they knew was a state-licensed medical marijuana patient.
In the week since Holder lied, Reuters reported that the Justice Department is using asset forfeiture laws to target landlords of pot shops. If they don't evict medical marijuana outfits, Justice can seize their buildings:
A civil statute designed primarily to seize the assets of drug trafficking organizations is now being wielded by federal prosecutors in California in an unconventional and little-noticed attack on medical-marijuana shops in the state.
Prosecutors have brought more than a dozen lawsuits seeking the forfeiture of commercial properties that house marijuana shops. The actions pressure owners to either evict these controversial tenants or face costly legal battles or the loss of their buildings.The goal is to scare owners into cutting their ties to such tenants and to help the Justice Department combat the medical marijuana industry, estimated at $1.7 billion annually, without confronting it head-on with costly and potentially embarrassing criminal prosecutions, industry sources and legal experts said.
And here's another case in which the Feds shut down a dispensary that local government approved of:
DEA agents raided the El Camino Wellness Center at 2511 Connie Drive early Monday morning. They also raided the homes of the center’s executive directors, according to a press release from Americans for Safe Access.
“The community is in shock because El Camino Wellness Center was a model dispensary that had hosted tours of the facility for numerous members of City Council, as well as state and local officials,” according to local ASA representative Courtney Sheats. “There has been nothing clandestine about its operation.”
Unlike Fast and Furious, Holder isn't claiming that he didn't know about Obama's medical marijuana crackdown when it was happening. It's happening right now, and he says it's not. Amazing.
Mike Riggs is an associate editor at Reason magazine.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/15/de...-holder-lied-t
- Whirlaway
- 12-12-2012, 11:37 AM
I can remember the same being said by the defenders of John Mithcell in the Nixon white house.
Holder isn't corrupt and hasn't done anything even remotely criminal. You repeating it over and over doesn't make it so. Sorry that you're incapable of understanding these simple things. Originally Posted by timpage
- CJ7
- 12-12-2012, 11:38 AM
reasonblog ... proof (snort)
kinda like everyone believing your "headlines"
snick
kinda like everyone believing your "headlines"
snick
- timpage
- 12-12-2012, 11:44 AM
I can remember the same being said by the defenders of John Mithcell in the Nixon white house. Originally Posted by WhirlawayNobody but you and the rest of the winger halfwits on here would try to compare John Mitchell and Eric Holder. Pure political witch-hunt bullshit. Made-up crap designed to do nothing but impugn the integrity of the administration's cabinet members for political gain. You're a liar and so is COG and anybody with half a brain knows it.
The half a brain part is why you apparently lack the insight to understand how posts like this make you look silly and why none of us take you seriously. You're a knucklehead.
- Whirlaway
- 12-12-2012, 11:48 AM
Holder is likely worse than Mitchell. The Watergate fiasco was a low-level break in. A political scandal at worse. The Fast and Furious scandal resulted in untolds deaths...likely in the hundreds.
BTW, I didn't defend Mitchell when Watergate was on the headlines....your just another Obamazombie defending the indefensible at any cost.
But if you cared to get to the bottom of the issue; and clear Holder's good name, why not support an independent counsel. Like Nixon did. Like Reagan did. Like Bush Sr. did, like Bush Jr. did, like Clinton did?
BTW, I didn't defend Mitchell when Watergate was on the headlines....your just another Obamazombie defending the indefensible at any cost.
But if you cared to get to the bottom of the issue; and clear Holder's good name, why not support an independent counsel. Like Nixon did. Like Reagan did. Like Bush Sr. did, like Bush Jr. did, like Clinton did?