By Jim Harper
Washington Post staff writers Anne Kornblut and Ashley Halsey cite “experts” six times in a story today about the nascent pendulum swing in airport security policy back toward government investigation of travelers. “[M]ore than a dozen U.S. officials, lawmakers and experts interviewed said they would like to move to a system that relies more on [...]
Investigate All Air Travelers, Say Experts in Dog Food Rebranding is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog
There is no excuse for threats of violence sent through emails to people with whom one disagrees. It is noteworthy, however, that there have been no arrests and no FBI investigation of these emailed death threats and others like them that I have received, although I have contacted the FBI repeatedly and do so whenever a new death threat comes in. Yet the Cincinnati mosque email is not even as clear a threat as these below, and the FBI is all over it. Why the double standard?
“Robert Spencer has his right to speech. But someday he will slip up, he will visit a place that doesn’t honor such infidel ‘rights.’ And what a day they will have with him. You’ve heard of head cheese and blood pudding? See, modern hip Muslims like me like to be look different than everybody else in Western society. And we don’t like to believe Islam has any real enemies left. But Robert Spencer, well, he will see the sacred text come to life…’fuel the fires of hell…’ only when they are done with him. Peace and Love.” — September 29, 2010
“Robert Spencer the Second, born on February 27, 1962, is a hairy man who…currently lives on [specific street] in [specific city] with [specific relatives]…” — July 28, 2010, from Greenbelt, Maryland
“Killing of this man is a model… SPENCER-Model..Spencer himself deserves the same? he should be sloughtered like that man. Silencing the EVIL.” — April 4, 2010
“THIS IS AN OPEN THREAT TO YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATION TO STAY AWAY FROM MUSLIMS AND ISLAM IF YOU KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU. YOU SON OF A BITCH . YOUR MOTHER WAS A C**K-SUCKING WHORE . IF YOU GOT THE GUTS AND BALLS PRINT THIS ON YOUR WEB SITE AND TELL PEOPLE THAT YOU ARE BEING THREATENED. U FILTHY C**K-SUCKER HAVE A NICE DAY” — December 8, 2009
“Yes. Yes..We finally reached out him. Ka’ab Binu Ashraf has been traced. He will be soon found. Will this be like VAN-Goooordhd. I am not sure. Allah Knows.. But Spencer you will pay the price…Just wait to pay the price.” — September 28, 2009
“Robert….It was really good I found you in a local supermarket. and I followed you.. so i know your address now..tell you fool followers you are going to be deceased very soon… any one taking your seat and getting killed? I am sure most of your followers are cheeky cowards.” — September 28, 2009
“Do me a favor Spencer and put this as a blog post like you do to all those threatening mails. Be careful, I am very near to you. I located you and I know you have little security around you. I am coming to slit your throat with a bland knife.. and it will pain a lot.. since you misled a lot of people and became a fitnah on earth.. it is a duty of a good muslim to kill you! go report this to FBI or CIA..And don’t worry, I won’t attack you unguarded.. but i will surely kill you in the most easy manner possible because I don’t like to slaughter human beings.. Die and go to hell.. for sure..and yea I have a new name for you…Robert ‘hawknoseinhell’ spencer.” — September 28, 2009
I’ve received many, many others. Here is just one more, a classic from a few years back:
“YOu are the most f**king person I have ever seen. Enrooted in islamic hatred, you think your personal statements on Prophet Muhammed will be deemed appropriate. Motherf**ker, I am coming to kill you. I will hack the head off your face and i will kill your family. Wait for your doom. From A mujahid” — October 2, 2006
“FBI investigating mosque threat,” by Dan Horn for the Cincinnati Enquirer, December 14 (thanks to Andrew):
The FBI is investigating a threatening e-mail sent to a Clifton mosque that was the target of a pipe bomb attack almost five years ago.
FBI officials say they have no evidence the e-mail is connected to the previous attack, but they are taking no chances.
“That’s certainly something we will investigate,” said FBI spokesman Mike Brooks.
The e-mail was sent Saturday from an anonymous Yahoo account to the Islamic Association of Cincinnati, which oversees the mosque.“You should know that you are not wanted in Cincinnati,” the e-mail states. “We don’t want you here. Mohammad is a joke. Go back to your desert. Beware. We may just declare jihad on you.”
Officials with the [Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations said that although the e-mail does not contain a direct threat, it is a concern because of the previous attack on the mosque and because of growing animosity toward Muslims in the decade since the 9/11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.
“I don’t want to blow this out of proportion, but we don’t want to dismiss it and assume it’s nothing,” said Karen Dabdoub, executive director of [Hamas-linked] CAIR in Cincinnati. “You just don’t know.”…
Indeed you don’t — especially given the fact that Hamas-linked CAIR and other Muslims have not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. CAIR and other groups like it want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them for political points and as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.
So what happened in Cincinnati is anybody’s guess. And it’s good that the FBI is on it. I just wish that the FBI were as proactive and energetic in investigating the many death threats that anti-jihadists such as Pamela Geller and I have received as they are when they rush to investigate allegations of threats against mosques and Muslims.
Washington (CNN) - Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, will offer a “privileged resolution” as early as today calling on the House to investigate the ethics committee for its handling of her case.
Waters’ hearing before the Committee on Standards and Official Conduct was scheduled to begin last month, but the committee announced before Thanksgiving that the proceeding had been canceled due to the discovery of email communications that would potentially affect the case. The committee also suspended two staff lawyers working on the case.
It did not indicate whether or when the matter would be revisited.
Waters’ draft resolution asks the House to create a bipartisan task force to probe “the circumstances and cause of the decision” by the committee to place the staff lawyers on administrative leave. It also requests that the task force report its findings and recommendations to the House by the end of the current Congress.
Under House rules, once this type of resolution is offered, the House has two legislative days to vote on it.
After her hearing was postponed, Waters said she was denied “basic due process” and the decision not to move forward with her trial as planned “demonstrated in no uncertain terms the weakness of their case against me.”
Waters, a 20-year congresswoman and senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, is alleged to have sought federal assistance for OneUnited Bank, a minority-owned bank in which her husband held a financial interest.
The California congresswoman has vehemently denied any wrongdoing, and has repeatedly demanded a conclusion to the almost year-and-a-half-long investigation.
Read a draft of the resolution obtained by CNN:
“Authorizing and directing the Speaker to appoint a bipartisan task force to investigate the circumstances and cause of the decision to place professional staff of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on indefinite administrative leave, and for other purposes.”Whereas, On November 19, 2010 two members of the professional staff of the committee on standards and official conduct were placed on indefinite administrative leave
Whereas, on November 19th 2010 the committee on standards and official conduct canceled and has not rescheduled the adjudicatory hearing for a Member of Congress, previously scheduled for November 29th 2010
Whereas such a delay violates a Members due process rights and the rules of the committee
Whereas all of these actions have subjected the committee to public ridicule, produced contempt for the ethics process, created the public perception that the committee’s purpose was to unjustly impugn the integrity of a Member of the House, and weakened the ability of the committee to properly conduct its investigative duties, all of which has brought discredit to the House; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That-
(1) the Speaker shall appoint a bipartisan task force with equal representation of the majority and minority parties to investigate the circumstances and cause of the decision to place professional staff of
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on indefinite administrative leave and to make recommendations to restore public confidence in the ethics process, including disciplinary measures for both staff and Members where needed; and(2) the task force report its findings and recommendations to the House of Representatives during the second session of this Congress
-CNN Congressional Producer Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report
By Brittany Wallman and Jon Burstein
Broward Sheriff Al Lamberti has cleared his longtime friend and undersheriff, Col. Tom Wheeler, of any wrongdoing in accepting free private jet trips from Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein.
Though the Broward Sheriff’s Office said for the past year that Wheeler was under investigation, Lamberti now says no formal investigation was ever done.
Lamberti said the trips were OK under BSO’s existing policy because “they were not given in return or expectation for something.’’
However, Lamberti said that the policies are inadequate and will be replaced imminently with tougher ones making gift rules more restrictive and clear.
“I feel the past policy didn’t go far enough,’’ Lamberti said. “And in the current climate in Broward County, where citizens are clamoring for ethics reform and for all public officials and public employees to be above reproach, I therefore felt it was necessary to revamp the policy.’’
Managing Editor's Note: The following is adapted from a news release issued earlier today:
Alexandria, VA – As CNSNews.com reported yesterday, the taxpayer funded Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery is hosting an exhibit during this Christmas season featuring images of an ant-covered Jesus, male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, and a painting the Smithsonian itself describes in the show's catalog as "homoerotic."
[Link to CNSNews.com story here. WARNING: Story contains graphic photographs of items on display in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery.]
NewsBusters publisher and Media Research Center (MRC) president Brent Bozell reacted:
I urge my colleagues to consider what the Claims Settlement Act truly presents before voting on the bill this week. This legislation includes over a billion dollars to settle the Pigford II discrimination claims with black farmers. Unfortunately, Pigford is rife with fraudulent claims and to settle before an investigation can take place does the American taxpayer a disservice. Justice should be served to those who experienced discrimination, but settlement funds should only go to those wronged.
By the National Black Farmers Association’s own data, only 18,000 black farmers exist in the United States, but under Pigford II 94,000 claims of racial discrimination have been filed thus far. A number of individuals involved in Pigford, ranging from USDA officials to black farmers themselves, are ready and willing to appear as witnesses before Congress to bring these allegations into the light.
As a consistent fighter against out-of-control government spending, I cannot stand idly by as I see the United States taxpayer put on the hook for even a dime to Pigford II. It’s time for Congress to fully investigate the Pigford II claims because the numbers just don’t add up.
Too many elected officials are far too comfortable spending taxpayer dollars without knowing where that money will actually end up. This was proven once again by the Senate’s vote to fund the Pigford Settlements, even though serious claims of fraud exist.
In September, I joined my colleagues Congressmen Steve King (IA-05) and Bob Goodlatte (VA-06) to call for a full investigation into the Pigford Settlement Case. As a constant advocate for careful use of taxpayer dollars, I was concerned when I learned that this Settlement has 94,000 claims of discrimination, even though only approximately 33,000 black farmers exist in the United States.
I’m disappointed in the Senate’s decision to disregard these serious allegations and instead vote to spend away billions of taxpayer dollars.
From SignOnSanDiego.com:
The Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, the Oceanside man who left Lindbergh Field under duress on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan.
Tyner recorded the half-hour long encounter on his cell phone and later posted it to his personal blog, along with an extensive account of the incident. The blog went viral, attracting hundreds of thousands of readers and thousands of comments.
Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, called a news conference at the airport Monday afternoon to announce the probe. He said the investigation could lead to prosecution and civil penalties of up to $ 11,000.
TSA agents had told Tyner on Saturday that he could be fined up to $ 10,000.
“That’s the old fine,” Aguilar said. “It has been increased.”
Tyner’s stand tapped into an undercurrent of resentment toward the TSA and how security checks are conducted at the nation’s airports. Those commenting about Tyner’s experience at SignOnSanDiego.com told their own stories of personal humiliations and invasive body searches.
Read the whole thing here. One of the first things the new GOP House should do is zero-out appropriations for the body scanners. If the TSA does decide to forfeit all its credibility and fines Mr. Tyner, someone should set up a fund to pay the fine…in pennies.
State Republican chairman Chris Healy is asking for formal investigations of the gubernatorial election by the U.S. Attorney’s office, the chief state’s attorney’s office, and the new secretary of the state who will take office in January.
The state Republican Party has hired well-known attorney Ross Garber, who said in a letter to federal and state authorities that the GOP discovered evidence of ”significant deficiencies, irregularities and improprieties” in Bridgeport on election night.
In a radio interview Monday morning with commentator Jim Vicevich, Healy said that the election in Bridgeport was “a circus” that was “completely out of control.”
“I’ll make a little news here,” Healy said on the radio show on WTIC-AM. “We are going to formally ask for an investigation from the federal authorities - in writing. … We’re going to ask the U.S. Attorney to look into it. We’re going to ask the state to look into it. I’m going to ask the new secretary of the state to look into it.”
Healy also described the Bridgeport election as “a complete farce” that needs to be investigated.
“By any standard - or lack thereof - the voting that went on in Bridgeport, whether it was incompetence, negligence or outright, premeditated fraud, was a complete farce - and in fact, disenfranchised the very people that went there casting their ballots freely and openly,” Healy said. “There were no controls here on the issue of copying ballots. … The Democratic registrars were in charge of ordering ballots. They ordered 21,000 ballots.”
This afternoon, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), a member of the House Government Oversight Committee, appeared on MSNBC’s The Dylan Ratigan Show to talk about what he feels should be the GOP’s legislative agenda.
At one point, Chaffetz started to list off a number of investigations — like probing the Countrywide “Friends Of Angelo” scandal — he wanted to conduct in the House of Representatives now that Republicans are in control of that body. Ratigan asked the congressman how “far back” he thinks is “appropriate” for these investigations. He noted that Chaffetz had not listed a “torture investigation.” Chaffetz responded by saying that that “may be on the list as well. I’m not afraid of going after the Bush administration”:
RATIGAN: How far back do you think is appropriate? Because the one thing that’s not on this list is for instance a torture investigation.
CHAFFETZ: Well, it may be on the list as well. I’m not afraid of going after the Bush administration. I wasn’t brought here by the establishment. When I ran for congressman in 2008, I’m just a freshman year, George W. Bush, Orrin Hatch, and Bob Bennett, three Republicans, they campaigned against me. So I don’t mind going back and looking at ‘em. So I don’t have any hestitation whatsoever.
Watch it:
In endorsing investigations of the Bush Administration’s use of torture, Chaffetz is advocating a position that the Obama administration has thus far refused to take. Just this week, the Justice Department announced that it will not pursue any sort of criminal charges against officials who ordered the destruction of CIA tapes depicting torture of terrorist suspects during the Bush Administration. In an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer that aired last night, former President George W. Bush repeatedly admitted to authorizing waterboarding, a practice that is illegal.
On Friday, Russia joined the growing list of country telling us to investigate our torture chambers. It may be more noteworthy coming from Russia given the turnabout: back in the day, of course, dissidents and the US pressured the Soviet Union to abide by the human rights treaties it had signed. Then there’s this:
Russia called on the United States to conducted a thorough and objective investigation of the facts of torture of prisoners in U.S. secret prisons and detention centres at Bagram and Guantanamo, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, Valery Loshchinin, said while discussing the U.S. Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council.
They want us to investigate Bagram. Great: that’s probably where some of our worst abuse currently takes place (when we don’t simply outsource it entirely). And I’m sure Russia enjoys pressuring us to be better overlords in Afghanistan.
And Gitmo: well, sure. While we have investigated some of this torture, there’s the outstanding question what we did at Camp No.
But notice what Loshchinin’s statement doesn’t mention? Our torture chambers in Eastern Europe, particularly Romania and Poland. I guess maybe they thought it’d be unseemly to say, “investigate what you’ve been doing at those prisons we used for so many years.”
And on the subject of investigating torture, as we’ve been noting, the statute of limitations on the torture tape destruction expires today. Have we indicted anyone yet?
Related posts:
On Friday, Russia joined the growing list of country telling us to investigate our torture chambers. It may be more noteworthy coming from Russia given the turnabout: back in the day, of course, dissidents and the US pressured the Soviet Union to abide by the human rights treaties it had signed. Then there’s this:
Russia called on the United States to conducted a thorough and objective investigation of the facts of torture of prisoners in U.S. secret prisons and detention centres at Bagram and Guantanamo, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, Valery Loshchinin, said while discussing the U.S. Universal Periodic Review at the UN Human Rights Council.
They want us to investigate Bagram. Great: that’s probably where some of our worst abuse currently takes place (when we don’t simply outsource it entirely). And I’m sure Russia enjoys pressuring us to be better overlords in Afghanistan.
And Gitmo: well, sure. While we have investigated some of this torture, there’s the outstanding question what we did at Camp No.
But notice what Loshchinin’s statement doesn’t mention? Our torture chambers in Eastern Europe, particularly Romania and Poland. I guess maybe they thought it’d be unseemly to say, “investigate what you’ve been doing at those prisons we used for so many years.”
Related posts:
(Paul)
Thanks to the many readers who contributed ideas about which subjects the new House should investigate now that the Republicans are in control of that body. The leading issue so far is the auto industry bail out/takeover. One reader raised these questions:
Why did the government bailout GM and leave the underlying issues for their bankruptcy in place (ex - union pensions). Further, what were the criteria for the creation of the board of directors? What is the government’s plan for the future? Would they ever be willing to divest their interest in the company if it does not return to profitability without public money once the IPO is out?
Immigration came in second. As in this email:
One thing I’d like to see investigated is ICE, specifically the non-enforcement of immigration law, the dismissal of deportation procedures, the leaked memo from staffers and the Obama administration’s general backdoor amnesty approach. If there is one agency that demands congressional oversight it’s ICE.
I think both of these subjects are strong candidates to be investigated.
Other subjects received mention, but the auto industry and immigration were cited most frequently.
(Paul)
At Ricochet, Emily Esfahani Smith has written a post called “Let the Investigations Begin.” They can begin soon because Republicans will soon control the House and thus be able to use the subpoena power to investigate whatever they chose to.
This is a welcome power, in part because it serves as a potential deterrent to egregious future wrongdoing by the administration. But it’s a power that should be used judiciously. In my opinion, the public elected a Republican Congress for the purpose of repealing Democratic legislative excesses, preventing new overreaching legislation, and bringing spending under control. It did not elect a Republican Congress to persecute the executive branch.
With this in mind, let’s look at the five areas of possible investigation that Emily, per the Daily Beast, has listed. They are: the Joe Sestak deal, the new Black Panther Party, the BP spill, the “czars,” and the removal of the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service.
I would put the Sestak deal and the BP spill at the bottom of this list. To wallow in these matters strikes me as backward looking. Sestak lost and the spill response has already been investigated by a commission which issued a report critical of the White House.
The administration’s handling of the New Black Panther Party case is worthy of an investigation as part of a broader inquiry into the willingness of the Obama Justice Department’s enforce civil rights laws in a racially neutral manner. There is reason to believe that DOJ is not willing to enforce these laws in cases where the rights of non-minorities are violated. It needs to understand that Congress will not tolerate such a double standard.
The “czars” began as an annoying, but not terribly threatening phenomenon. But now, Obama has placed czars in top positions at the commanding heights of our economy. Specifically, he has bypassed the Senate confirmation procedure by (1) installing Don Berwick, via recess appointment, as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and (2) making Elizabeth Warren a “special adviser” so she can create and oversee the new consumer financial protection bureau. This should prompt an investigation. It should also spur the House to take action to thwart the two agencies in question until President Obama submits to the normal confirmation procedure.
At first glance, the removal of, Gerald Walpin, the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, may seem insufficiently consequential to justify a backward looking investigation. However, as Stanley Kurtz points out in Radical-in-Chief, Obama included $ 1.4 billion in the 2011 budget to create a force of government-funded community organizers. His aim is to boost his political program while creating an army of young adherents in the process. The firing of Walpin appears to have an attempt to clear the way for this form of abuse. In this context, it is worthy of investigation by the House.
If readers have additional subjects they think should be investigated, we’d be happy to hear about them.
Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Lamar Smith (R-TX) have been attacking the Obama administration since pretty much the day Barack Obama took office. Until now, as just the ranking members of two powerful House committees and members of the minority party, their criticisms of administration officials and their decisions have been mostly limited to issuing press releases.
Now — as the expected chairmen of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Judiciary Committee, respectively — they’re the proud new holders of subpoena power, will have a much more robust unit of investigators and will likely be a huge thorn in the side of President Obama and his top cabinet members.
Issa already laid out his agenda in a blueprint plan he released earlier this year. He told reporters in a conference call in the wee hours of Wednesday morning that his responsibility was “very broad” but that his job wasn’t to bring down Obama. “I have a lot of questions that have not been answered,” he said.
Smith, on the other, has grilled Attorney General Eric Holder over immigration enforcement — including Holder’s comments on the Arizona immigration law — as well as for his handling of terrorism trials in civilian court and the attempts to close Guantanamo Bay (“We have no speculation for you at this time on what effect the mid-term election may or may not have on this issue,” DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd told TPMMuckraker about the Gitmo issue yesterday).
Holder seems to know what he’s in for from Smith. “Lamar, will you be nice to me after January?” Holder asked the Texas Republican, Smith recalled.
“In the House Judiciary Committee, we will focus on initiatives that protect Americans and create jobs, including strengthening national security, enforcing immigration laws, protecting intellectual property, preventing frivolous lawsuits and keeping children safe from sex predators,” Smith said in a statement Wednesday.
Here are a few of the controversies you can expect to hear more about in the next two years.
1. New Black Panther Party
The New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, which started when a college student working for the Republican party rolled up to a majority African-American polling place in Philadelphia and recorded two members of the fringe extremist group standing outside, has been a thorn in the Obama administration’s side since they decided to limit the scope of the civil case shortly after they took office. Though the administration’s Civil Rights Division obtained an injunction against the individual shown holding a billy club in the YouTube video, the controversy boiled over after conservative critics said the injunction was not strong enough and criticized DOJ for dropping the case against other members of the party.
Smith hasn’t pulled his punches on the NBPP matter, penning a column on Fox News’ site titled “Is The Justice Department Racist?” in which he wrote that the DOJ “has sent the message that voter intimidation of white voters is acceptable.” He was first successful in convincing the DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility to look into the case back in September 2009. “I am determined to stay with this until the department comes clean with the American people,” he said last month. The appearance of a member of the New Black Panther Party at that same polling place in Philadelphia yesterday — though he didn’t appear to be doing anything illegal — will likely give Smith more ammunition.
2. Joe Sestak’s Job Offer
Before Joe Sestak lost a Pennsylvania Senate race to Pat Toomey last night, he beat Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic primary. At that time, he claimed that the Obama administration had promised him a position in the White House if he was willing to drop out of the race and defer to Specter.
Republicans pounced on the news, despite the fact that the position Sestak had been offered wasn’t a paid one, and that he didn’t end up taking it anyway. Issa went so far as to call it Obama’s “Watergate.”
“The White House…has arrogantly and wrongly assumed that they can sweep this matter under the rug,” Issa said in a campaign email sent out shortly after the scandal came to light, adding “an investigation must take place and justice must be served.” A later press release, issued by Issa, Smith, and Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee, expressed “concern” about “a meeting between former President Clinton and President Obama and reports that Rep. Sestak’s brother (and campaign manager) was consulted on the drafting of the White House report. The apparent collusion between parties involved may constitute obstruction of justice.”
But many lawyers agree the administration’s move wasn’t illegal, even George W. Bush’s Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who said it was “really a stretch” to say that the Sestak offer was a crime.
3. ACORN’s Offspring
The community organizing group ACORN — a favorite target of conservatives — filed for bankruptcy yesterday. Issa has hit the group for allegations of fraud and tied the organization to Obama. Issa spokesman Kurt Bardella left open the possibility that Issa could address the “other entities that ACORN morphed into.”
4. BP Oil Spill
Issa is likely to pursue the Obama administration’s response to the BP oil spill, as he has repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of its disaster response plan. And when the White House sent political aides to Florida to deal with the fallout and handle the aftermath, Issa accused Obama of being too concerned with his image.
“Rather than streamline the process and focus on ensuring that local officials have access to the resources they are literally begging for, the Obama administration has responded by dispatching campaign aides. It’s concerning that the West Wing appears more pre-occupied with the politics and public relations of this crisis, than actually managing it,” he said in a statement at the time.
He also launched probes and issued several reports alleging that government bureaucracy was standing in the way of relief efforts. In one report, Issa said BP’s own report on the spill “details a tragic chain of mistakes by companies, individuals, and government regulators who were trusted and paid to safely execute important work.”
And it’s been suggested that Issa has a leg to stand on when it comes to this issue. He has blew the whistle on the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service in recent years, which more recently came under fire for its lax regulation which may have helped contribute to the spill.
