Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!


Judicial Watch • Doj Panel Transcript 03312011

Doj Panel Transcript 03312011

Doj Panel Transcript 03312011

Page 1: Doj Panel Transcript 03312011


Number of Pages:25

Date Created:April 5, 2011

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:ndash, Holder, Voting, Cases, house, Cheney, DOMA, Division, Administration, rights, fitton, al Qaeda, Defense, Illegal Immigration, Civil, acorn, Congress, ACLU, justice, Pentagon, watch, Obama, White House, federal, judicial, FBI, Supreme Court, DOJ, department, office, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA

File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF





MR. TOM FITTON: Judicial Watch conservative, nonpartisan, educational foundation dedicated promoting transparency, accountability, and integrity government, politics, and the law.  And through our educational activities, Judicial Watch advocates high standards ethics and morality our nations public life and seeks ensure that political and judicial officials obey the law and dont abuse the powers entrusted them the American people. dont endorse candidates for public office and dont oppose them. number recent controversies have raised serious issues about the direction the Department Justice under the leadership Attorney General Eric Holder.  Not that Judicial Watch surprised.  From day one, Judicial Watch vigorously opposed the Holder nomination the attorney generalship due his corrupt record the Clinton administration deputy attorney general under Janet Reno. knew Holder would disaster attorney general, but even could not have predicted just how bad the situation would get his watch. review Holders record far makes one wonder how remains attorney general.      
Judicial Watch uncovered explosive evidence that contrary sworn testimony public statements justice officials that top political appointees the Holder Justice Department were intimately involved decisions dismiss the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for self defense, so-called civil rights group that brandished weapons, blocked polling station, and hurled racial insults voters Election Day, 2008. 
This part the story improper racism and affects the decision making and the Civil Rights Division the Holder Justice Department disclosed the U.S. Commission Civil Rights, among others. unbelievable seems, need civil rights investigation the Civil Rights Division the Justice Department.   
And then theres immigration.  While failing protect the country from the surge rampant illegal immigration, the Holder Justice Department made matters worse suing the State Arizona for implementing new get tough illegal immigration law, 
S.B. 1070. should say were trying defend that with elected officials Arizona, including the Arizona State legislature.   
Judicial Watch recently received documents from the Department Justice that shows Holders DOJ work hand hand with the radical leftist ACLU mounting their respective legal challenges S.B. 1070. one email exchange uncovered Judicial Watch, Justice Department official expressed joy being the same side the ACLU. 
The Justice Department supposed independent law enforcement agency, not mouthpiece for the radical left.  And sure enough, just one week after suing Arizona, Holders Justice Department announced would not prosecute sanctuary cities that flout federal immigration laws, disobey them. this day, Eric Holder refuses initiate any investigation also the corrupt enterprise known ACORN, despite the organizations long sorted history voter registration fraud and other improprieties. fact, while noting that ACORN had engaged questionable hiring and training practices, was the Holder Justice Department that actually closed down one ACORN voter legislation fraud investigation March, 2009, claiming ACORN broke laws.   
Holders unwillingness prosecute ACORN Project Vote calls into question his impartiality, considering the fact that President Obama previously worked with the organizations. 
Holders record national security also abysmal.  Not only leading the Obama administrations ridiculous again, off again campaign close Guantanamo Bay, but was Attorney General Holder who made the disastrous initial decision grant civilian trial, criminal trial 9/11 terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 terrorists New York City. The decision prompted massive public backlash and the plan hold, thats the way you want describe it. dont know there plan anymore.   
And then there the decision President Obama with the Attorney General refuse defend the Defense Marriage Act, which had breezed through Congress with vote to14 the Senate and vote 342 the House before being signed into law President Clinton September 1996. has been the law the land now for almost years, but, perhaps, not anymore.  President Obama and his pliant Attorney General Eric Holder thought was more important throw bone their leftist supporters than enforce the laws the land again.  Sure enough, the Washington Post reported how Valerie Jarrett, Obamas White House liaison the homosexual lobby, was involved the decision. The idea you have aides the white House Valerie Jarretts low caliber being involved legal decisions this nature the Justice Department, me, rather extraordinary and its face improper. fact, the Justice has already defended this laws constitutionality court and now changing its position mid-stream. the rule law risked result politicized Justice Department?  Well, you can guess answer, but lets hear, though, from our esteemed panelists who have expert insights into these matters.  
Joining Debra Burlingame, who sister Chic Burlingame, who was the pilot American Airlines flight 77, which was hijacked and crashed into Pentagon 9/11. She co-founder 9/11 Families for Safe and Strong America and director the  and servers the board the National September Memorial and Museum Foundation the World Trade Center.  Shes also co-founder, along with Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol Keep America Safe, grassroots public advocacy group focused national security. former producer Court TV, she well acquainted with the legal system and she perhaps the leading activist the battle secure our country from the jihadist terrorist threat.   
Also joining the end here Hans von Spakovsky, whos senior legal fellow and manager the Civil Justice Reform initiative the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies the Heritage Foundation, where concentrating voting, election campaign finance, civil justice, and tort reform.   
Hans was commissioner the Federal Election Commission, which the agency responsible federal campaign finance laws for all congressional and presidential elections, including the Presidential Public Funding Program.  And importantly, also served counsel the assistant attorney general for civil rights the Justice Department, where provided expertise and advice voting and election issues, including enforcement the Voting Rights Act.   
Also joining Austin Nimocks  pronounced your last name correctly  who serves senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund its Washington, D.C., Regional Service Center, where litigates member the marriage litigation team that seeks protect court the traditional definition marriage.  Since joining ADF 2007, Austin has focused his professional efforts cases involving same sex marriage and divorce, parental rights, voters rights, and other matters relating religious freedom.  His extensive trial and appellate court record includes involvement several religious liberty and family values cases across the nation.  Hes authored several pieces pro-family legislation and testified before various legislative bodies different states. regularly works with lawmakers across the country terms designing initiatives and legislation. And served official spokesperson for Prop 102 Arizona, which was Arizonas marriage amendment November 2008. have good mix subject areas cover here the way this will proceed our panelists will make some opening remarks however long they need within reason, and then Ill get the discussion going little bit among our panelists then well open questions. And you could sure turn off your cell phones begin, Id appreciate it. Im going start with Hans the end the table.  Thank you. 
MR. HANS VON SPAKOVSKY: Thank you, Tom. you the Supreme Court and you look above the classical Corinthian columns there, youll find inscription thats carved into the marble. says equal justice under the law.  Thats simple concept, but its one that very basic the kind country are and republic that are. Thats why you see pictures the statue Lady Justice blindfolded.  And what that means that all Americans and all litigants, regardless their skin color, their gender, their social status, otherwise deserve treated fairly and equally under the laws. Thats view that have, but sadly not the view the current leadership Justice Department. 
Something else that its hard realize from outside the Department, but its something that you come understand when you work there, did for years, that the Justice Department probably one the most powerful executive branch agencies.  When individuals who work there abuse the power the Justice Department, using that power for political and ideological reasons and not enforce the law written, poses great danger our liberty and the rule law.   
Now, for the last two years, there is, quite frankly, overwhelming evidence about the fact that politics driving law enforcement decisions the Justice Department.  Im going concentrate the Civil Rights Division, where used work.   
John Adams once said, course, facts are stubborn things, let lay out few facts for you.   
Now, Im going start with case which know youre going sit here and youre going listen this and think why relevant today, but Ill explain why.  There was case filed during the Clinton administration called Miller Johnson. was redistricting case rising out Georgia. Not only did the Justice Department lose the case, but the court was appalled the way the case was handled, not only the behavior the lawyers the case, who basically the court accused lying under oath because they had convenient lapses memory throughout their testimony, but also because the Justice Department pushed racially discriminatory policy the State Georgia tried to. 
The court threw the case out. This went all the way the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Justice Department ended having pay almost $600,000 attorneys fees and other costs that were assessed against them.  The district court said the actions the lawyers the case were disturbing and embarrassment and also pointed out that they seemed taking their orders directly from the ACLU.  The court expressed its surprise profound disappointment that, quote, the Department Justice was blind this impropriety, especially role sensitive that preserving the fundamental right vote. 
Now, why this important?  Well, because you look the court decision, the district court level, you will find that the counsel record, one them was woman named Loretta King. soon the Obama administration came in, they made her the acting head the Civil Rights Division.   
She didnt get fired for filing frivolous lawsuit and unwarranted lawsuit, she got promoted.  Shes also one the key people who ordered the dismissal the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party case that the Department had already won. And fact, there sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission Civil Rights that she had such discriminatory attitude that fact she called the chief the Voting Section, career lawyer, into her office, extremely angry because she had discovered that when was interviewing new applicants for jobs this administration for career positions the Voting Section, was specifically asking them whether not they believed the race-neutral enforcement the Voting Rights Act.  And when she discovered that was doing that, she called him into her office and told him had better not ever ask another question like that again. the way, another lawyer that youll find the listed court decision Miller Johnson case, another supervisor who basically helped present false testimony federal district court woman named Donna Murphy, whos still current employee the Civil Rights Division, but who has been nominated the president superior court judgeship the District Columbia.   
Now, the Justice Department, the Civil Rights Division specifically was hit with sanctions January last year for not responding interrogatories housing discrimination case filed Kansas. the same kind sanctions that were awarded during the Clinton administration  but the way, therere almost dozen cases, over million attorneys fees and costs that were against the Department, and now see the same behavior again this administration.   
Now, they also appointed another Clinton-era attorney named Julie Fernandes. have sworn testimony before the U.S. Commission Civil Rights that she opposes the race-neutral the Voter Rights Act and told lawyers there, there would more cases filed like either the New Black Panther case the U.S. Ike Brown case, which was case filed the Bush administration against black defendant Mississippi, who was found guilty federal district judge engaging blatant racial discrimination the voting area. 
Just couple months after the Obama administration came in, they dismissed without explanation and without issuing press release, which they almost any time they take action case, lawsuit thatd been filed during the bush administration against the secretary state Missouri for not complying with provision National Voter Registration Act, Motor Voter, which requires states periodically clean their voter registration lists removing voters who have died and otherwise moved away.  Now, this happens coincidence just month after the secretary state against whom lawsuit had been filed, Robin Carnahan, announced that she was going run for the Senate Democrat.  Why that significant?  Because have sworn testimony, again, before the U.S. Commission Civil Rights the career chief the Voting Section, someone who, the way, received award from the NAACP Georgia, back when was private practice filing voting rights suits that last year, recommended eight states for investigation for not complying with this particular provision Motor Voter. Those recommendations were not acted on. know that nothing has been done about that because the two years, the administration have not filed single case enforce this provision the law, and fact, again, have sworn testimony that again Julie Fernandes, political appointee and deputy assistant attorney generals Civil Rights Division told the lawyers the Voting Section that that particular provision the NVRA would not enforced this administration. have another instance using the Voting Rights Act achieve political partisan purposes. This was clearly done last year case involving Kingston, North Carolina, small town.  Its majority black town, majority black voters.  They voted referendum change their town council elections from partisan not partisan. majority the black voters there agreed with this and yet the Justice Department, using the Voting Rights Act, objected this change saying that voters could not see the partisan affiliation next candidates names, they wouldnt know who vote for.  Who did this benefit?  Well, benefited the Democratic Party, which course majority this particular town. 
Now, you also want see how these kind things are done other areas, all you have look the fact that the Civil Rights Division also pushing far beyond what the law says with regard the Civil Rights Act 1964.  For example, they launched investigations against two school districts because they have dress codes which not allow boys dress like girls.  And after reports surfaced that there have been discipline against two boys whod shown school stiletto heels, make up, and wig, they opened investigation saying that that was sex discrimination and that that violated the law, which just ludicrous under the existing law.   
Theyve also recently filed lawsuit against school district Illinois, Berkeley School District, claiming that because the school district was not willing give three weeks off new teacher crucial end the semester time period pilgrimage Mecca that they were engaging religious discrimination.  The case law does not support their decision. fact, there are cases going completely the other way.  The politics this was made clear the fact that the head the Civil Rights Division, Tom Perez, said that they had had file the suit because this was blatant discrimination, intentional discrimination the school district against Muslims, when there not one iota evidence that whatsoever. 
Now, this administration came saying will the most transparent administration history. now have evidence  this has been reported  lot reports about  that FOIA log from the Civil Rights Division has been obtained Congressman Issa and others and clearly shows that responding FOIA request, this division does political bases.   
FOIA requests that have come from liberal organizations news outlets that are perceived them being liberal  and will say one way another, think thats true, but the important perceptions there  get their FOIA responses within couple days, whereas identical requests coming from conservative organizations, conservative media like the Washington Times, either dont get responded get responded months later. 
Theres lawsuit going right now, which theres been almost media attention to. Now, all you know that there accusations that during the Bush administration there was hiring into the career ranks based political considerations.  Now, Ive written why think thats incorrect and why the Office Professional Responsibility Report was biased report that was done about that.  But the point that you take away about that this.  That whole investigation got started because Charlie Savage, reporter for the Boston Globe, sent FOIA request the Bush administration, the Civil Rights Division, asking for the rsums all individuals whod been hired into the career ranks Civil Rights Division.  That was responded almost immediately and those rsums were all provided Boston Globe. 
Pajamas Media, which news and opinion website, served exactly the same FOIA request the Obama administration, asking for exactly the same thing, the rsums all individuals hired into the career ranks the Civil Rights Division.  Not only did the Obama administration refuse respond, but Pajamas Media, January 22nd this year, was forced file federal lawsuit the District Columbia over their refusal respond this FOIA request.  And the Department, instead responding the lawsuit providing the rsums, which they are supposed under the applicable law, they instead filed complaint  answer saying they would provide it.   
Now, why that? Well, can tell you why because know this from sources inside the Department.  Its because they have engaged blatant political hiring into the career ranks. All the individuals theyve been hiring have been from liberal advocacy groups like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, the ACLU Voting Rights Project, Americans United for Separation Church and State.  There isnt single individual whos been hired into the career ranks that not liberal, loyal Democrat.  And that the kind politicalization.  Thats much worse than anything that was  any accusation made during the prior administration. 
Now, the other thing that theyve done thats important for you know, and then Ill try end quickly theyve done something else that just unprecedented.  And that they have used federal lawsuits set slush funds reward liberal organizations.  Byron York first reported this last year. mentioned two specific cases, and again, theres been almost attention paid this.  There was lawsuit filed the Civil Rights Division against AIG.  AIG agreed settle without admitting theyve done anything wrong for $6.1 million.  Now, the claim was that their wholesale mortgage brokers had charged black borrowers higher broker fees than other borrowers.   
Now, anyone knows who knows that size the mortgage business that AIG was knows that settling case for $6.1 million means that AIG settled this for nuisance value and that the Department had real proof that any kind discrimination had occurred, but part that $6.1 million settlement  you can read this the settlement agreement  was that AIG agreed set million fund, not compensate actual borrowers who might have been injured, but provide funds qualified organizations, picked the Civil Rights Division provide credit counseling, financial literacy, and other related educational programs.  That slush fund fund advocacy organizations that the division wants help, particularly allies the administration.  And they set exactly the same kind slush fund another case, U.S. Sterling settled November, 2009, $2.6 million settlement.  And there arent enough actual victims compensated for the injuries, then all the rest that money will distributed the U.S., again, qualified organizations picked this administration.   
The federal laws enforced the Justice Department were intended protect all Americans regardless color. never assumed, when worked there, the Obama administration did, that could ignore duty enforce the law.  And whatever youve heard the media about the Civil Rights Division during the Bush administration, Ill just give you two facts which can easily proven from looking their website.  First all, you look the Voting Section, which where did work, youll find that Bush administration filed about twice many lawsuits the Clinton administration did enforce the various federal voting rights law. Second, you look those lawsuits, you will find that the administration filed suits behalf just about every American racial and ethnic group you can imagine.  That not true this administration and you can see that the cases that they have filed and the cases they have not filed.   
MR. FITTON: Thank you, Hans. Austin  occurred did not describe what the Alliance Defense Fund does  (inaudible)  that your remarks well.   
MR. AUSTIN NIMOCKS:  Ill happy to, Tom, and thank you very much for inviting here. The Alliance Defense Fund national legal alliance. litigate cases across the country, involving religious freedom, the sanctity human life and marriage, and the family.  And Tom mentioned earlier, have the privilege being litigator the marriage litigation team, and thats where professional emphasis with ADF has focused.  And remarks today will tailored towards the Obama administrations refusal now defend federal DOMA. many you are aware, February 23rd this year, Attorney General Holder sent letter Speaker Boehner, advising him, quote, the president the United States has made the determination that Section the Defense Marriage Act, DOMA, violates the equal protection component the Fifth Amendment, unquote, and was writing advise Speaker Boehner of, quote, the executive branchs determination, unquote. Section federal DOMA the section that defines marriage the union one man and one woman for all purposes under federal law.  Thats generally describing it. More specifically, defines the terms marriage and spouse federal law.   
Whats significant about this this has often been cast the DOJs determination not defend federal DOMA, but thats actually misstatement was actually occurring here. This presidential determination not defend DOMA and applies the entirety the executive branch. its not situation where the attorney general saying we dont believe this constitutional. dont want defend it.  And another federal agency, appropriate lawsuit, could take the defense the act. Thats not all.  This presidential mandate. necessarily excludes the entirety the executive branch. 
And understand that marriage impacts federal law over 1,100 places, the variety lawsuits that have been filed  there pending lawsuits that were aware and can filed  can impact numerous different federal agencies, but virtue this proclamation, the INS, the IRS, the Department Defense, and forth, would not allowed pick the defense federal DOMA. this complete executive lay down. 
Now, historically, this not unprecedented, but only rare and handful cases where the executive branch refuses defend act Congress.  One the sources cited General Holder his letter was article written former Solicitor General Seth Waxman that wrote 2001, entitled Defending Congress.  And General Waxman, that article makes some good points that the general rule thumb defend the law because defending the law serves the Constitution. allows the judiciary its job ultimately determine the constitutionality, you can only have that contested advocacy court. And secondly, upholds the principle that one point time the executive and legislative branches believed that the law was good policy because was enacted the legislature and put into law the executive, excepting the rare instance where theres legislative override presidential veto.  And number two, acknowledges the fact that both legislative and executive, enacting the law, believed minimum that was constitutional. defending the law, you uphold all three branches government and the design the constitutional system.  And only the rare instance where the administration confronted with clearly unconstitutional law should they not defend it.  But its not unprecedented. matter fact, the last four presidents before President Obama, Bush, Clinton, H.W. Bush, and Reagan, all the departments justice have least one instance where they refuse defend act Congress. when you consider the history and you look the letter that General Holder sent Speaker Boehner, the surface, appears rational, reasonable decision.  But the title this seminar the rule law risk, are politicizing the Department Justice, when you look the analysis applied General Holder and compared the history instances where the executive branch has refused defend Congress, and the specific legal analysis this instance, you can see that this really highway politicized circumstance.   
The president admittedly dealing with two provisions the Constitution.  First and foremost, has the oath defend the Constitution the United States, and then has deal with whats called the Take Care Clause, where has take care faithfully execute the laws.  And seems like hes trying have his constitutional Kagan 
 (inaudible)  two you will, when says  and this another important part what says hes going  hes not going defend the law court. have existing lawsuits plus however many other lawsuits may filed between now until the end this administration against federal DOMA variety jurisdictions.  But the same time, hes going enforce law that believes clearly unconstitutional.  And Ill address that little bit later. hes trying say, Im going defend the Constitution not defending the law court, but Im going faithfully execute the laws enforcing the law our administration, which theyre not really doing.   
First most significant that just stands out like serious sore, red thumb this, the letter from General Holder Speaker Boehner, the absence controlling Supreme Court precedent. And Im referring Baker Nelson, 1972, where the United States Supreme Court dismissed for want substantial federal question claim regarding same sex marriage, making all the claims that are being made, for example, the Proposition case, Perry Schwarzenegger, now Perry Brown with the change governors there California, the claims that are being made variety federal DOMA cases. 
This controlling Supreme Court precedent. has not been overruled, not has the Supreme Court ever any point time alluded that this was longer the law the land. Its been acknowledged other federal district courts, but its one thing take stance disagreeing with that precedent saying we think has been eroded.  But its another thing completely leave out your analysis and completely pretend like doesnt exist.   
None the previous administrations, from what Ive seen, circumstances where they have refused defend law Congress, has there been spot point Supreme Court precedent that says this how its decided under the U.S. Constitution. this clear deviation and ignoring controlling Supreme Court precedent.   
Secondly, states that the Department Justice has determined that the primary argument for marriage  and thats the responsible procreation argument  they do not find reasonable, quote, unquote, but they dont articulate why, fact, that argument not reasonable, why the idea that mothers and fathers are necessary for the home and the children are entitled mom and dad.  And then moms and dads make differences the lives and development children, the reason have marriage laws.  Why that inherently unreasonable? 
And reminds December 2010, when was sitting the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco, listening former Solicitor General Ted Olson tell the Ninth Circuit that rational matter constitutional law and the use constitution for Americans believe that moms and dads are necessary for the home and its rational define marriage that ways.  And its just really absolutely outstanding see the General say, we dont find reasonable, but theres explanation behind that. then goes say that they believe that sexual orientation entitled heightened scrutiny, although doesnt state which level heightened scrutiny.  And you understand constitutional law, there are three general levels scrutiny: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. uses the language intermediate scrutiny and cites intermediate scrutiny case, but doesnt actually come out and say, we believe should intermediate scrutiny strict scrutiny.  But again, ignores Supreme Court precedent. cites the Lawrence Texas case and also Romer Evans from 1996, but neglects mention that those cases, the extent that they address sexual orientation, are rational basis cases, and pretends like  and says, the Supreme Court has yet decide the appropriate standard review, but then you have those two cases staring him the face.  But even Lawrence and Romer didnt exist, you have the federal circuit courts that have all decided this issue and said rational basis appropriate. The only two circuits that have not been involved yet had decision that point are the Second and Third Circuits. says that the decisions all relied Bowers, which overruled Lawrence, but thats not true.  Several them were before bowers, and could not have possibly relied upon Bowers.  And then substantial majority them are after the Romer case.  And the idea that all that circuit precedent doesnt matter, doesnt exist has been overruled, even though its never been directly addressed absolutely legally unsupportable.  
Then  and then you have the analysis heightened scrutiny and the amenability question. acknowledges that theres visible badge such orientation. the same time, hes saying that believes that sexual orientation qualifies under heightened scrutiny analysis. And then most startling the political power analysis thats required under heightened scrutiny analysis. the same time, have the president the United States and the attorney general saying, were not going defend federal DOMA.  Hes asserting that those who want redefine marriage have political power the country whatsoever, and dismisses insignificant the recent acts Congress repealing the military policy regarding homosexual behavior, the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Act.  And understand, those were the only two enactments maybe has point, but doesnt look into state level legislation spanning back decades, municipal level legislation, nondiscrimination statutes that are majority states, same sex had been enacted several states.  And the political power, the idea  and the standard constitutional political power able catch the attention the lawmakers  the idea that those who believe same sex marriage this country are unable catch the attention lawmakers, whether itd Capitol Hill other legislative bodies, absolutely atrocious. 
And then finally, mentioned earlier, its curious that the same constitution, which, the opinion the president and the attorney general, makes clear that federal DOMA unconstitutional and therefore they cant defend court, its the same constitution that requires him enforce and says hes going continue enforce it. have not  looking past instances where the executive has not defended acts Congress  have not seen that dynamic either, where were going enforce the law that implicitly believe constitutional, otherwise wouldnt enforce because have duty under the Constitution enforce it, but think its unconstitutional and were not going defend court law. 
And when you look the whole ball wax and the legal analysis, seems very clear that the decision here not one based necessarily the rule law, but its more politically ideologically driven decision, which puts the rule law risk.  And will conclude opening remarks with that.   
MR. FITTON: Thank you. certainly appreciate excellent presentation.  And from civil rights and racism and same sex marriage the importance often overlooked issue national security.  Im sure you will agree with me.   
MS. DEBRA BURLINGAME: All right. dont know this on.   
MR. FITTON: think is. 
MS. BURLINGAME: is? Okay. Thanks, Tom, for the introduction and for including this discussion. Im not practicing lawyer this table, wont have the detailed  
MR. FITTON: Nor   
MS. BURLINGAME:   analysis that you just heard.   
Id like begin sharing with you number that got Tuesday from the Department Defense. number that they publish every week and unfortunately its number that changes every week.  That the number our men and women who have been killed action since the start Operation Enduring Freedom October 2001. Tuesday, that number was 5,949.  And Id like point out that that twice the number people who were killed 9/11.  These men and women were dispatched two wars  wars two fronts under the authority that was promulgated Congress result brothers death and the death many others our fellow citizens.   
Its important remember that number because that the backdrop with which live today when analyze these national security issues, but domestic ones very much have effect what goes the battlefield.  And the way, isnt just Iraq and Afghanistan. There thing called Operation New Dawn, and that putting our men and women uniform the Arabian Sea, Bahrain, Somalia, and other dangerous places that Americans never hear about.  And theyre dying there. 
Its important remember these numbers because  these people because believe the Holder Justice Department, which ideologically married the policies his boss, the Obama administration itself, demilitarize this wall.  And lot the policies that are coming out the Justice Department are aimed doing just that.  And were seeing that, first, when the administration eliminated the RDI program, Rendition Detention Interrogation, they put nothing place.  Theyre saying Army Field Manual.  
But there formal interrogation policy, what do, and you saw that play out with the Christmas Day bomber, where you have Eric Holder, after the fact, trying defend, putting this guy who was sent Qaeda Yemen kill Americans another aircraft 
 they still are obsessed with aviation  Mirandizing this guy, citing the Quarles exception. All that means FBI agents were able press him about other confederates that might involved the  imminent threat.  They put nothing place.  And Ive talked the new chairman the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers, former FBI agent, who was very disturbed this. was also the man who uncovered the fact that when was CODEL Afghanistan that they were fact Mirandizing high-value battlefield captures.  This another example demilitarizing the war and turning instead from military action into civil action which lawyers are calling the shots.   
Now, lot the habeas lawsuits that resulted line cases, the detainee cases, obviously they happened under previous administration.  But whats important remember that, like the Civil Rights Division, Eric Holder hired what Keep America Safe called al Qaeda lawyers. got lot flack for that.  But the fact the matter these were not lawyers who were the spirit John Adams doing patriotic duty make sure that the government wasnt overstepping with hapless captures the fog war. These were lawyers who went war against the government itself, slandering the commander chief, calling him outright criminal, filing lawsuit, while were war with 200,000 men and women the field, against the secretary defense.  And then after Holder became the attorney general and the issue was put rest about the office  lawyers from the Office Legal Counsel and their memos enhanced interrogation, the so-called torture memos, still persisted pursuing criminal inquiries against these career attorneys. And  shocking have met with attorney general the Justice Department with other 9/11 family members and other victims overseas terrorism, the Bali bombings, the embassy bombings, some family members were there, find out that fact one the senior attorneys from Human Rights Watch that called military commissions kangaroo courts and posted the Huffington Post  wrote articles deploring our Nazi military soldiers Guantanamo was hired security clear work the Detainee Policy Task Force, and fact was sitting the room when family members were sharing deeply personal stories about what theyve gone through and why mattered very much for them which legal jurisdiction these men were tried in.  Im referring Jennifer Daskal, who Tom Joscelyn, prolific writer now with Weekly Standard and also who does incredible work blog called  website called The Long War Journal. believe that Jennifer Daskal was involved with former Human Rights Watch investigator named John Sifton outing the identities CIA case officers who were involved interrogating some the high-value detainees. 
These men were stalked their homes, their communities.  Their pictures were taken outside their homes, the local shopping mall.  Those pictures were provided the John Adams Project defense attorneys for the high-value detainees, for one the high-value detainees. 
That investigation that dont know whats happening with it.  These are attorneys who clearly violated the protective order what could and could not given these detainees. problem that was happening during the previous administration with these  these Guantanamo detainee lawyers.  And not  mind, dont know what has happened with that investigation whether even residing the Justice Department, whether its been pushed off the Department Defense, but nothing done. 
And the final act terms  that object with what happening with this attorney general and this Justice Department the demonizing Americans who were concerned about radicalizing  Islamic radicalizing our communities.  You saw this play out the King hearing. And Congressman King had what consider very apt phrase. used the phrase the craven surrender political correctness.  That indeed what happened, what happening, where you had two gentlemen, one from the Somali American community, come Capitol Hill, essentially pleading  pleading with lawmakers help him protect his community because these children are being targeted, teenagers. Another man, Melvin Bledsoe, whose son Carlos was recruited out Yemen  recruited when went school Tennessee College and was sent Yemen, further radicalized, came back, and then attacked Marine recruiting office Middle Rock, Arkansas, killing one man  one marine and injuring another.  This man described very tragic story, very ordinary normal happy kid, who helped the family business and went off college, wanted get degree business. said, this hearing, that these men are hunters.  They target  particularly the African-American community, they target young men who come from single mother homes. pleaded with the committee help his community stop this and was ignored, even rebuffed.   
And the Holder Justice Department encourages this attitude when  when you see Eric Holder, under oath, before committee refusing answer the question about Islamic radicalization and homegrown terrorism. will furl his brows and tilt his head and profess not know what the members Congress are talking about.   
This part and parcel the political correctness were seeing with respect the 
 with respect the KSM case, the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 9/11 cases  are seeing that now  was completely stalled out.  Recently, one the defense attorneys, one the uniformed defense attorneys for one the high-value detainees, one the 9/11 conspirators, said interview that these cases have been politicized, that they are stalled. And the politicization these cases because Congress bipartisan basis has come forward now and said these men will not brought U.S. soil and will not fund the effort bring them U.S. soil and house them anywhere and try them the United States.   
And what have complete stalemate, years after 9/11.  And know because Senator Durbin confirmed that interview with Politico that politics driving that. fact, the same day that the Department Defense put out the latest number for those who have been killed action the war terrorism, Senator Durbin held his anti-King hearing talk about how the Muslim community has been victimized.  And that what were seeing the trend the Justice Department, the victimization Muslims this country.  And the fact the matter the FBI keeps close statistics hate crimes among religious communities.  And fact 9/11  was very, very small then. Its gotten even smaller.  That fact the hate crimes the targeted communities, anti-Semitic crimes, those have shut up.  And thats never mentioned. would just like say that this attitude where cannot name the enemy that have protected community that being urged its own leaders not assist the government protecting members their own community and fellow citizens that sapping the national will and that chipping away our ability protect ourselves.   
And will leave you with the words Zacharias Mousawi, the last words uttered when left the courtroom, back 2006, said, our children will finish this fight. Theyre for the long haul, generational long haul, and that why must remain vigilant and agitate against our own attorney general.  Thanks. 
MR. FITTON: Thank you, Debra. Let ask you question, first. casual consumer the news might have looked the recent headlines that the president was reopening the military commission process Gitmo that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other top conspirators that were supposed tried New York City will part that process. youre suggesting thats not necessarily the case.   
MS. BURLINGAME:  No. The administration, you all know, cam with the objective closing Guantanamo, and anything associated with that objective was put service that. And the first thing did because the 9/11 cases obviously are detainees Guantanamo was put hold all those cases.  The fact the matter believe that there was never any serious intention review those cases. met with the Detainee Task Force  family members met with the Detainee Task Force June 2009. asked them what their protocol and guidelines were for reviewing the cases.  This June, six months after the executive orders create these task forces.  They had guidelines. They were supposed have them July.  They still didnt have them.  Finally, nine months after the executive order was  had been issued, they came with guidelines for how determine whether they would military commissions, Article III courts, simply preventative detention indefinitely.  When decision was made November 2009 put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four his co-conspirators the federal civil system, the stated reason that made these cases distinct from other Qaeda operatives who had been sent out the same leaders, sometimes from the same exact area the same thing, the justification was that the status the victims justified Article III courts, the status the victims being mostly civilians.  That didnt make sense number grounds.  First, the people who were killed 9/11 were uniformed officers the Pentagon.  And secondly, create law war, body laws law war and international law discourage bad actors and war criminals actually targeting civilians. create heightened penalties meant deter and discourage from targeting civilian populations.  And here you had attorney general who came with protocol that did the exact opposite.  You rewarded men who had the most blood their hands for going after innocent men, women, and children were killed 9/11. think this was all theater and fact the announcement earlier this month about the resumption military commissions was simply, believe, stalling for time the face bipartisan and strong opposition bringing these men America for civilian trials. Notice that they didnt even announce any the military commissions.  They did hold conference calls with victims families.  They had conference call out the Office Public Engagement for 9/11 Families.  And the way, this checking the box. were told  imagine how big the 9/11 family community is.  Its huge. got email through strange sources, couple hours before the conference called which was commence. That should tell you that they werent serious about really telling anything. And fact, they didnt.  They had White House Office Legal Counsel lawyer, refused answer questions about the 9/11 cases other than say that the president and the attorney general are committed federal trials for these defendants and theyre going work with Congress repeal the measures defund them. that isnt going happen any day soon and they know it. The defense attorneys know it. And were stalemate.  And think the reason why they didnt want name the military commissions because they dont want military commissions upstage get too much attention before theyre able put forward the 9/11 cases. And are told, and its been confirmed from unnamed sources, that theyre going wait till after the 2012 election. That damn politics.  Thanks.   
MR. FITTON: Thank you, Debra. question for you, Austin, just clarify  although Im non-lawyer, Ive been around Judicial Watch long enough know the difference between strict scrutiny and heightened scrutiny, least think have running knowledge it. But could you explain little bit more about what  the rational basis test and all that because your discussion  youve highlighted that important point, but for lay audience  were the internet well  explain why its extraordinary suggest that there are different scrutiny standards with relation homosexuality.   
MR. NIMOCKS: Sure. The rational basis test the most commonly employed test constitutional analysis whether law passes constitutional muster.  Every single law enacted Congress must, matter constitutional law, have rational basis. And performing that analysis court not necessarily limited what Congress may articulate the legislative record its national for enacting the law.  The rational basis record available court any conceivable rational basis for that law that that law has some rational basis it, whatever could be.  Its very wide latitude. 
MR. FITTON: the position the Obama Justice Department that there conceivable rational basis for defining marriage being between man and woman only. 
MR. NIMOCKS: Right. mean, other words stated, theres rational basis, is, matter constitutional law  other words, when the founders wrote the Constitution, the idea that irrational the Constitution, fundamentally there, implicit within the concept ordered liberty, that marriage would defined one man and one woman.   
Now, its one thing for have debate about how marriage should defined.  Its another thing entirely say that you were irrational, say that tens millions Americans across this country that have voted the question marriage  different jurisdictions have had votes  that the majority Americans this country are irrational matter constitutional law because they believe marriage one man and woman.  That astounding, astounding statement.  Its one thing disagree, but say that you are irrational  and thats why mentioned earlier the oral argument December  Ted Olson standing right here. could kick him wanted to.  Thats how close Im standing him during the course the oral argument the Prop Perry case.  And was asked question directly Judge Smith. irrational, all things being equal, children better when raised the mother and father that brought them into this world that irrational define marriage one man, one woman? And gave one-word answer. And thats yes. And about fell out chair because this former solicitor general the United States for George Bush  and General Olson became famous  going against David Boies, 2000, Bush Gore, the case that propelled George Bush the White House, and now Olson and Boies are teamed this case, sit there and say that Americans, tens millions Americans are irrational under the Constitution. its just amazing that the Justice Department now adopts that stance. 
MR. FITTON: Thats right. Its one thing for private lawyer have that view behalf his clients. Its another thing have the attorney general the United States state that. Well, Im going open questions from the audience. you could  believe there microphone  there isnt microphone. will restate the question you could speak clearly and tell where youre from, appreciate it, your name.  Any other questions, comments? 
While people think about questions, the news yesterday was  Hans, for you  was the Office Professional Responsibility, which the office the Department Justice tasked with making sure that lawyers are professionally responsible the way they handle cases and perform their duties, supposedly gave the Obama administration pass the Black Panther case. And what struck about it, looking the final report not too closely was how narrowly and carefully was written. you have any thoughts that because obviously thats going used  beat you back with you raise issues about the way that case and other cases are being handled the Civil Rights Division. 
MR. SPAKOVSKY: Sure. Id make couple points about it.  First all, even former Attorney General Michael Mukasey was astonished that Eric Holder basically told the Office Professional Responsibility what the conclusion their report should December, before their report was concluded, because remember, December, was interviewed the New York Times. was specifically asked about the New Black Panther case. And specifically said and answered the questions that essentially there was nothing wrong with what had been done. frankly think was unethical and unprofessional for the head the Department tell basically people working for him how they should come out open investigation the behavior attorneys within the Department.  Second, would point that  and wrote about this, three years ago, for the Weekly Standard, the Office Professional Responsibility has history biased and partisan investigations. And what else did Holder December?  Well put the new head the Office Professional Responsibility, woman named Robin Ashton, whos Democratic loyalist, who, while working for the Department, during the Bush administration, asked for and requested detail the office Senator Patrick Leahy.   
Second, order make sure that the Office Professional Responsibility would come out the right way and think further would done with that report, December, Holder also announced something else, which was quite change and one noticed the time. set new unit within the Justice Department. calls the Professional Misconduct Review Panel. And this new unit charged with taking any OPR report that cites any misconduct lawyers within the Department and deciding what with it. And who did put the head that unit?  Well, put his former chief staff, Kevin Ohlson.   
Now, why that significant?  Well, its significant because you know the internal workings the Justice Department, you know that normally what happens when OPR comes out with report reviewed guy named David Margolis.  David Margolis the senior career lawyer within the Justice Department.  Hes been there for decades. Hes worked for many different administrations.  And obviously Holder did not want  the OPR report had not come out the way wanted to, which did, clearly wanted sure that with this new unit, what happened before did not happen again, and that is, you all recall, when the Office Professional Responsibility came out with its report John Yoo and Mr. Bybee for the illegal opinions they had rendered the interrogation techniques that could used the Bush administration, Margolis issued scathing report, criticizing OPR for many mistakes, for basically making the law, for making huge errors its substantive legal opinions.  And now Margolis has basically been taken out. The senior career person has been taken out this and instead have different unit reviewing this. 
Finally, would point out couple  three things.  The letter sent Ms. Ashton Congress says very specifically the end that they did not look the relative merits the legal positions the individuals involved.  Now, the whole crux this case the dream team four career lawyers, who investigated this case and litigated it, said that there was substantive legal reason for their supervisor tell them dismiss the case. 
Now, they did not look LPR, did not look the relative merits the legal issues the case, how the world then they come out and say that when the orders came down dismiss the case, there were political racial other reasons for that? They also say the letter very carefully that they only spoke current and former Department Justice officials.   
Now, wrote article year ago  and Washington Times also covered this  pointing out that the visitors logs released the White House indicate that key individuals the political leadership the Department, including Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, who the logs that believe that Judicial Watch obtained, the privilege logs showed that had been consulted the dismissal the New Black Panther voter-intimidation case, and fact, the Justice Department refused provide the email and other communications Mr. Perrelli because they said they were privileged.  Well, the only way you can use the privilege doctrine not give documents there were legal opinions rendered and legal communications made, which meant that Mr. Perrelli and others the top political leadership were making decisions this case.  Well, the visitors logs show that Mr. Perrelli had meetings with the White House Counsels Office during key dates the New Black Panther case, including  outlined this great detail  including when the decision was made dismiss the case.  Yet, OPR makes clear that they didnt interview talk single individual the White House, into the Counsels Office there. They also clearly did not investigate the other information that mentioned before that has come out the Civil Rights Commissions investigation the New Black Panther case, which they did not investigate the sworn testimony that the Civil Rights Division had implemented policy that there would not race neutral enforcement the Voting Rights Act and that there would cases filed against defendants who are racial minorities, matter how they violated the law, and they obviously did not investigate the sworn testimony also which says that, again, Civil Rights Division put policy not enforcing certain provision the Motor Voter law, which they are  have the responsibility for enforcing.  And they also clearly did not investigate the disciplining and admonition that was given the career chief the Voting Section for actually interviewing individuals being hired for jobs, asking them they would  they believed race neutral enforcement the law.   
All those things are things that they completely ignored their investigation.   
MR. FITTON: Although they confirm, best can tell, that higher officials, political officials were involved the decision making, its not just Judicial Watch making the allegation.  The OPR has concluded that they were involved the decision making, but course was all appropriate.  And whether not was appropriate not beside the point. The Justice Department sworn under oath and also public statements that political officials were not involved the decision making.  The OPR report seems indicate otherwise.    
And could just add the issue the Freedom Information Act, which Judicial Watch specializes in, the Justice Department the absolute worst, one the absolute worst. With the federal government, you never want say one agency the worst. Theyre all terrible their own unhappy ways.  But the Justice Department almost never gives documents absent litigation, and even with litigation, getting documents, even telling what documents they dont want give like pulling teeth. for the Obama administration have this idea transparency and pretend the most transparent administration American history have its Justice Department, which charged with enforcing and litigating FOIA the court, fragrantly violate  you can withhold documents, but you have withhold them pursuant the law and you have respond quests. And they dont bother respond. The most basic question they ignore were certainly about  questions about the NAACPs context with the Justice Department. dont know foiled it, but Im assuming  know there have been issues out there and know they stalled releasing information about how many lawyers were terrorists advocates.  The crisis the Justice Department and national security they hired series lawyers who spent part their professional lives advocating for terrorists.  Im not saying theyre terrorists, but theyre advocating for the rights these terrorists.   
Attorney generals own law firm was involved, providing free representation terrorists, but they dont want disclose that level information   
MS. BURLINGAME:  Not only that, but when were talking with representatives from the White House Chief Counsels Office, one the founding members asked what cases the attorney general recusing himself because conflict interests and they castigated him.  They said was disrespectful question man who lost his son the Towers. So, yes. 
MR. SPAKOVSKY: should mention one other thing forgot mention, that 
 the other thing the OPR report completely stayed away from was investigating the fact that the Department Justice refused comply with subpoenas issued the U.S. Commission Civil Rights for documents, communications, and witnesses their investigation the New Black Panther voter-intimidation case.  Now, any lawyer would tell you that when you receive subpoena, you believe that invalid that seeking information that you not have turn over, the only ethical and professional action that you can take yourself war and file motion quash the subpoena and you let judge, independent third party, make the decision whether not that subpoena was valid and whether not should responded to.  The Department Justice did not those things. Now, this the law enforcement agency the United States, has thousands lawyers. They are supposed comply with the law.  And they did not that. They did not court quash those subpoenas.  Instead, they ignored them, and not only ignored them, but they instructed the witnesses whod been subpoenaed, including the former chief the Voting Section, Christopher Coates, ignore the subpoenas. And that unethical and unprofessional behavior.  And OPR did not investigate that. And why did they not investigate that?  Well, those decisions would not have been made the career lawyers involved this case that would have been made only the highest parts the Justice Department.   
And final thing and just  Debra, have say this area where what you were talking about and what was talking about coincide  odd coincidence, but the lawyer who signed the complained against the Berkeley School District Illinois for supposedly discriminating not allowing teacher three-week pilgrimage lawyer named Varda Hussain, who was given award her pro bono work her former law firm for something like 500 hours volunteer work, representing three Egyptian terrorists detained Guantanamo.   
MR. FITTON: Well, that note, unless Austin, you have anything else add with respect  concern generally  and think the issue raised where these interest groups end and the Justice Department begins?  Where the line being drawn? dont think line has been drawn. And Hans, youve been around for long time, Austin you and have been  the idea being able influence Justice Department decisions, however much might want nonprofit organization advocacy group  just doesnt occur one able that.  But seems hard for the course under this administration.  And Im not aware that happening prior administrations, frankly even during the Clinton years.  they had other influences that were improper, but didnt see  (inaudible)  run out the back office the ACLU these other organizations, where was hard tell who was running the show.  And course, the administration has been very reluctant disclose their contacts with these third parties about these issues, whether itd national security the involvement principles these issues, whether itd national security, the civil rights issues, which beyond the Black Panthers, and think havent begun investigating  think have begun investigating, but they ought investigated, given the poor analysis that Olson laid out, whos running the show when came the Justice Departments legal determination whether not defend the Defense Marriage Act. sounds like was written outside groups, opposed ethical Justice Department attorneys. this raises questions about the future Eric Holder. think his future, least the government, needs cut short.  But think its important issue highlight.  Its one that think its largely being ignored Congress and media and even lot our friends the conservative movement who are distracted lot other crises being caused the Obama administration.  And think  and our purpose here was highlight the crisis our Justice Department. appreciate your  Yes, Im going ask your question. 
MR. FITTON:  you werent going let finish, Roger, no. ahead. You can ask your question. (Off mike)  wanted ask about the  (off mike)  congressional oversight this point each these three areas.  The Republicans have been charge for the House now for nearly three months.  How are they doing far subpoenaing White House and the Justice Department these issues?  Has there ever been signs that theyre going aggressively after these issues?  (Off mike.)     
MR. FITTON: Well, looks like theyre ramping up.  The proof going the end what happens and whether they hold hearings and expose documents and other things. think there intense interest figuring out whats been going on. dont know  Debra you have  you have any feel for what least the House Republicans are doing and the Senate obviously closer thing because the presidents party controls the Senate. 
MS. BURLINGAME: communications with them have been  know theyre working the Patriot Act right now, getting for the reauthorization that.  But with  and theyre working  Mike Rogers, said, wants  they have agenda and dont know that its necessarily going after the Justice Department. think its coping and correcting  making some coarse corrections that theyre trying do, rather than see the last Eric Holder.  But  and the last time was Washington, was consult with members Congress about the 9/11 trials going forward.  But one area that hope they after and understand that there has been some interest this from Buck McKeon, the chairman the House Armed Services Committee, investigate the John Adams Project problem that was uncovered 2009, what referred before, chasing down the CIA officers, photographing them paparazzi style, and then giving boatload their pictures one the 9/11 conspirators.  That  think that 
 think were dealing with criminality there and hope they after that.   
MR. NIMOCKS: can speak that far the federal DOMA concerned.  Speaker Boehner has made publicly known that the House will intervene the ongoing federal DOMA litigation.  The problem for the House that this unlike any other circumstance that weve seen, and therere multitude circumstances historically where the House and Senate Have intervened litigation.  But there are pending cases federal DOMA wise, plus, like said, speculate more will come, especially the homosexual conduct policy has been repealed for the part the military fact  does become policy, you have inextricable conflict between the repeal Dont Ask, Dont Tell and federal DOMA, which will spun more litigation.   
The House, legislative body, intervenes from time time case, but not equipped like the DOJ handle multiple cases across the country.  And think thats something the House grappling with right now terms whos going the litigation, how are they going try manage the cases that exist right now and any other cases. But minimum, were happy see that the House going intervene and because the defense federal DOMA that the Department Justice was doing, which you want call defense, you can, but wasnt really defense, you cant get worst than what they were doing.  Anythings improvement terms that.  And were happy see that least before the First Circuit were the cases that are first time federal DOMA exist, there will presumably cogent advocate, making cogent arguments behalf federal DOMA. thats good thing, answer your question terms what the House has done federal DOMA, but think theyre still struggling with how exactly are they going manage this  
MR. FITTON: Isnt danger that federal judge could either not let them intervene not weight say, hey, the government has caved the case and DOMAs out?   
MR. NIMOCKS: Its possible, but think its highly unlikely because the Department Justice kind laid out the red carpet for Congress federal DOMA.  And will facilitate the intervention and even the First Circuit issued sua sponte order saying, hey guys, want know whats going on.  Congress, are you coming in? need reset the briefing schedule?  And the court kind indicated its willingness receive Congress into the cases.  And several the other cases the lower level  the judges charge these cases have actually stayed the case while they wait and see whats going happen the First Circuit. logistically, may not big headache appears the surface, but could become potentially headache. And know that Speaker Boehner Office has least shared with one point time that thats concern that theyre taking look at.  But the fact that theyre stepping good thing far were concerned.  Federal DOMA should receive defense now least from the First Circuit.   
MR. SPAKOVSKY: Yes, but let make point about this because this something that has not come up.  And again, this example what consider unprofessional behavior lawyers the Justice Department, okay?  The first thing you learn law school and the professional code ethics they tell you, you have duty vigorously defend your client, even was lawyer, dont like your client.  Dont particularly like the things they represent. you take that defense, you have vigorously defend them.  And you read the briefs that were filed cases which the Justice Department has been involved, the Obama administration the DOMA cases and the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policies, got tell you that think that the work the lawyers those cases bordered unethical.  Ill give you one good quick example. you know, federal district court California threw out the militarys Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy. And you read the opinion the court, the judge makes note the fact that the Justice Department did not present single witness, not one justify for military other reasons the imposition the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy.  Now, clearly the Obama administration Justice Department has access any military expert they want put witness. The fact that they did not offer single witness justify, meant that they went into the case, even though theyre supposed defending it, trying throw the case.  That collusive litigation and that per unethical behavior lawyer. And yet that how they acted their case and theyve acted their way other cases, too. 
And again, that not the kind professionalism want from our Justice Department.   
MR. FITTON: Certainly that OPR letter the  think was addressed Lamar Smith, recall  mean shows that that letter was designed throttle off this investigation Lamar Smith, but the point that was sent him shows that investigating it. And believe that the case. 
Well, Id like thank everyone, Debra Burlingame, Austin Nimocks, and Hans von Spakovsky for joining us. Their expertise invaluable these various issues public importance.  And for those you the internet elsewhere, will have written summary this presentation eventually available and obviously will the internet for you share well. appreciate your time and attention and thank you for joining today. And think have something  (inaudible)  afterwards here. thank you. appreciate it.