Tag Archives: Tracy Schmaler

WH Outbursts at CBS Reporter Say a Lot

             The new tone has been shown. The new tone only applied to those who question the Democrat party. Sharyl Attkisson’s interview on Laura Ingrahm’s talk show illustrates two blatant inconsistencies in the Obama narrative. Attkinson is a well-respected investigative reporter from CBS news, not from any of the news organizations that have been consistently attacked by the Obama Administration. She was screamed at and swore at by White House aid Eric Schultz, and got similar treatment from a woman at the D.O.J. by the name of Tracy Schmaler. She received this treatment in response to her questions about the Fast and Furious scandal.

            Attkinson was told that she was being “unreasonable.” She was also told that other news organizations knew that “Fast and Furious” wasn’t a story. All of this being shouted, and in the case of Eric Schultz, also included swearing. There goes the new tone, but then again, the White House has never even tried to live up to their mandates, no matter how simple, obvious and expected from moral, civilized people.

This incident also puts into question, yet again, whether the Obama administration is really committed to transparency. The answer is, obviously not. The administration seems to think their job is to tell the press what is and is not a “story.” If they don’t agree, it is their job to shout at, swear at and intimidate those who feel differently into feeling the way they feel. Historically “Fast and Furious” makes Watergate and Iran Contra look like child’s play, the idea that it isn’t a story is purely ridiculous, yet that is the White House line.

Besides these two blatant inconsistencies, another disconcerting issue is highlighted by this recent incident. If the Newspapers mentioned by Eric Schultz view the deaths of innocent Americans and Mexicans as non-stories, have they done that at the behest of the Whitehouse, or are they just simply incompetent. The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post were all mentioned in the vein that they “understood” that Fast and Furious was a non-story. Considering how obviously newsworthy of a story Fast and Furious is, it is logical to question whether those decisions are made by the Whitehouse as opposed to the newsrooms of the newspapers in question. This incident needs a highlight, and it should never be let go. It calls into question both the Whitehouse and the Media, and whether they have the best interest of the country, or the best interest of the Obama administration in mind. 

Documents Raise Ethical Questions on Justice Kagan’s Failure to Recuse Herself on ObamaCare

Elena Kagan Supreme Court JusticeKagan Directs Staff to “Be Involved” in Crafting Defense of Obamacare

Scolds Justice Colleague on the Issue of Her Participation: “This Needs to be Coordinated…You Should not Say Anything about This before Talking to Me.”

WASHINGTON, May 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents suggesting Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan helped coordinate the Obama administration’s legal defense of the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) while she served as Solicitor General. Kagan has said she was not involved in Department of Justice (DOJ) preparations for legal challenges to Obamacare. Moreover, the Supreme Court justice did not recuse herself from the High Court decision inApril 2011 not to “fast-track” for Supreme Court review Virginia’s lawsuit challenging Obamacare.

The following are highlights from the documents obtained by Judicial Watch pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on February 24, 2011. (Judicial Watch’s lawsuit has been consolidated with a similar FOIA lawsuit that had been first filed against the DOJ by the Media Research Center. The lawsuits are now both before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The documents referenced in this release were first produced in the Media Research litigation.)

According to a January 8, 2010, email from Neal Katyal, former Deputy Solicitor General (and current Acting Solicitor General) to Brian Hauck, Senior Counsel to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, Kagan was involved in the strategy to defend Obamacare from the very beginning:

Subject: Re: Health Care Defense:

Brian, Elena would definitely like OSG [Office of Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues…we will bring in Elena as needed. [The “set of issues” refers to another email calling for assembling a group to figure out “how to defend against the…health care proposals that are pending.”]

On March 21, 2010, Katyal urged Kagan to attend a health care litigation meeting that was evidently organized by the Obama White House: “This is the first I’ve heard of this. I think you should go, no? I will, regardless, but feel like this is litigation of singular importance.”

In another email exchange that took place on January 8, 2010, Katyal’s Department of Justice colleague Brian Hauck asked Katyal about putting together a group to discuss challenges to Obamacare. “Could you figure out the right person or people for that?” Hauck asked. “Absolutely right on. Let’s crush them,” Katyal responded. “I’ll speak with Elena and designate someone.”

However, following the May 10, 2010, announcement that President Obama would nominate Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, Katyal’s position changed significantly as he began to suggest that Kagan had been “walled off” from Obamacare discussions.

For example, the documents included the following May 17, 2010, exchange between Kagan, Katyal and Tracy Schmaler, a DOJ spokesperson:

Schmaler to Katyal, Subject HCR [Health Care Reform] litigation: “Has Elena been involved in any of that to the extent SG [Solicitor General’s] office was consulted?…

Katyal to Schmaler: “No she has never been involved in any of it. I’ve run it for the office, and have never discussed the issues with her one bit.”

Katyal (forwarded to Kagan): “This is what I told Tracy about Health Care.”

Kagan to Schmaler: “This needs to be coordinated. Tracy you should not say anything about this before talking to me.”

Included among the documents is a Vaughn index, a privilege log which describes records that are being withheld in whole or in part by the Justice Department. The index provides further evidence of Kagan’s involvement in Obamacare-related discussions.

For example, Kagan was included in an email chain (March 17–18, 2010) in which the following subject was discussed: “on what categories of legal arguments may arise and should be prepared in the anticipated lawsuit.” The subject of the email was “Health Care.” Another email chain on March 21, 2010, entitled “Health care litigation meeting,” references an “internal government meeting regarding the expected litigation.” Kagan is both author and recipient in the chain.

The index also references a series of email exchanges on May 17, 2010, between Kagan and Obama White House lawyers and staff regarding Kagan’s “draft answer” to potential questions about recusal during the Supreme Court confirmation process. The White House officials involved include: Susan Davies, Associate White House Counsel; Daniel Meltzer, then-Principal Deputy White House Counsel; Cynthia Hogan, Counsel to the Vice President; and Ronald Klain, then-Chief of Staff for Vice President Biden. The DOJ is refusing to produce this draft answer.

The Vaughn index also describes a March 24, 2010, email exchange between Associate Attorney GeneralBeth Brinkmann and Michael Dreeben, Kagan’s Deputy Solicitor General, with the subject header, “Health Care Challenges:” “…I had a national conference call with the Civil Chiefs. A memo also went out the day before. I am forwarding right after this. Let’s discuss if you have more ideas about what to do.”

As reported by CNS News:

In the questionnaire she filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation process, Kagan said she would abide by the “letter and spirit” of 28 U.S.C. 455 in deciding whether she felt compelled to recuse herself as a Supreme Court Justice from any case that came before the High Court.

According to the law, a “justice … shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned.” It further says any justice “shall also disqualify himself … [w]here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”

“Any reasonable person would read these documents and come to the same conclusion: Elena Kaganhelped coordinate the Obama administration’s defense of Obamacare. And as long as the Justice Department continues to withhold key documents, the American people won’t know for sure whether her involvement would warrant her recusal from any Obamacare litigation that comes before the High Court,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.