Back in October, The Weekly Standard reported that the ATF had denied ‘Fast and Furious’ whistleblower John Dodson the right to publish his book, using the excuse that the agency is allowed approval over “outside employment.”
As if to thoroughly burnish the ATF’s deserved reputation for incompetence, here is the note the bureau sent Dodson denying his request to publish his book, as quoted in the Washington Post: “This would have a negative impact on morale in the Phoenix [field division] and would have a detremental [sic] effect on our relationships with [the Drug Enforcement Administration] and FBI.”
On CBS This Morning, Monday, Sharyl Attkisson touted Dodson as “a rare example, especially amid the Obama administration’s war on leaks” because he has been able to keep his job, while most whisteblowers in the Obama era end up losing their jobs.
His new book, “The Unarmed Truth, My Fight to Blow the Whistle and Expose Fast and Furious“, was eventually cleared for publication, but Dodson is forbidden from collecting compensation for it because of ethics rules.
Attkisson, whose reporting on the arms trafficking scandal won CBS a Edward R. Murrow Award, spotlighted the ATF senior agent’s new book on “the inside story of why he went public to expose the government’s false denials about its gunwalking secrets.”
The correspondent also pointed out how “there’s still a court battle over the ‘Fast and Furious’ documents that President Obama is withholding from Congress under executive privilege“. She also featured a clip from Dodson where he emphasized that this is an ongoing controversy that deserves more media attention: [MP3 audio available here; video below]
JOHN DODSON: Part of all of this is to try to make people realize that it hasn’t all been answered. You know, it’s not – it’s not over. It’s just that you’ve forgotten about it. You’ve been – you know, diverted. Don’t look at my left hand – look at my right. What’s going on over here? These things haven’t been answered, and you can make a difference. Ask the questions!
Meanwhile, the Regime is appealing a judicial ruling from September: a federal judge ruled that the Obama administration could not have the lawsuit over the administration’s executive-privilege in the Operation Fast and Furious case thrown out.
The Obama administration had invented some argumentative blather about the federal courts having no basis for arbitrating the dispute because it would mean that all document fights between Congress and the administration could end up in court rather than being resolved through good-faith negotiation, or something.
District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson (an Obama appointee, by the way) all but laughed that silly excuse out of court: “Dismissing the case without hearing it would in effect place the court’s finger on the scale, designating the executive as the victor based solely on his untested assertion that the privilege applies. … The Court rejects the notion that merely hearing this dispute between the branches would undermine the foundation of our government, or that it would lead to the abandonment of all negotiation and accommodation in the future, leaving the courts deluged with subpoena enforcement actions,” she wrote — and the Obama administration certainly didn’t like that.
A couple of weeks ago, the DOJ appealed that decision..
The new motion (posted here) asks Jackson to allow the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to weigh in on that question before the case continues.
“Absent settlement (which depends on the willingness of both parties to achieve a negotiated resolution), or an immediate appeal, this Court will proceed toward deciding the scope of the President’s assertion of Executive Privilege in response to a congressional demand, and will do so absent a definitive ruling from the Circuit that such a novel judicial inquiry, in a suit instituted by a Committee of Congress, is appropriate under the law, including the Constitution,” the DOJ motion argues.