DOJ’s Office of Legal Council Blocking IG Investigations

DOJ facing bipartisan criticism for move to ‘undermine’ gov’t watchdogs

FOX NEWS
July 27, 2015
Matt Fossen – contributor

The Justice Department is facing bipartisan criticism for clamping down on government watchdogs’ access to documents, in a decision lawmakers say defies Congress and undermines those tasked with rooting out government misconduct.

The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a 68-page memo last week that said the department’s inspector general would be required to get permission from the agencies it oversees to obtain wire taps, grand jury testimonies, and credit information. IGs are assigned to audit and conduct internal reviews of federal agencies.

The decision, first reported in The Washington Post, faced an almost immediate backlash from Capitol Hill and the watchdogs themselves.

“I strongly disagree with the OLC opinion,” DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said in a statement. “Congress meant what it said when it authorized Inspectors General to independently access ‘all’ documents necessary to conduct effective oversight. … Without such access, our office’s ability to conduct its work will be significantly impaired.”

Horowitz is chairman of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, the group that oversees IGs across the government. He said that the new rules would lead to waste, fraud and abuse.

In Congress, Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., as well as Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and John Conyers, D-Mich., released a statement suggesting the new rules are a clear violation of the Inspector General Act of 1978.

“If the Inspector General deems a document necessary to do his job, then the agency should turn it over immediately,” said Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Grassley’s office said the DOJ already has denied or delayed IG access to records concerning inquiries into Operation Fast and Furious, alleged “sex parties” involving Drug Enforcement Administration agents and other issues.

He added: “The clear command of that law is being ignored far too often by agencies across the executive branch. By this opinion’s tortured logic, ‘all records’ does not mean all records … The prospect of the Obama administration using this opinion to stonewall oversight, avoid accountability, and undermine the independence of inspectors general is alarming.”

Conyers also said that the IG “should not have to ask permission from the very agency he oversees.” He called the opinion a “departure from the plain text of the statute and the intent of Congress.”

All four congressmen are in committees that oversee the DOJ.

DOJ spokeswoman Emily Pierce told the Washington Post that the ruling still allows IG investigators to get sensitive information, and that the department is doing its best to help agents.

The DOJ has faced criticism in recent years for not turning over information to agents during investigations.

According to both Horowitz and the congressmen, the department has delayed or even blocked many high-profile inquiries. Forty-seven IGs also wrote a letter to Congress last year complaining that the agencies they oversee had refused to release vital information.

Horowitz said he intends to push Congress to pass legislation that would ensure inspectors general independent access to all vital information.

“We look forward to working with Congress and the Justice Department to promptly remedy this serious situation,” he said. “The agency over which the OIG conducts oversight [should not be] in the position of deciding whether to give the OIG access to the information necessary to conduct the oversight.”

But this is found in the DOJ website:
9-2.159 – Refusal of Government Departments and Agencies to Produce Evidence:    “It is the responsibility of the Department of Justice to enforce the law vigorously and it cannot abdicate this duty because of possible embarrassment to other agencies of the government. Situations may arise where substantial reasons of national security, foreign policy or the like may require the Department to abandon an investigation, forego litigation, or seek dismissal of a case. However, such action should be taken only after the most careful consideration of all of the relevant facts and then only with the personal approval of the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) in charge of the Division having responsibility for the case.”

–00–

I just love it when I can catch these guys trying to throw their weight around.  It’s mandatory for everyone else to hand over everything DOJ wants but oh so not happening when the independently set up Inspector General’s office requires DOJ to do the same thing?

I don’t see why Congress is in such a dither. Inspectors General is their watchdog, so bite them back with a federal court order.  Sounds reasonable to me.  DOJ jumps on that wagon daily.  Or, they could bar DOJ from acquiring any information from any agency until they start returning the same degree of request.

Or Congress could sic Judicial Watch on them since JW seems like the only ones actually forcing the executive branch groups to release documents.
July 7, 2015 Judicial Watch press release is quite interesting JW released new Department of Justice (DOJ) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documents that include an official “DOJ Recap” report detailing an October 2010 meeting between Lois Lerner, DOJ officials and the FBI to plan for the possible criminal prosecution of targeted nonprofit organizations for alleged illegal political activity.”

–Uriel–

About Uriel

Retired educator and constitutionalist
Tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to DOJ’s Office of Legal Council Blocking IG Investigations

  1. Kathy says:

    Horowitz is going to push for more legislation to force the DOJ to cooperate. We already have legislation they ignore, so a fat lot of good that will do. And good luck getting anything useful pushed through this Congress anyway.

    Just think how much smaller and efficient our government would be if we had adults with integrity who actually did their job without the need of oversight committees and inspectors general.

    • Uriel says:

      Well said Kathy. If all the ponderous committees, bloated departments and agencies actually were pared down for efficient use of funds, budgets were transparent on fixed asset projects, monitored for proper use of funds, given ending dates for testing of results of goals just as every regular business must do, we would not be trillions in debt or have nearly the fraud and corruption because we the people would have a much clearer understanding of function versus results. This administration from top down has become a giant corrupt conglomerate fixed only on shareholder profits rather than constitution.

  2. Pingback: My Article Read (8-4-2015) (8-5-2015) | My Daily Musing