Denver student protesters cheered when car struck officer, union official says

Real Classy IDIOTS!

Denver high School students in Colorado reacted in disrespectful ways when four bicycle officers were struck by an automobile at the end of Wednesday’s protests, the Denver Police Protective Association said.
Officer John Adsit underwent six hours of surgery Thursday for his injuries sustained in the accident. He is in critical, but stable condition.
The Denver Post reports students chanted, “Hit him again,” after the officer was struck.
The students were mainly marching in support of people protesting the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was killed by officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Mo. Wilson was not indicted on any charges by a Ferguson grand jury last week.
Students were heard chanting and cheering after the officers were hit. Teachers looked on and did not intervene while the students chanted, Fox31 Denver reports.
“The Denver Police Protective Association has learned that immediately after the horrible accident yesterday injuring four Denver Police Officers, several parties in the protesting group cheered and chanted “hit him again.” These actions are not only reprehensible but quite possibly the most disturbing thing this Association has ever heard,” a statement released by the police officers’ union Thursday night said.
“This group of high school students not only broke DPS rules by leaving school without authorization, but broke laws of the City and County of Denver and State of Colorado regarding traffic regulations and the right to assemble with a permit. The DPPA recognizes citizens’ rights to assemble lawfully. This, however, was not a lawful assembly, which ultimately cost four Denver Police Officers a trip to the hospital. One of which is in critical condition,” the statement continued.
“We have no knowledge of the alleged comments,” the Denver Public Schools said in a statement. “We would deplore any such comments and will look into the allegation, and would welcome any evidence that would assist us in an investigation. All afternoon yesterday and all day today, students at East expressed their deep concern for Officer Adsit and his family and their appreciation for the police assistance in ensuring student safety during the march.”
In a statement of its own, the Denver Police said it could not confirm the claims made by the union that students cheered when the officers were struck.
Denver Public Schools said they have no plan to stop the protests after the second day of massive student walk outs from high schools in the area.
Students told Fox31 Denver certain teachers tried to discourage students from walking out.

No evidence linking lane closures to Christie, report says

No evidence was found by New Jersey lawmakers that show New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was involved in a plot to close lanes near the George Washington Bridge last year.
Investigators found no conclusive evidence of whether or not Christie was aware of the closures. However, the investigation did find that two former aides of Christie acted with little regard for public safety when they closed lanes near the bridge, a 136-page interim report reveals.
A report commissioned by Christie previously cleared him of any wrongdoing and a lawyer for the governor said in a statement Thursday that the report corroborates that investigation.
"The Committee has finally acknowledged what we reported nine months ago — namely, that there is not a shred of evidence Governor Christie knew anything about the GWB lane realignment beforehand or that any current member of his staff was involved in that decision," Christie attorney Randy Mastro said in a statement.
The report will be supplemented if needed because several critical witnesses did not testify and some important questions remain unanswered.
Christie aides Bridget Anne Kelly and David Wildstein acted with “perceived impunity” by closing the lanes, the report says. It also said the Christie administration did not act quick enough to resolve the closures.
Documents released earlier this year showed that Wildstein, then an official at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and Kelly, then an aide to Christie, orchestrated the shutdown, apparently as retribution toward Fort Lee's Democratic mayor. In one email, Kelly told Wildstein, "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee."
Wildstein later contended that Christie knew about the lane closures as they happened. Christie, a possible 2016 Republican presidential contender, denies that he had any role in or knowledge of a plot to shut down the lanes.
An investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office is continuing. No one has been charged.
The legislative panel is scheduled to meet on Monday to formally release the report to the public.

'Game we can’t win': Coal states brace for growing number of plant closures over EPA rules

WASHINGTON –  The energy industry and coal-producing states are projecting a wave of power plant closures in the final two years of the Obama administration as Environmental Protection Agency regulations take hold. 
The goal of the agency's campaign is to cut down on carbon pollution. However, industry groups and agencies say the EPA’s demands are simply too difficult to meet and will lead to powering down many facilities -- eliminating hundreds of jobs and hurting cash-strapped state economies.
“It’s a game we can’t win,” Alan Minier, chairman of the Wyoming Public Service Commission, told FoxNews.com.
The number of projected closures has steadily risen. Though estimates vary, according to the Institute for Energy Research a total of 37 states including Wyoming are seeing closures. The group lists nearly 170 plants that have closed or are closing, or are being converted to other purposes. 
IER cites a handful of existing EPA regulations, as well as a major proposal to cut emissions from existing power plants. That calls for cutting emissions nationally by 30 percent of 2005 levels by 2030. The plan assumes emissions can be curbed through remedial action in four general areas: improved efficiency of coal plants, enhanced energy conservation measures, increased natural gas and renewable power generation.
But industry groups say in many cases, it's too heavy a lift. And they say not only jobs, but the nation's power supply will suffer. 
The Institute for Energy Research, in its latest report, predicts more than 72 gigawatts of "electrical generating capacity" are going offline. “To put 72 GW in perspective, that is enough electrical generation capacity to reliably power 44.7 million homes – or every home in every state west of the Mississippi River, excluding Texas,” IER report says. 
The EPA has received hundreds of thousands of comments on the proposal as it pushes to finalize the rules. 
The agency calls it a "commonsense plan" that will tackle the health and economic risks of climate change, including avoiding thousands of premature deaths. 
But as the agency claims to be giving states flexibility, those trying to meet the new eco-friendly rules say they are up against unrealistic standards. 
In Wyoming, for example, four coal-fired power plants are set to be prematurely shuttered because they fall short of the requirements imposed by the Obama administration to curb carbon emissions. 
Minier, who wrote a Nov. 21 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, believes the federal proposal overestimates utilities’ ability to improve the efficiency of their coal-fired power plants, overstates the potential growth of renewable power and makes incorrect calculations concerning Wyoming’s natural gas generation.
“I’m trying not to sound alarmist, but it seems to me the scale at which this would affect us, because we are exporters of  electricity and coal, I think it will impact our economy in a materially adverse way,” Minier said in a recent interview with the Casper Star-Tribune.
In August, the Government Accountability Office estimated the number of coal-fired power plants that will close by 2025. The GAO, a watchdog agency, had initially estimated that 2 percent to 12 percent of U.S. coal capacity would retire, but the August estimates have it even higher at 13 percent. 
“This level of retirements is significantly more retirements than have occurred in the past,” the GAO said. 
Other estimates say the proposed carbon rules could close “hundreds” of plants.
States have until June 30, 2016 to come up with a plan to meet and implement the changes.
The problem, at least in states like Wyoming, is the EPA requirements may be too ambitious. Wyoming isn’t going to fall short in one area, Minier told FoxNews.com -- the state will fail all four. 
The GAO’s report reinforced concerns many Republicans have that the EPA’s rules are closing down plants. House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, this week urged McCarthy to scrap the "outrageous" power plant proposal. 
The EPA argues that efficiency improvements will pay for themselves in terms of fuel costs and other health and environmental benefits. 
While Wyoming has a tough climb to meet the standards, its neighbors are no better off. 
Colorado and South Dakota need to cut carbon emissions by 35 percent, Utah by 27 percent, and Montana by 21 percent -- while Idaho faces a 33 percent reduction.
But the Obama administration still has plenty of defenders in its regulatory push. 
Dean Baker, a D.C.-based economist and the co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says shutting down coal plants could be good for not only the environment but also the economy.
Baker told Think Progress that clean alternatives to coal – not just natural gas but wind and solar – are competitive, so switches should come with minimal economic hassle. He also believes that renewables can work in tandem with natural gas to make the transition smoother. Indeed, some of the plants on IER's closure list are converting to natural gas.

GOP lawmakers highly critical of Petraeus’ Benghazi explanation, testimony shows

Newly declassified testimony shows at least five Republican lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee, including its chairman, suggested former CIA Director David Petraeus provided bad information, or even misled them, after the 2012 Benghazi attack when he blamed an obscure Internet video and downplayed the significance of mortar attacks that night.
The testimony comes from a Nov. 15, 2012, closed, classified session where the committee heard testimony from the nation's most senior intelligence officer, James Clapper; then head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen; Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy; and then-acting CIA Director Michael Morell, who stepped in after Petraeus resigned, citing an extramarital affair.
The testimony shows lawmakers recalling how Petraeus stressed protests over an anti-Islam video as the impetus -- an explanation that would later unravel -- while brushing off concerns that mortar attacks indicated a planned terror attack.
During that testimony, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, who takes the gavel of the House Armed Services Committee in January, said: "Mr. Morell, my strongest memory (w)as Director Petraeus on the Friday after this event coming in and telling us this was all a spontaneous demonstration caused by a video."
In the same session, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., went further, saying Petraeus was "definitive" in his assessment the video was to blame, and unlike the intelligence community witnesses present, the general did not talk about "shifts in the line of analysis."
King said, "the 90 percent conclusion that General Petraeus reached was that this was caused by the video, and it was a spontaneous demonstration." King continued,"the one thing he was ruling out was terrorist involvement. I remember when the chairman [Mike Rogers] specifically mentioned to him about the mortar rounds, three mortar rounds landing at the Annex, could that be an indication of terrorist involvement. [Petraeus] said no.He said anybody in Libya could do that."
The House committee report -- while having been criticized by other GOP lawmakers as incomplete -- nevertheless provides new detail and images of the precision mortar strike at the CIA base known as the annex.Three on-target rounds, fired over 69 seconds, killed former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty who were defending the annex from its roof.
Kris Paronto, one of the CIA contractors who witnessed the attacks, said: "It's highly, if not 99.99 percent unlikely, that somebody just threw up a mortar tube and drop some mortars in and hit, hit, hit the compound. It's, it's not possible."
John Tiegen, who was also part of the CIA security team, and wrote, "13 Hours: the Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi," with his fellow contractors, said it is beyond belief a four-star general would make such a basic mistake.
"I'd like to see him grab a mortar tube and launch it and get it within a 2,000 square-foot building in five shots," Tiegen added
The House Intelligence Committee report states the mortar team likely used a spotter to calibrate the shots, more evidence of pre-meditation and planning. The mortar strike was the third wave of the attack which began at 9:40 p.m. at the State Department consulate.
And while Morell, along with other unnamed CIA officers in the transcript, defended Petraeus, saying his talking points from the agency included the identification of the Al Qaeda-linked terror group Ansar al-Sharia, Rogers said the general went off-script.
"I want to be clear that our notes do not reflect that he said that.What you were talking about for the record was his talking points," Rogers said. Rogers was the first lawmaker on Capitol HIll to call publicly call Benghazi a coordinated, military commando-style assault, in an interview with Fox News on Sept. 12, 2012.
Democrats on the committee, including the ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger, were less critical of Petraeus. “My recollection was that Petraeus, when I walked way, he basically said that he felt that his opinion at that time it was kind of an attack based on what happened with respect to the video. But he did give caveats…that (it) could change, and it evolved,” Ruppersberger said.
Unlike the November 2012 testimony -- when lawmakers did not know that Morell made key edits to the talking points -- by May 2013, during a second round of classified testimony, email traffic showed Morell had been at the heart of the process, cutting some 50 percent of the text.
Significantly, during the May testimony, Morell distanced the agency from the video explanation. Morell said "the CIA never [said] that what happened in Benghazi was a result of the film."
If the lawmakers’ recollection is accurate, that means Petraeus' brief on Sept. 14, 2012, was instead in line with the White House, and then-Secretary Hillary Clinton's State Department. It was a State Department press release at 10:07 pm ET, before the attack was even over, that first made the link to the obscure anti-Islam video. The newly declassified testimony says $70,000 was spent on advertising in Pakistan, denouncing the anti-Muslim film.
During this testimony, GOP Rep. Jeff Miller questioned Petraeus' original testimony, stating the former CIA Director "even went so far as to say that it had been put into Arabic language and then was put on this TV station, this cleric's TV station. I mean, [Petraeus] drove that in pretty hard when he was in here. "
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., added "it was said in here a little bit earlier that the CIA never said Benghazi was part of a Cairo protest and of the video. And we were given just the opposite message by the Director of the CIA on the [September] 14th [2012.]"
Rogers noted there was no transcript for the brief, only staff notes, but after the Petraeus incident in September 2012, the practice was changed to always run a transcript on the briefings.The September 14th 2012 brief was a coffee meeting with members.
Fox News was first to report in April that an FBI investigation into the general had been left open, after classified information was reportedly mishandled. This week, after additional reporting by Bloomberg News, Republican Sen. John McCain questioned the decision in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, suggesting politics may be at play.
"The fact that you and others within your Department have weighed-in publicly on the case raises questions about whether this investigation is being handled in a fundamentally fair and appropriate manner,” he wrote.
The FBI investigation into Petraeus began as early as late spring 2012, which means he was under investigation when the Benghazi attack unfolded. Facing the implication that knowledge of the investigation might have influenced Petraeus’ or Morell's actions during the Benghazi aftermath, Morell testified he did not know what was going on with the general until the day before he resigned.
Petraeus has not spoken formally to the media about the scandal and was in the news when a new biography of Hillary Clinton was released in February, called "HRC."It quoted the former CIA director regarding her handling of Benghazi.
"She'd make a tremendous president," Petraeus told the authors of "HRC." "Like a lot of great leaders, her most impressive qualities were most visible during tough times. ... In the wake of the Benghazi attacks, for example, she was extraordinarily resolute, determined and controlled."
Jack Keane, a retired four-star Army general and Fox News analyst was a mentor to Petraeus. “David believed he was providing the best available information to the committee from the CIA analysts, which included identifying the terrorist organization, Ansar al-Sharia, and that it was terrorism. The motivation was harder to identify, and initial CIA reporting about the video turned out to be wrong within a matter of days,” he said.
Asked about the open FBI investigation, Keane said McCain’s letter to Holder summed up his feeling best.

Texas leads coalition of states in lawsuit against Obama immigration actions

Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott announced Wednesday that Texas is leading a 17-state coalition suing the Obama administration over the president's executive actions on immigration. 
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Texas on Wednesday, and names the heads of the top immigration enforcement agencies as defendants. 
Abbott, in a news conference in Austin, said the "broken" immigration system should be fixed by Congress, not by "presidential fiat." 
He said President Obama's recently announced executive actions -- a move designed to spare as many as 5 million people living illegally in the United States from deportation -- "directly violate the fundamental promise to the American people" by running afoul of the Constitution. 
"The ability of the president to dispense with laws was specifically considered and unanimously rejected at the Constitutional Convention," he said. 
Abbott specifically cited Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution which states the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." 
He said the lawsuit asks the court to require Obama to go through Congress before enforcing laws, "rather than making them up himself." 
However, a White House official defended the actions as perfectly within the president's authority.
“The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that federal officials can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws, and we are confident that the President’s executive actions are well within his legal authorities," the official told Fox News.
The announcement opens a new front in the roiling debate across the country over the immigration actions. 
The legal action comes as a separate legislative battle plays out on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans want to use a must-pass spending bill as leverage to defund the president's immigration initiatives. But House Speaker John Boehner is trying to push off that battle until next year, when his party will control both chambers. 
Under Obama's order, announced Nov. 20, protection from deportation and the right to work will be extended to an estimated 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years and to hundreds of thousands more young people. 
In the lawsuit, Texas is joined by 16 other, mostly southern and Midwestern states, including Alabama, Georgia, Idaho and Indiana. 
Abbott argued Wednesday that Obama's action "tramples" portions of the U.S. Constitution. 
The lawsuit raises three objections: that Obama violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution that limits the scope of presidential power; that the federal government violated rulemaking procedures; and that the order will "exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education." 
Wednesday's announcement marks the 31st time the Texas attorney general has brought action against the federal government since Obama took office in 2009. The only other high-profile lawsuit against the immigration action has come on behalf of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. 
Potential 2016 presidential candidate and current Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who leaves office in January, also spoke out against the executive order earlier Wednesday, saying it could trigger a new flood of people pouring across the Texas-Mexico border. Perry and Abbott also have said the order will promote a culture of lawlessness. 
Perry said at a news conference that Obama's 2012 executive order delaying the deportation of children brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents triggered an unprecedented wave of unaccompanied minors and families, mostly from Central America, crossing into the U.S. this summer. 
"In effect, his action placed a neon sign on our border, assuring people that they could ignore the law of the United States," said Perry, who has deployed up to 1,000 National Guard troops to the border. 
The federal lawsuit involves the following states: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Republicans vow to probe EPA paid leave linked to 'alleged serious misconduct'

EXCLUSIVE: Republican legislators, as they prepare for the incoming 114^th Congress in January, are vowing to keep a wary eye on the Environmental Protection Agency and its practice of granting paid administrative leave to staffers involved in possible “serious misconduct,” lawmakers tell Fox News.
“Bringing transparency to the EPA will continue to be at the top of our agenda with the new conservative majority,” says Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, ranking member of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee and one of the EPA’s leading critics in the outgoing 113^th Congress.  “EPA has allowed a number of employees to waste millions of taxpayer dollars in the last few years through lax internal controls and substandard management.”
His sentiments are echoed by Rep. Darrell Issa of California, who is finishing up a three-year term as chairman of the powerful House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Issa clashed often with EPA over the strange case of John Beale, a top EPA official who was jailed a year ago for taking more than $800,000 worth of time off from his job while falsely claiming to be a CIA agent.

“Bringing transparency to the EPA will continue to be at the top of our agenda with the new conservative majority.”- Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana

The Beale case, in turn, sparked a recent “early warning” report of EPA’s Office of the Inspector General that revealed eight other agency employees had taken a total of ten years of officially-mandated leave from their jobs. EPA subsequently told Fox News that all eight were involved in alleged serious misconduct cases, and that three had since left the agency.
The agency provided little other information, declaring that it could not comment on any of the three staffers who had left EPA, and in the other cases was constrained to address them “in a way that is consistent with the law.”
So far as Issa is concerned, however, the probing needs to continue.
“As this Committee has investigated over the past year and examined in multiple hearings,” he told Fox News, “EPA management appears to persist in its ongoing pattern of failure to properly address employee misconduct at the agency. Questions remain regarding the EPA’s management of these cases of misconduct -- and taxpayer money being wasted by keeping these individuals on the payroll instead of taking common-sense disciplinary actions.”
The big question is whether the Republicans who chair both of those powerful committees will share that sense of priority.
The new chairman of the Republican-controlled EPW committee starting in January is James Inhofe of Oklahoma, one of the leading critics of the Obama administration’s aggressive climate change agenda.
Inhofe is likely to have plenty to do in addressing that agenda, where EPA is taking a leading role in propounding a wave of new clean-air regulations, for example, that its critics declare are excessive and likely to be crippling to U.S. industry, as well as highly expensive for consumers.
Issa’s successor in the House Oversight job is Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, a highly regarded congressman who played an aggressive role in the committee’s probing of the Benghazi scandal, among other things.
Setting the agenda of both committees, however, is a task that the newly reconstituted membership can only take up in January.

GOP lawmakers, Benghazi survivors fume over House report

A recent report by a GOP-led committee that was seen as going easy on the Obama administration's Benghazi response is drawing stinging complaints from a number of Republicans on the panel, as well as survivors of the attack. 
Some GOP members on the House Intelligence Committee grumble that the final product "might as well have been written by the minority," while other House Republicans say they are frustrated with the committee's decision to release a report with so many "holes." 
Several lawmakers point their fingers at the committee's chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. Some members who disagreed with the findings said they stopped going to meetings because of concerns with his handling of the report, and didn't even take part in the final version. 
The report, released last month, found no intelligence lapses in connection with the fatal terror attack. Republican heavyweights like Sen. Lindsey Graham have blasted the findings as "garbage." 
But the findings also drew complaints from survivors, who testified behind closed doors, and caused deep divisions on the committee itself ahead of the report's release. Critical lawmakers wished to remain anonymous due to fear of blowback from Republican leadership. 
While House committee members have remained mostly silent, due to the secretive nature of the committee, some have complained to House Speaker John Boehner about the proceedings for months. Among the concerns was that Rogers was focusing strictly on the debate over the changed so-called "talking points" -- the administration's flawed narrative of the attack that initially blamed a protest over an anti-Islam film. Other Republicans on the committee, though, wanted the focus to be broader. 
Frustrations with Rogers have been boiling for more than a year, but nobody wanted to openly question the chairman with a midterm election looming, fearing it would give the media the chance to focus on Republican infighting rather than the issues. 
Even one Democrat on the committee said, "Rogers was more dismissive at times than Democrat members." 
No members would officially give consent to use their names, but all continue to question controversial maneuvers by Rogers and some members of his staff. 
"Rogers' staffers know more about some highly sensitive issues than some members. There is major stonewalling with information to other Republican members of the committee from Mike and some of his staffers," one House member who asked to go unnamed due to fear of backlash from GOP leadership told Fox News. "There is a lot of fighting and pressures behind the scenes and even some members oddly defending the Obama administration." 
Committee spokeswoman Susan Phalen said late Wednesday, "All members of HPSCI were given numerous opportunities to voice their views, comment on the report, or speak publicly or privately about the process. If any member disagreed with the process or outcome, every opportunity was made available for that member to voice his or her concerns."
She added no member wrote to express any frustration.
So why the internal battles? Why the struggle with members of the same party over a scandal that still has so many questions unanswered and an administration that still is vulnerable and unwilling to fully cooperate with the investigation? 
Now, at least five survivors contacted by Fox News say they too are frustrated and concerned their testimony is not fully represented. Kris Paronto and John Tiegan, both members of the CIA Annex Security Team who responded to the attack in Benghazi, say the report has major flaws. 
Paronto said: "Mike Rogers asked me ... 'Do you think that the delay cost lives?' ... and I looked him squarely in the eyes saying 'yes ... definitely.' We were told to wait and delayed three times which caused the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. Why would the report say otherwise or our words be disregarded?" 
Paronto's concern is echoed by others on the ground that night in Benghazi. While official timelines have differed and stories from the State Department and administration changed, the story from the men and women on the ground has remained steadfast. 
"As I stated for the FBI, CIA and House intel committee, we were delayed, held back, told to stand down, however you want to put it," Paronto said. "We finally left without authorization. I only wish we had disobeyed orders sooner, because not only would we have rescued the five State Department security guys, we would have stopped the terrorists before they killed the ambassador and Sean Smith." Yet this account doesn't jibe with the report released by Rogers' committee last month.   
Tiegan adds, "We provided the same unchanging and accurate information of what took place in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 through September 12, 2012 to our immediate chain of command in the CIA's office of security, during several FBI interviews, and to Congressman Rogers and his committee. So it comes as a very big disappointment to us as those on the front lines that this report is full of inaccuracies and bias." 
Phelan, while calling the loss of American lives in Benghazi a "tragedy," added "ultimately the opinion of one witness about what could have or might have happened is not credible evidence."
Their frustrations and concerns are echoed by members of the committee and others who have watched the hearings closely. Paronto, who along with Tiegen and others testified in front of the committee behind closed doors, said, "I think some people in Washington knew what was going on that evening in real time, and could not, or worse, would not make the tactically correct decisions ... and when Ambassador Stevens died, they wanted to cover their butts." 
The State Department and CIA weren't the only entities involved. Some operators in Benghazi on the night of the attack, who are still working for U.S. agencies, insist there were at least eight elected members of Congress read in on controversial operations that were ongoing in the country, including some Republicans. Operators also tell Fox News that many of these operatives and operations were completely unknown to the Libyan government and that would have caused an international incident if they were revealed. They wonder whether that is the reason some Republicans have allegedly been treading lightly. 
The frustrations with House intelligence and leadership also has extended to the new Benghazi Select Committee chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. Sources have said they were told to wait until after the midterm to truly go after information and even as they do, information leaks about witnesses, proceedings and details has hindered the process. 
As the investigation has picked up since the election, sources also say that the Gowdy-led commission has concerns about major pieces of information that the Rogers committee didn't take into consideration and important witnesses that were never called by the chairman. One survivor who has to remain anonymous because he still works on highly sensitive U.S. operations told Fox News, "I kept waiting for a phone call ... and nobody ever came."

Justice Department to investigate Eric Garner case

The Justice Department is planning to conduct a federal investigation into the chokehold death of an unarmed black male after a New York City grand jury declined to indict the white police officer who performed the move, Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday.
The probe will look for a potential civil rights investigations in the death of Eric Garner. Garner, 43, was confronted by police officers on July 17 on suspicion of selling loose cigarettes. A video shot by an onlooker shows a police officer choking Garner and Garner repeatedly saying he could not breathe.
Holder said this is one of "several recent incidents that have tested the sense of trust that must exist between law enforcement and the communities they are charged to serve and protect." Both cases have put law-enforcement officers under a microscope on how they use excessive force to arrests minorities.
"This is not a New York issue or a Ferguson issue alone," Holder told reporters late Wednesday. "Those who have protested peacefully across our great nation following the grand jury's decision in Ferguson have made that clear."
Separately, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said he had spoken with Holder and Loretta Lynch, the U.S. attorney for the eastern district of New York who has been nominated as Holder's successor, and was told that the federal investigation into the death will now move forward.
The investigation was announced Wednesday night, hours after the Staten Island grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Daniel Pantaleo. The grand jury could have considered charges ranging from murder to reckless endangerment.
The Justice Department had been monitoring the outcome of the local investigation before announcing its own probe. That investigation will be similar to a separate federal one already underway into the Aug. 9 shooting death in Ferguson of Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old. A county grand jury in that case decided last week to not indict the white officer, Darren Wilson.
To mount a federal prosecution in police misconduct cases, officials have to satisfy an extremely difficult legal standard — that the officer willfully violated a victim's civil rights and used more force than the law allowed. Though the legal standard will be the same in both the Ferguson and New York cases, there are important differences between the two investigations, said William Yeomans, a former Justice Department civil rights official.
"One big difference, and one thing I think makes this an easier investigation, is the existence of videotape," Yeomans said. "We didn't have that in Ferguson, and we would know much more about what happened in Ferguson if we had."
The chokehold maneuver is banned under New York Police Department guidelines. Police union officials and Pantaleo’s lawyer both argued that he used a legal takedown move because Garner was resisting arrest.
The medical examiner ruled Garner's death a homicide and found that a chokehold contributed to it.