“As long as the president asserts executive privilege to cloud the whole question of failures at the ATF, I don’t think he stands on high ground to have a Senate-confirmed permanent director,” Issa said. “Ultimately, he should have the U.S. attorney who is acting [director] quit his day job back home and work 100 percent on the ATF.”
Becca Glover Watkins, deputy communications director for the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Jan. 18 that Issa’s earlier comment was not intended to be a “broad, sweeping” statement about the agency’s leadership and that the chairman instead was drawing attention to the fact that Jones now performs two demanding jobs simultaneously.
“Whoever is at the head of the ATF needs to be doing it full time,” she said.
Issa is not the only influential member of Congress who has concerns about Jones’ nomination to the ATF. Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, raised questions about Jones’ ties to Fast and Furious after Obama announced the nomination as part of the gun control proposals he outlined Jan. 16. In selecting Jones, Obama abandoned his previous choice for the job, Andrew L. Traver, whose nomination languished in the Judiciary Committee for more than two years.
“The new nominee, B. Todd Jones, is a familiar face to the committee, but his ties to the Fast and Furious scandal raise serious questions,” Grassley said in a statement.
The Fast and Furious operation has been a confrontation point between the Obama administration and the Republican-led House, which voted June 28 to hold Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress for failing to turn over documents Issa has sought. Issa’s committee is suing Holder in federal court in the District of Columbia to obtain a judicial order forcing the administration to release the documents.
In his statement Jan. 18, Issa identified six specific concerns that he has about Jones as a result of Fast and Furious. He accused Jones of failing to hold responsible officials accountable for the operation; failing to express support for whistle-blowers who called attention to it; demonstrating a “perceived hostility” to those whistle-blowers; “affording special treatment” to a supervisor involved in the operation; showing an “unwillingness to engage Congress”; and failing to “apply lessons” from the scandal.