Archive for the ‘Government Corruption’ Category

Goodbye Eric Holder

by Alan Caruba on Friday, September 26th, 2014

This is article 460 of 461 in the topic Government Corruption
By Alan Caruba
In a nation where there is a scarcity of good news, hearing Eric Holder give a farewell speech upon his announcement that he will be leaving as the Attorney General was surely welcome in some circles. I was never a fan of his because he was in my opinion always more of a politician than someone with the responsibility to enforce the laws of the nation.
I first took notice of Holder when, in the pre-dawn hours of April 22, 2000, as the deputy attorney general serving under Janet Reno, he oversaw the seizure of Elian Gonzalez, a seven-year-old whose mother had died in an effort to escape Cuba and find sanctuary in the United States. Holder was doing what he had to do after a court ruled that Gonzalez be returned to his father in Cuba, but I thought then and still do that Gonzalez should have been allowed to remain with his U.S. relatives.
When Barack Obama became President, he selected Holder as his Attorney General. Both had made history being the first blacks to hold either job. Within three weeks or so, Holder was saying that Americans were “cowards” for not addressing issues of race in America. That told me all I needed to know about him. Whatever would follow would frequently be judged on the basis of race, not justice. I wouldn’t want a white attorney general to act in that fashion, but a black one nursing feelings of victimization despite his personal achievements did not bode well.
I have not been alone in my misgivings. On news of Holder’s announcement, The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank, called on some of its advisors for their opinions.
Ronald D. Rotunda, the Doy & Dee Henley Chair and Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at Chapman University, had his own memories of Holder:
“Mr. Holder is leaving the office, but he cannot so easily leave the controversies that have surrounded his tenure, including: the scandal surrounding the IRS, the missing emails, and his role in investigating the scandal; the ‘Fast and Furious’ scandal, which made him the first cabinet member in U.S. history that Congress held in contempt; his decision to drop a prosecution against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation, after the Department of Justice successfully secured an injunction; and the unprecedented decision, which Holder personally approved,  to subpoena, monitor, and issue a search warrant involving James Rosen, a Fox News Reporter”
“Holder will leave the office, but is unlikely to leave the national stage because these controversies remain,” said Prof. Rotunda.
Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director of the Association of Physicians and Surgeons, said:
“The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons first got to know Eric Holder when he represented the government in our lawsuit about the illegal operations of the Clinton Task Force on Health Care Reform. The pattern then was stonewalling and obfuscation. Even when task force members finally turned over some documents on court order, many of the floppy disks were blank. Holder declined to prosecute Ira Magaziner, head of the Task Force Working Group, for perjury.”
‘It seems,” said Dr. Orient, “that some government officials never learn that the cover-up can be worse than the underlying conduct,’’ Judge Lamberth added.

Click to continue reading “Goodbye Eric Holder”
Go straight to Post

Obama Administration Fails the Transparency Test

by Roger Aronoff on Thursday, September 25th, 2014

This is article 459 of 461 in the topic Government Corruption

We have often pointed out the incestuous relationship that exists between the Obama administration and the mainstream media—a media that have largely bought the administration’s line that matters such as Benghazi, Operation Fast and Furious, and the IRS abuses amount to phony scandals. Throughout his presidency, President Obama has assumed control over media messaging by restricting the information and sources that journalists can access, while simultaneously providing prepackaged products that serve as government-sponsored press releases that the media are welcome to use. And, so far, the media have bent to these restrictions with little protest.

Where, for example, is the mainstream media protest that they are not allowed to embed with the soldiers conducting the air war against the Islamic State? “As the United States ramps up its fight against Islamic militants, the public can’t see any of it,” states one of eight criticisms from Sally Buzbee, Associated Press Washington Bureau Chief. “News organizations can’t shoot photos or video of bombers as they take off—there are no embeds. In fact, the administration won’t even say what country the S. bombers fly from.”

In fact, the information regarding Syrian attacks is provided by the government. “At a briefing for reporters, military officials showed photographs and video of before and after shots of the targets hit in Syria,” reported The New York Times on September 23. Perhaps the Obama administration doesn’t want reporters embedded in the fight against the Islamic State because it fears that the closer to the front line they are, the more journalists may be kidnapped and beheaded by terrorists and videos of such beheadings disseminated as vile propaganda. Or maybe they don’t want the world to see the collateral damage that will surely occur.

The dearth of first-hand journalism allowed by the administration has resulted in creative maneuvers by the press here at home, as well. The Washington Post ran a video on its website’s Post TV that was little more than a clip of a Whitehouse.gov segment—without commentary to clarify President Obama’s speech. And, during our border crisis and rapid influx of illegal immigrants, the Obama administration forbade the press to take pictures or ask questions during their visit to Fort Sill. Instead, government officials promised they would provide sanctioned photographs later.

Now, The Washington Post reports how even the most minute details are deleted or massaged by the White House from press pool reports. Such pool reports “are supposed to be the news media’s eyes and ears on the president, an independent chronicle of his public activities. They are written by reporters for other reporters, who incorporate them into news articles about President Obama almost every day,” reports Paul Farhi for the Post.

“Journalists who cover the White House say Obama’s press aides have demanded—and received—changes in press-pool reports before the reports have been disseminated to other journalists,” reports Farhi. “They say the White House has used its unusual role as the distributor of the reports as leverage to steer coverage in a more favorable direction.”

What exactly is going on with the most “transparent” administration ever? Doesn’t it value press freedom? And what about a little self-respect from the media, which would never allow a Republican administration to treat them this way?

Perhaps the media won’t be silent on this issue for much longer.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

The Unvetted, the Compromised, and the Blackmailed

by Cliff Kincaid on Sunday, September 14th, 2014

This is article 458 of 461 in the topic Government Corruption

The administration that failed to adequately “vet” Edward Snowden is saying that it has “vetted” rebels in Syria for U.S. support. “We have a Free Syrian Army and a moderate opposition that we have steadily been working with that we have vetted,” Obama told “Meet the Press” last Sunday. Our media never bother to ask for any proof of this. Who performed the vetting? How was it done?

The Obama administration doesn’t have a very good record of vetting anybody, starting at the top.

The term “vetting” means to “make a careful and critical examination of.” Another definition is to “investigate someone thoroughly, especially in order to ensure that they are suitable for a job requiring secrecy, loyalty, or trustworthiness.”

The scandals in this area keep on coming. “The Office of Personnel Management will not renew any of its contracts with USIS [US Investigations Services], the major Falls Church, Va., contractor that provides the bulk of background checks for federal security clearances and was the victim of a recent cyberattack,” The Washington Post reported on Wednesday. The paper said that USIS had conducted background clearances for National Security Agency “leaker” Edward Snowden, who fled to Moscow after disclosing secret intelligence operations to Glenn Greenwald and others.

Snowden is now living in Moscow under the protection of Vladimir Putin’s secret police. Greenwald was awarded a Pulitzer Prize.

Snowden’s leaks have made it possible for America’s enemies to go on the offensive from Ukraine to the Middle East, helping to create the foreign policy problems that Obama is now pretending to confront.

USIS reported that it served “more than 20 federal agencies and has historically completed 40% of the background investigations for the U.S. Government each year, conducting approximately 21,000 background investigations per month.”

It also claims that the company “followed all OPM-mandated procedures and protocols in its background investigation of Edward Snowden.” OPM is the federal Office of Personnel Management.

So the vetters are pointing fingers.

Meanwhile, the New York Post reports that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio “does not have [a] security clearance to get classified information from the feds—unlike his two predecessors—and he has never even bothered to apply for it…” The paper added, “A law enforcement source said Tuesday that if de Blasio does apply for clearance, he will have to endure an arduous vetting process that would include questions about his 1991 trip to Communist Cuba and support of the Marxist Sandinista regime during his visit to Nicaragua in the 1980s.”

Would it be the same as the “arduous vetting process” that cleared Snowden? Snowden was a high school dropout who contributed to the Ron Paul for president campaign. That was enough to get him jobs at the CIA and NSA.

As we noted at the time, de Blasio didn’t disavow his communist background once it came to light. However, he did still insist—to much laughter—that his trip to Cuba was a “honeymoon.”

Obama decided to cover up, at least in some respects. He concealed as just “Frank,” the identity of a Communist Party operative who mentored him during his growing up years in Hawaii. Analyst Trevor Loudon discovered the real identity of “Frank,” and we confirmed it.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Two years after Benghazi massacre Obama administration faces more lawsuits

by Jim Kouri on Friday, September 12th, 2014

This is article 457 of 461 in the topic Government Corruption

On Wednesday, the same day that denizens of America’s newsrooms breathlessly awaited the speech by the Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, and the day before the second-anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terrorist attack, a Beltway watchdog group reported that it had filed three additional Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits against both the Department of State and the Defense Department.

The goal of filing these lawsuits is have a federal judge order the Obama administration to provide government records, emails and reports regarding what occurred immediately before, during, and after the deadly Islamist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans — including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens — mortally wounded.

Earlier this year Judicial Watch forced the Obama administration through a federal judge to release an email from Obama’s Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes. That email revealed that it was members of the White House staff who created what amounted to fraudulent talking points. Those talking points claimed that an Internet video blaspheming the Prophet Mohammad and the spontaneous demonstrations over that video were the reason for the Benghazi attack.

It was the revelation of that specific email, which the White House kept from members of Congress, that led to Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, to request and obtain House approval for a special Select Committee on Benghazi — under the leadership of former criminal prosecutor, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina — to probe all aspects of the Benghazi scandal.

Hillary Clinton’s extensive notes

During one of her televised interviews promoting yet another memoir, Obama’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned that she “took extensive notes during the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi. When she was asked if those notes would be given to the House’s Benghazi Select Committee, she cleverly responded, “They can read the book.” But Judicial Watch is now responding: “[Our] lawsuit could force Clinton to turn over all notes taken {before], during, and following the attack.”‘

“When I saw that interview, I was disgusted with Hillary [Clinton] and the entire Obama government. How easy to be flippant about an incident that killed four good men, one of whom she claimed was her friend. I feel sorry for Judicial Watch and anyone else seeking answers to Benghazi. They’re dealing with two of the most deceitful American politicians in recent history: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama,” said political strategist and attorney Mike Baker.

In a shocking revelation, Judicial Watch has stated that, so far, it has filed 40 FOIA requests, a Mandatory Declassification Review, and seven lawsuits against the Obama administration relating to the Benghazi terrorist attack.

“Once again, we are going to court to force the Obama administration to come clean about the events surrounding the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, Libya,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Hillary Clinton’s flippant refusal to make available the notes she took during the attack fits right in with the Obama administration’s pattern of obstruction. This administration, which promised to be the ‘most transparent in history’ has turned out to be one the most secretive.

Click to continue reading “Two years after Benghazi massacre Obama administration faces more lawsuits”
Go straight to Post

President Obama’s Credibility Is in Short Supply

by Roger Aronoff on Wednesday, September 10th, 2014

This is article 1004 of 1007 in the topic Obama

President Barack Obama has consistently deceived the American people when called out on statements that he’s made in the past, but the media have not consistently reported on these often farcical inconsistencies. However, the President’s recent “evolution” regarding the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a Sunni militant group active in those countries that has been beheading kidnapped American journalists, has been so obvious that it could not fail to spark some media criticism. So, too, are the President’s contradictory comments on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And much, much more.

Back in January of this year, President Obama referred to ISIS as the junior varsity team and said, “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.” Now that ISIS is terrorizing Americans, not just Iraqis, the danger seems more imminent to the average citizen, and President Obama finds it politically necessary to deny ever downplaying the threat.

To that end, he recently sent out Press Secretary Josh Earnest, who contended in a press conference that “…the President was not singling out [ISIS], he was talking about the very different threat that is posed by a range of extremists around the globe.” One of those groups is Ansar al Sharia (AAS). State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki argued, also in January, that AAS is not an “official affiliate” of al Qaeda, despite the fact that its leadership has ties to al Qaeda and formerly to Osama bin Laden himself.

How useful are these distinctions, really, when all of these terrorist organizations are intent on killing Americans?

Earnest earned four Pinocchios from The Washington Post’s Fact Checker Glenn Kessler for “Spinning Obama’s reference to Islamic State as a ‘JV’ team.” It is clear from the exchange that the question posed was specifically about ISIS. David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker magazine conducted several interviews with the President, but this one was just days after ISIS took control of Fallujah in Iraq. Obama made the JV (Junior Varsity) reference (“…if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”), and then Remnick said, “But that JV team just took over Fallujah.” Obama replied, “I understand. But when you say took over Fallujah…let’s just keep in mind, Fallujah is a profoundly Sunni city…”

Yet again on Meet the Press on Sunday, September 7th, Chuck Todd raised the JV issue, asking the President if his use of the term JV to describe ISIS was “bad intelligence or your misjudgment?” Obama replied, “Keep, keep, keep in mind that I wasn’t specifically referring to ISIL.”

But the President’s and Earnest’s dissembling doesn’t end there. In early August, Josh Earnest said, “There are no military solutions to the very difficult problems that exist in Iraq now.” Then, on August 28, President Obama admitted on camera that he doesn’t “want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet.”

America’s strategy against ISIS is clearly not transparent to President Obama himself.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Probe of inspectors general complaints against Obama Justice Dept. to begin

by Jim Kouri on Wednesday, September 10th, 2014

This is article 456 of 461 in the topic Government Corruption

On Tuesday, the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee will hold a special hearing titled, “Access to Justice?: Does DOJ’s Office of Inspector General have Access to Information Needed to Conduct Proper Oversight?” to investigate allegations that the Obama Administration has been stonewalling the investigations conducted by its own Inspector General at the Department of Justice, according to lawmakers.

According to a number of news reports including one by the Examiner, 47 of the 73 federal Inspectors General wrote a letter to congressional leaders complaining about the Obama administration’s limitations placed on getting access to records that in turn interferes with oversight by the Inspectors General at federal agencies, including the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice.

While federal law makes it clear that an Inspector General should receive timely and “unfettered access to all records that relate to its official activities,” in their letter of complaint they claimed that “the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General had essential records withheld by agency components in three different reviews” and that the Department of Justice leadership only produced the requested documents after it decided that “the three reviews were of assistance to the Department of Justice’s leadership.”

A key witness who will testify at the hearing is the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz, who is expected to focus attention on a problem that has plagued the United States and its people almost from the start of the supposedly “most transparent White House in history.”

During an interview on Fox News, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, called the letter unprecedented. “I’ve never seen a letter like this, and my folks have checked — there has never been a letter even with a dozen IGs complaining. This is the majority of all inspectors general saying not just in the examples they gave, but government wide, they see a pattern that is making them unable to do their job.” Issa chairs the House Oversight Committee which has been at the forefront of numerous probes of Obama-related scandals.

“It’s deeply troubling that Department of Justice leadership has stonewalled the Inspector General’s investigations several times and only produced requested documents after officials concluded that it would help them. The Inspector General’s activities should not be dependent upon the whims of a particular administration. Efforts to restrict or delay an Inspector General’s access to key materials in turn deprive the American people and their elected representatives of timely oversight information with which to evaluate an agency’s performance,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia.

“Limiting access, except in very narrow instances, is at odds with the necessary independence of Inspectors General and is contrary to Congressional intent. Efforts to reduce transparency, such as those described by the Inspectors General, will leave agencies vulnerable to mismanagement and misconduct, and will not be tolerated,” Goodlatte noted.

Several observers, especially those working in law enforcement, find the stonewalling and lack of cooperation criminal. “There are people in prison who have done the same things this President and his minions do on almost a daily basis. It’s called obstruction of justice,” stated former police detective, now a corporate security director, Matthew Hyland, Jr.

Go straight to Post

Fox News’ Special Re-ignites the Benghazi Scandal

by Roger Aronoff on Monday, September 8th, 2014

This is article 246 of 246 in the topic Congressional Investigations

Fox News aired new revelations this weekend in its documentary based on the forthcoming book, 13 Hours in Benghazi, but the left is not interested in what it calls old news. Benghazi is a “phony scandal,” right?

In fact, the left is on the defensive about this story, and is releasing salvos from all quarters. The Washington Post, The New York Times, Media Matters, and the Democratic members of the Select Committee have all gotten involved in the effort to dismiss what eyewitnesses have said about what happened that night, sometimes preemptively, as I cited in a previous column. Their message is loud and clear: This has already been investigated thoroughly; both sides agree that there was no wrongdoing other than bureaucratic missteps; this is another Fox News story and a phony scandal at that. Time to move on.

But nothing could be further from the truth.

What cannot be undone now is that eyewitnesses have publicly spoken out about what happened in Benghazi two years ago. What they say threatens to haunt the left’s strategy machine, which seems more concerned with spin than finding the truth.

Three contractors who were on the ground in Benghazi two years ago during the attacks on the U.S. Mission and CIA Annex said on Fox News that they were told specifically to “stand down” three times before defying orders, and heading out to try and save the personnel at the U.S. Mission, which was under fire—quite literally—less than a mile away from the Annex, where they were located at the time. They were delayed by 25 minutes, and say they could have possibly saved the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith if they’d been allowed to depart sooner. As a matter of fact, they all said that they believe the two would still be alive today had they been allowed to leave when they first made the request.

Washington Post writer Eric Wemple apparently received an advance copy of the book and said that these claims written therein, and previously reported by Jennifer Griffin in October 2012, were exaggerated for effect and “report after report has shredded this contention.” This is, of course, the line in the book that he voiced a problem with, saying it was mined for “maximum literary effect:”

“The more time the attackers had to dig in, the more likely they’d secure the Compound perimeter and organize defensive positions, at least until they achieved their objectives.”

“Maximum literary effect?” One wonders what world Wemple inhabits. Wemple points readers to the media’s favorite left-wing group, Media Matters, which also ran a hit piece on the broadcast sight unseen.

The day the documentary first aired, September 5th, the Democrats on the Select Committee on Benghazi went into full damage control mode. Representative Elijah Cummings (MD) stated that “these individuals were delayed while their supervisor attempted to ensure that he was not sending his team into an ambush,” the intelligence committees have already spoke to multiple witnesses on this issue, and “it is critical that the Select Committee understand what came before it to ensure we are not re-investigating the same issues all over again.” In other words, look somewhere else for your smoking gun. How many other topics are conveniently off limits for Rep. Cummings?

Rep.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Eric Holder and racial cases: Abusing the power of the federal government in the Trayvon Martin and Ferguson, MO cases?

by John Lott on Friday, September 5th, 2014

This is article 455 of 461 in the topic Government Corruption
US Attorney General Eric Holder is still trying to go after George Zimmerman.  Dragging out the legal case like this over years imposes massive costs on George Zimmerman — not only does it impose legal costs on him, but it makes it very difficult for him to plan his life.  Holder’s actions here are a real criminal penalty that are being imposed on Zimmerman.  Either charge Zimmerman with something or eventually let go of the case.  From Grabien.com:

REPORTER: “There is a big announcement that you made years ago about the investigation in Trayvon Martin shooting. Have you ever finished that civil rights investigation? Are you ever going to finish that?

HOLDER: “That investigation is ongoing. In fact, in anticipation of that question, I was asked — I asked, give me, you know, the best we can where do we stand. That matter is ongoing. There are active steps we are still in the process of taking. There are witnesses who we want to speak to as a result of some recent development. So that matter is still underway.”

Here is another clip from the same press conference about how the federal government can use its massive resources to make life difficult for a small town, when it appears that Holder made up his mind before any evidence was actually collected.  From Grabien.com:

REPORTER: “Mr. Attorney General, can you give us a little more texture on why you decided to launch this investigation? Your own conversations there — you talk about review of documented allegations. Give us the universe of what went into this.

MORAN: “We looked at a number of things in our initial and preliminary assessment and whether or not to open the investigation. It included not only discussions that the Attorney General had with residents of Ferguson two weeks ago but also, other meetings that the Civil rights division and Community relations service and other Justice Department officials have had with residents. We’ve looked of course at public records and other pieces of information that are available to make an assessment that this was indeed an appropriate opening for a pattern and practice investigation. Moreover, the civil rights division met with city leaders in Ferguson yesterday and they expressed a strong willingness to assist us, and in fact were extremely open to this investigation. So we will have cooperation from our local residents.”

REPORTER: “What public records are we talking about?”

MORAN: “There are a number of pieces of information that we looked at which would have included demographics and public records related to cases that may have been filed by private litigants. There are a number of different things we looked at.”

REPORTER: “Mr. Attorney General, what about your visit struck you to the point where you felt comfortable able to move forward with the investigation?

Click to continue reading “Eric Holder and racial cases: Abusing the power of the federal government in the Trayvon Martin and Ferguson, MO cases?”
Go straight to Post

Former DOJ attorney accuses Obama, Kerry, Clinton of RICO charges

by Jim Kouri on Monday, September 1st, 2014

This is article 454 of 461 in the topic Government Corruption

A former criminal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday filed a RICO ( Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) complaint in federal court in the District of Columbia against President Barack Obama and present or former members of his administration — including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry — for their alleged material support for the terrorist group Hamas.

According to a 54-page RICO complaint filed in civil court by attorney Larry Klayman, who served in the Reagan Department of Justice, the defendants in the complaint created and used a State Department “slush fund” to provide the Islamic terrorist group Hamas millions of taxpayer dollars despite the group being listed as a designated terrorist organization.

Hamas is an extremist Muslim organization considered a subsidiary of Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood. Klayman, on behalf of several family members of dual-citizens (Israel and the United States) who were killed by Hamas members, filed the complaint against: President Barack Hussein Obama; Hamas; Secretary of State John Kerry; former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations; and President Obama’s half-brother Malik Obama who is listed as an officer with the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a U.S. corporation.

While Obama’s sycophants call Klayman a Republican partisan, his past lawsuits were filed against Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and other Democrats and Republicans.

Klayman, who founded Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch, while a DOJ prosecutor is credited with helping to break up AT&T in a landmark case. On behalf of the complainants he has filed a civil lawsuit –Case No. 14-1484 — under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act “RICO” for criminal acts. Freedom Watch is a nonpartisan, nonprofit government watchdog that claims to use the civil court system to expose political and government corruption regardless of party affiliation.

The complaint alleges that defendants laundered cash and gave it to the terrorist group Hamas who control the Gaza Strip that borders Israel. “This money has been been foreseeably used to buy rockets and construct tunnels to attack Israel and terrorize and kill American and dual American-Israeli citizens who reside or are located in Israel,” according to Klayman.

The RICO complaint filed on Thursday accuses President Obama, Secretary Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and others of being involved in a conspiracy to provide hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars to Hamas. While the money was given as humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people it was allegedly used to purchased weapons including guns, rocket propelled grenades and launchers, missiles, and other military contraband. It was allegedly used to also purchase materials to build hidden tunnels to be used by terrorists to attack targets in Israel.

According to news stories from Voice of America (VOA) and the New York Times, when Hamas’ chief financial officer’s bomb-charred auto was examined by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) “they confirmed that these U.S.

Click to continue reading “Former DOJ attorney accuses Obama, Kerry, Clinton of RICO charges”
Go straight to Post

IRS corruption: Lerner destroyed Blackberry containing subpoenaed emails

by Jim Kouri on Thursday, August 28th, 2014

This is article 305 of 307 in the topic Taxation/IRS

On the same day as a public-interest watchdog announced that alleged IRS conspirator Lois Lerner’s “lost or missing” subpoenaed emails were intentionally not retrieved, it was learned on Monday that Lerner intentionally destroyed her Blackberry. The device was rendered useless well after it was known that her office desktop computer crashed and she was anticipating having to appear before a panel of lawmakers, according to information from federalJudge Emmet Sullivan’s court.

An IRS official declared under oath, that the destroyed Blackberry contained the same subpoenaed emails (both sent and received) as Lois Lerner’s computer hard-drive. Judge Sullivan had decided the best way to arrive at the truth with the suspected IRS conspirators was to have them give sworn-testimony so any false statement would lead to criminal charges of perjury or obstruction of justice.

On Monday, the Examiner reported that the Department of Justice attorneys on behalf of the IRS reported to Judicial Watch that Lois Lerner’s “lost” emails, in fact all information stored on government computers, “are backed up by the federal government in case of a government-wide catastrophe.”

“The Obama administration attorneys said that this back-up system would be too onerous to search. The DOJ attorneys also acknowledged that the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) is investigating this back-up system,” according to Judicial Watch.

The IRS’ deputy chief information officer, Stephen Manning, claimed that Lerner’s hard drive crashed in June 2011 and was later trashed by IRS. Then the IRS claimed that the emails of a number of other IRS officials were also missing in similar “crashes,” an event that many experts said was next to impossible and highly improbable.

Judge Sullivan reportedly has been relentless in forcing the IRS to provide information about the alleged IRS corruption and the Judicial Watch lawsuit that has provided more information about the emails than the congressional investigators.

This new information regarding IRS deceitfulness is connected with officials from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeting of conservative and Tea Party non-profit organizations for excessive scrutiny at the behest of former IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner.

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin