Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 30, 2012, 02:19:57 PM
-
Repugnant. The POTUS attacking private citizens. Where is the MSM? ::)
Strassel: The President Has a List
Barack Obama attempts to intimidate contributors to Mitt Romney's campaign.
April 26, 2012
Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.
Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.
Richard Nixon's "enemies list" appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.
Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."
These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."
These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.
"We don't tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things," says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. "When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys' names up on 'Wanted' posters in government offices." Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He's been ignored.
The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.
He's targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama's real aim.
The White House has couched its attacks in the language of "disclosure" and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, "he's doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies." Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.
It's getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House's new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.
The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to "hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable," but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn't going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn't deserve to be one.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577368280604524916.html
-
Repugnant. The POTUS attacking private citizens. Where is the MSM? ::)
agreed the story is huge and worthy of attention.
FOX has more importatnt stories:
Judge Stops Texas From Cutting Off Women's Clinic
-
agreed the story is huge and worthy of attention.
FOX has more importatnt stories:
Judge Stops Texas From Cutting Off Women's Clinic
::)
-
Here's what happens when the president of the United States publicly targets a private citizen for the crime of supporting his opponent.
Frank VanderSloot is the CEO of Melaleuca Inc. The 63-year-old has run that wellness-products company for 26 years out of tiny Idaho Falls, Idaho. Last August, Mr. VanderSloot gave $1 million to Restore Our Future, the Super PAC that supports Mitt Romney.
Three weeks ago, an Obama campaign website, "Keeping GOP Honest," took the extraordinary step of publicly naming and assailing eight private citizens backing Mr. Romney. Titled "Behind the curtain: a brief history of Romney's donors," the post accused the eight of being "wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records." Mr. VanderSloot was one of the eight, smeared particularly as being "litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement."
Enlarge Image
Associated Press
About a week after that post, a man named Michael Wolf contacted the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls in search of court records regarding Mr. VanderSloot. Specifically, Mr. Wolf wanted all the documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot's divorces, as well as a case involving a dispute with a former Melaleuca employee.
Mr. Wolf sent a fax to the clerk's office—which I have obtained—listing four cases he was after. He would later send a second fax, asking for three further court cases dealing with either Melaleuca or Mr. VanderSloot. Mr. Wolf listed only his name and a private cellphone number.
Some digging revealed that Mr. Wolf was, until a few months ago, a law clerk on the Democratic side of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He's found new work. The ID written out at the top of his faxes identified them as coming from "Glenn Simpson." That's the name of a former Wall Street Journal reporter who in 2009 founded a D.C. company that performs private investigative work.
The website for that company, Fusion GPS, describes itself as providing "strategic intelligence," with expertise in areas like "politics." That's a polite way of saying "opposition research."
When I called Fusion's main number and asked to speak to Michael Wolf, a man said Mr. Wolf wasn't in the office that day but he'd be in this coming Monday. When I reached Mr. Wolf on his private cell, he confirmed he had until recently worked at the Senate.
When I asked what his interest was in Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records, he hesitated, then said he didn't want to talk about that. When I asked what his relationship was with Fusion, he hesitated again and said he had "no comment." "It's a legal thing," he added.
Fusion dodged my calls, so I couldn't ask who was paying it to troll through Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. Mr. Simpson finally sent an email stating: "Frank VanderSloot is a figure of interest in the debate over civil rights for gay Americans. As his own record on gay issues amply demonstrates, he is a legitimate subject of public records research into his lengthy history of legal disputes."
Related Video
Columnist Kim Strassel on President Obama's enemies list. Photo: Associated Press
A look through Federal Election Commission records did not show any payments to Fusion or Mr. Wolf from political players, such as the Democratic National Committee, the Obama campaign, or liberal Super PACs. Then again, when political groups want to hire researchers, it is not uncommon to hire a less controversial third party, which then hires the researchers.
This is not the first attack on Mr. VanderSloot. While the executive has been a force in Idaho politics and has helped Mr. Romney raise money, he's not what most would consider a national political power player. Through 2011, nearly every mention of Mr. VanderSloot appeared in Idaho or Washington state newspapers, often in reference to his business.
That changed in January, with the first Super PAC disclosures. Liberal bloggers and media have since dug into his past, dredging up long-ago Idaho controversies that touched on gay issues. His detractors have spiraled these into accusations that Mr. VanderSloot is a "gay bashing thug." He's become a national political focus of attention, aided by the likes of partisan Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald and MSNBC host Rachel Maddow. Bloggers have harassed his children, visiting their social media accounts and asking for interviews and information.
Mr. VanderSloot has said his attackers have misconstrued facts and made false allegations. In February he wrote a long reply, publicly stating that he has "many gay friends whom I love and respect" who should "have the same freedoms and rights as any other individual." The Obama campaign's response, in April, was to single out Mr. VanderSloot and repeat the slurs.
Political donations don't come with a right to privacy, and Mr. VanderSloot might have expected a spotlight. Then again, President Obama, in the wake of the Gabby Giffords shooting, gave a national address calling for "civility" in politics. Yet rather than condemn those demeaning his opponent's donors, Mr. Obama—the nation's most powerful man—instead publicly named individuals, egging on the attacks. What has followed is the slimy trolling into a citizen's private life.
Mr. VanderSloot acknowledges that "when I first learned that President Obama's campaign had singled me out on his 'enemies list,' I knew it was like taping a target on my back." But the more he's thought it through, "the public beatings and false accusations that followed are no deterrent. These tactics will not work in America." He's even "contemplating a second donation."
Still. If details about Mr. VanderSloot's life become public, and if this hurts his business or those who work for him, Mr. Obama will bear responsibility. This is what happens when the president makes a list.
-
And Mitt Romney is the bully?
-
Opposition research sucks, but it's a part of every race and is done by both parties.
It's going over the line here - trying to discredit DONORS. But even on getbig, we've had threads about "Obama donors arrested for this and that".
Sucks, but it's how politics works and both sides so it, and we silly getbiggers repeat it here too.
-
Opposition research sucks, but it's a part of every race and is done by both parties.
It's going over the line here - trying to discredit DONORS. But even on getbig, we've had threads about "Obama donors arrested for this and that".
Sucks, but it's how politics works and both sides so it, and we silly getbiggers repeat it here too.
Jesus Christ, will you shut the fuck up and go pollute another thread? Every time that I read something you post on here lately it feels like my brain cells are dying.
240= could rationalize Obama killing a squirrel, having sex with its dead body and eating it as some sort of pro life, green jobs initiative that will help keep the timber in our forests safe from multinational corporations that want to exploit rodents for political gain.
-
Businessman Says He Lost Hundreds of Customers After Attacks by Obama Campaign -- (Obama Hit List)
The Weekly Standard ^ | 5/12/2012 | Daniel Halper
Posted on May 12, 2012 10:15:21 AM EDT by GVnana
Businessman Says He Lost Hundreds of Customers After Attacks by Obama Campaign
Obama's enemies list is working
Businessman Frank Vandersloot, the CEO of Melaleuca, has been targeted by the Obama campaign after donating money to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. "Three weeks ago, an Obama campaign website, 'Keeping GOP Honest,' took the extraordinary step of publicly naming and assailing eight private citizens backing Mr. Romney," Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal reported.
Titled 'Behind the curtain: a brief history of Romney's donors,' the post accused the eight of being 'wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.' Mr. VanderSloot was one of the eight, smeared particularly as being 'litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement.'"
The attacks are working. Vandersloot revealed in an interview on Fox News that his business practice is being hurt by the attacks from the Obama team.
"Those people that I know well weren't affected by this [attack]," said Vandersloot. "But for people who didn't know me, who are members of our business or customers, and they were reading this, then we got a barrage of phone calls of people cancelling their customer memberships with us."
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
-
Jesus Christ, will you shut the fuck up and go pollute another thread? Every time that I read something you post on here lately it feels like my brain cells are dying.
240= could rationalize Obama killing a squirrel, having sex with its dead body and eating it as some sort of pro life, green jobs initiative that will help keep the timber in our forests safe from multinational corporations that want to exploit rodents for political gain.
Sad, isn't it? He's a pathetic fuck.
-
Sad, isn't it? He's a pathetic fuck.
He is. He whines when I call him out now, but really? He has morphed into an Obama clone.
-
I see no problem with the Obama campaign informing the public who is donating money to his opponent
Are they ashamed to be supporting Romney?
All donors should be public information
We should be allowed to know who is writing checks to influence our elections
Unless the Obama campaign said somethign about these men that is untrue then I see no problem here at all
btw - the story at the beginning of this thread is from the WSJ so it's not exactly being ignored by the MSM
-
I see no problem with the Obama campaign informing the public who is donating money to his opponent
Are they ashamed to be supporting Romney?
All donors should be public information
We should be allowed to know who is writing checks to influence our elections
Unless the Obama campaign said somethign about these men that is untrue then I see no problem here at all
btw - the story at the beginning of this thread is from the WSJ so it's not exactly being ignored by the MSM
Lol. Yeah, Obama is a unified and positive voice. ::)
-
Lol. Yeah, Obama is a unified and positive voice. ::)
what does that have to do with the topic?
-
Am I missing something? The president has a list? uh... actually everyone has the same list. It's available to anyone that wants to see it, even online. Is it even a new thing that campaigns get attacked for who is on that list? hell no, that happens all the time too.
-
I see no problem with the Obama campaign informing the public who is donating money to his opponent
Are they ashamed to be supporting Romney?
All donors should be public information
We should be allowed to know who is writing checks to influence our elections
Unless the Obama campaign said somethign about these men that is untrue then I see no problem here at all
btw - the story at the beginning of this thread is from the WSJ so it's not exactly being ignored by the MSM
unheard of!!!! The right would never attack someone for donating money to a dem. It's never happened lol.... except for the fact that it happens all the time.
-
unheard of!!!! The right would never attack someone for donating money to a dem. It's never happened lol.... except for the fact that it happens all the time.
Name a time in the recent past where a GOP candidate for anything has directly targeted democratic campaign donors by publicizing their personal information or making their names public.
These "common knowledge" proclamations made by numbskulled sheep to the effect of "nobody is better than anybody else and everybody is the best at everything", has to stop. How about some actual, factual evidence?
Yeah I know, get the money out of politics, the republicans are as bad as the democrats, Hugo Chavez was kidding when he said he wanted to fuck the corpse of Simon Bolivar-- etc. etc.--- ::)
Show me something besides your feeble minded attempt to perpetuate a lie because your too stupid to do your own research.
-
I don't see any issue here
why would someone give hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to Romney and then feel so ashamed they don't want the public to know about it
btw - we never heard a peep from Repubs when this guy gave Obama's PAC a million bucks
-
Pretty disturbing stuff. How the heck does a private citizen fight back against the POTUS? They absolutely have to bring this up during the debates.
-
Pretty disturbing stuff. How the heck does a private citizen fight back against the POTUS? They absolutely have to bring this up during the debates.
Getting this ghetto communist thug creep put pf office is my top priority. He and those who voted for him are a national threat and danger to pur existence.
-
Getting this ghetto communist thug creep put pf office is my top priority. He and those who voted for him are a national threat and danger to pur existence.
And yet all you do is write on a bodybuilder/politics board ::)
-
Pretty disturbing stuff. How the heck does a private citizen fight back against the POTUS? They absolutely have to bring this up during the debates.
why would they want to hide their identity and why should they be allowed to (I presume no laws were broken in revealing their names)
Are they ashamed of their actions?
The public should have a right to know who is pumping money into our political system.
I see no problem with this at all
just more bellyaching and crying victim from a the Repubs
Repubs called Mahers donation "dirty money" as if somehow he shouldn't be allowed to give money to the candidate of his choice while guys like the Koch brother who make money by polluting and poisoning our planet are god like figures to Repubs
-
Getting this ghetto communist thug creep put pf office is my top priority. He and those who voted for him are a national threat and danger to pur existence.
spoken like the closet commie that you truly are
why do you support secrecy in political donations
how do you know that real communists (not the imaginary ones that invade your dreams at night) are not trying to influence our elections
-
He may be a private citizen, but his company Melaleuca is a very public one.
Why should people not know the history of an MLM company, especially one whose products they may be a consumer of.
Melaleuca has a long history of litigation, some of which they initiated, some of which they were on the receiving end of. As a public company, this information is freely available, and should not be considered sacrosanct.
As someone who has earned her living in this industry, I consider it important to know where the profits my efforts generate end up. I see it as no different than people calling attention to the Fed. I'm sure none of you enjoy working your butts off, only to be taxed, and taxed, and taxed, ...to see your hard earned money squandered and collected in order to be dispersed to the private share holders of the FED.
There's nothing wrong with this kind of transparency.
Now if only Melaleuca will fix it's comp plan, in order to fulfill the industry promise of allowing people to retire once they reach a certain benchmark. It seems whenever someone sets a goal for themselves of say $20K - $30K per month in passive residual income, and they hit that benchmark, and simply want to kick back, enjoy life, and spend time with their families, ...they change the comp plan forcing them to have to go out and do more in order to qualify for their check.
...or even worse, ...when someone maximizes the comp plan, and can no longer generate anymore income, they lose their checks if they start generating income elsewhere through another venture. That is just simply plain wrong!
-
He may be a private citizen, but his company Melaleuca is a very public one.
Why should people not know the history of an MLM company, especially one whose products they may be a consumer of.
Melaleuca has a long history of litigation, some of which they initiated, some of which they were on the receiving end of. As a public company, this information is freely available, and should not be considered sacrosanct.
As someone who has earned her living in this industry, I consider it important to know where the profits my efforts generate end up. I see it as no different than people calling attention to the Fed. I'm sure none of you enjoy working your butts off, only to be taxed, and taxed, and taxed, ...to see your hard earned money squandered and collected in order to be dispersed to the private share holders of the FED.
There's nothing wrong with this kind of transparency.
Now if only Melaleuca will fix it's comp plan, in order to fulfill the industry promise of allowing people to retire once they reach a certain benchmark. It seems whenever someone sets a goal for themselves of say $20K - $30K per month in passive residual income, and they hit that benchmark, and simply want to kick back, enjoy life, and spend time with their families, ...they change the comp plan forcing them to have to go out and do more in order to qualify for their check.
...or even worse, ...when someone maximizes the comp plan, and can no longer generate anymore income, they lose their checks if they start generating income elsewhere through another venture. That is just simply plain wrong!
who cares about their MLM comp plan
this is about transparency of political donations
-
who cares about their MLM comp plan
this is about transparency of political donations
LOL - you mean like Obama turning off the credit card verification protocls on internet donations?
-
LOL - you mean like Obama turning off the credit card verification protocls on internet donations?
the US Chamber of Commerce did the same thing and Repubs didn't seem to have a problem with it
If either one did anything illegal then someone should investigate and try to get the appropriate authorites to bring charges
maybe a there is a dispshit lawyer somewhere with time on his hands that can do this (assuming said lawyer is not too busy with the Breitbart murder investigation)
-
who cares about their MLM comp plan
Tons of out of work people, who may be looking for an additional source of income to replenish their 401ks that were wiped out, and will continue to be wiped out under current fiscal policies. Those who one day want to retire from the workforce with dignity... that's who.
this is about transparency of political donations
Agreed. I've simply provided a little supplementary infomation about exactly WHO is contributing to Romney and their MO.
-
Tons of out of work people, who may be looking for an additional source of income to replenish their 401ks that were wiped out, and will continue to be wiped out under current fiscal policies. Those who one day want to retire from the workforce with dignity... that's who.
Agreed. I've simply provided a little supplementary infomation about exactly WHO is contributing to Romney and their MO.
I have no problem if you have a beef with the comp plan but it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread so why a paragraph in bold bitching about it?
-
I have no problem if you have a beef with the comp plan but it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread so why a paragraph in bold bitching about it?
It has everything to do with the topic of the thread. this was simply ONE aspect of 'bringing transparency' about THIS political donor that I am qualified to speak on. Just as those USteel workers are qualified to bring transparency or shed a bit more light on Bain capital's MO. I don't think it's enough to just say 'so & so contributed' when you can say 'so & so contributed, ...and this is what I know about them.' Can anyone else in this forum speak knowledgeably about Melaleuca? I'm not looking to turn this into a MLM thread, simply pointing out I agree with your premise on the importance of transparency, ...oh and btw, this what I know to be true about this company.
as for the bold, it was a formatting error. I had meant to only bold the private share holders of the FED part, but closed with [/i] instead of [/b]. I corrected it within 3 seconds after posting, but I guess you missed that part.
-
It has everything to do with the topic of the thread. this was simply ONE aspect of 'bringing transparency' about THIS political donor that I am qualified to speak on. Just as those USteel workers are qualified to bring transparency or shed a bit more light on Bain capital's MO. I don't think it's enough to just say 'so & so contributed' when you can say 'so & so contributed, ...and this is what I know about them.' Can anyone else in this forum speak knowledgeably about Melaleuca? I'm not looking to turn this into a MLM thread, simply pointing out I agree with your premise on the importance of transparency, ...oh and btw, this what I know to be true about this company.
as for the bold, it was a formatting error. I had meant to only bold the private share holders of the FED part, but closed with [/i] instead of [/b]. I corrected it within 3 seconds after posting, but I guess you missed that part.
I'm not following you
it's not like this guy doesn't want to have people know he donated to Romney because he's ashamed of the compl plan for his distrubutors. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other so maybe you can save us the dissertation on MLM or go start a thread on the business board about it
-
I'm not following you
it's not like this guy doesn't want to have people know he donated to Romney because he's ashamed of the compl plan for his distrubutors. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other so maybe you can save us the dissertation on MLM or go start a thread on the business board about it
OK, it's clear you're not following. You don't get it, and you don't want to get it. That's fine.
Let's just agree to agree, that transparency when it comes to political donors is importabt.
-
OK, it's clear you're not following. You don't get it, and you don't want to get it. That's fine.
Let's just agree to agree, that transparency when it comes to political donors is importabt.
I'd like to get it but your point makes no sense
this thread about donors apparent shame and embarrassment (what else can it be?) over having donated money to Romney has nothing to do in any way, shape or form with how that company pays it's distrubutors.
two completely different topics
-
I'd like to get it but your point makes no sense
this thread about donors apparent shame and embarrassment (what else can it be?) over having donated money to Romney has nothing to do in any way, shape or form with how that company pays it's distrubutors.
two completely different topics
How Melaleuca conducts itself is an indication of the owner's thinking, as well as his character, and values, IMO, as much as Romney's decisions to gut companies ala Gordon Gekko in Wall Street is an indication of his thinking, his character, and his values. The man has even come out and stated he is not concerned about the poor. Well guess what, there are a whole lot of poor people in America, getting poorer by the day thanks to men who think like Romney. The mentality of his campaign donors, the very constituency he will represent if elected, is important, because they will be the ones pulling his strings. If you for a minute think the vast majority of voters have forgotten the financial crash, ...think again. They are reminded of it every day when they look at their 401ks, and their retirement funds, ...if they even have any left. There is a HUGE demographic block of voters called the BABY BOOM GENERATION who are retiring at a rate of 1 every 13 seconds. Not even including those who were forcibly retired because their jobs were outsourced abroad by men like Romney, but voters who in some cases have had to take their parents in because they could no longer manage on their own without pensions indexed to the true rate of inflation, voters who have seen their parents have to come out of retirement and re-enter the work force, etc., These voters want to know if the men to whom Romney will be indebted, and who will no doubt be constructing policy if Romney were elected, envision a future for them as Walmart Greeters unable to enjoy their golden years.
-
How Melaleuca conducts itself is an indication of the owner's thinking, as well as his character, and values, IMO, as much as Romney's decisions to gut companies ala Gordon Gekko in Wall Street is an indication of his thinking, his character, and his values. The man has even come out and stated he is not concerned about the poor. Well guess what, there are a whole lot of poor people in America, getting poorer by the day thanks to men who think like Romney. The mentality of his campaign donors, the very constituency he will represent if elected, is important, because they will be the ones pulling his strings. If you for a minute think the vast majority of voters have forgotten the financial crash, ...think again. They are reminded of it every day when they look at their 401ks, and their retirement funds, ...if they even have any left. There is a HUGE demographic block of voters called the BABY BOOM GENERATION who are retiring at a rate of 1 every 13 seconds. Not even including those who were forcibly retired because their jobs were outsourced abroad by men like Romney, but voters who in some cases have had to take their parents in because they could no longer manage on their own without pensions indexed to the true rate of inflation, voters who have seen their parents have to come out of retirement and re-enter the work force, etc., These voters want to know if the men to whom Romney will be indebted, and who will no doubt be constructing policy if Romney were elected, envision a future for them as Walmart Greeters unable to enjoy their golden years.
yes, Romney is a piece of shit
maybe that's why these guys are so embarrassed to have given him large sums of money
-
yes, Romney is a piece of shit
maybe that's why these guys are so embarrassed to have given him large sums of money
Romney's bag man got arrested the other day, with tons of very incriminating records that include transaction receipts, along with instructions to intimidate and in some instances even kill those who don't go along with international monetary crimes. The man is singing like a canary and naming names, and they have detailed information about the elaborate lengths they went to to try to keep Romney's name from surfacing. I posted it a while back in a thread entitled "Good News for Americans, ...and especially Republicans" but Hugo deleted it, then moved it to one of the alphabet boards.
-
Romney's bag man got arrested the other day, with tons of very incriminating records that include transaction receipts, along with instructions to intimidate and in some instances even kill those who don't go along with international monetary crimes. The man is singing like a canary and naming names, and they have detailed information about the elaborate lengths they went to to try to keep Romney's name from surfacing. I posted it a while back in a thread entitled "Good News for Americans, ...and especially Republicans" but Hugo deleted it, then moved it to one of the alphabet boards.
uh ok,
well the secret it out so why don't you start another thread about it
-
yes, Romney is a piece of shit
maybe that's why these guys are so embarrassed to have given him large sums of money
And Obama isn't? LOL!!!!!
-
Romney's bag man got arrested the other day, with tons of very incriminating records that include transaction receipts, along with instructions to intimidate and in some instances even kill those who don't go along with international monetary crimes. The man is singing like a canary and naming names, and they have detailed information about the elaborate lengths they went to to try to keep Romney's name from surfacing. I posted it a while back in a thread entitled "Good News for Americans, ...and especially Republicans" but Hugo deleted it, then moved it to one of the alphabet boards.
::)
Look at this delusional twat.
-
Romney donor bashed by Obama campaign now target of two federal audits
By Joseph Weber
Published July 24, 2012
FoxNews.com
An Idaho businessman singled out by the Obama campaign for giving $1 million in support of Mitt Romney is now the focus of IRS and Labor Department audits.
Frank VanderSloot, in an interview with FoxNews.com on Tuesday, said he received the initial audit notice from the IRS last month. Two weeks later, he got one from the Labor Department stating the agency would be looking into records related to foreign employees working at his Idaho Falls cattle ranch.
It might all be a coincidence, he said -- but the timing was peculiar.
VanderSloot gave the pro-Romney money last year to the super PAC “Restore of Future.” Then in April, he was identified along with seven other donors on an Obama campaign website as “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.”
At the time, VanderSloot spoke out and accused the campaign of targeting him unfairly. Then came the audits.
“It seems coincidental, but who knows,” VanderSloot told FoxNews.com Tuesday. “The problem is the president made the list, and 61 days later I get the first letter. One has to ask: Is the fact I’m being shot at the result of having a target on my back? … Was the list made with that intent?”
VanderSloot expected some scrutiny, considering he is a co-chairman on the Romney campaign, and years of contributing to state and national races had already exposed him to the rough-and-tumble world of politics.
He has also been targeted by liberal bloggers and an opposition research team that directed an investigator to poke around his local courthouse, looking at divorce records and other cases.
Yet VanderSloot, owner of the Melaleuca wellness product company, never expected to be branded on an presidential campaign website as a “litigious, combative and bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”
“I had never heard anybody say that,” said VanderSloot, who speculated the anti-gay claim is largely the result of him about 13 years ago opposing the film “It’s Elementary -- Talking about Gay Issues in School” airing on public TV because it was not suitable for viewing by young children.
“Ninety percent of my gay friends agreed,” he said.
VanderSloot was prescient in his public comments after appearing on the list, musing on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” about whether the list was perhaps a tip-sheet for media critics or federal agencies.
“Am I going to get a call from the FDA … or the IRS?” he said Tuesday, echoing his comments from the show.
Still, the 63-year-old VanderSloot doesn’t think President Obama directly ordered the audits, because simply allowing the so-called "enemy list" to be posted on the original “Keeping GOP Honest” site was enough.
“I doubt he said, ‘Let’s get these guys,’ ” VanderSloot said.
The Obama campaign did not return an email seeking comment. Representatives from the IRS and Labor Department also did not return requests for comment.
The documents requested by the IRS have been turned over to his accountant, VanderSloot said, and the Labor Department audit is just getting started, but he will fully comply and expects no problems.
"I’m not worried,” he said. “We’ll be fine.”
VanderSloot also said the scrutiny has only strengthened his commitment to stay engaged in the political system.
“I am not going to stay away,” he said. “This has given me even more resolve that we need a new president.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/24/romney-donor-bashed-by-obama-campaign-now-target-two-federal-audits/
-
Obama is a ghetto chicago street thug. We should not be surprised.
-
Romney donor bashed by Obama campaign now target of two federal audits
By Joseph Weber
Published July 24, 2012
FoxNews.com
An Idaho businessman singled out by the Obama campaign for giving $1 million in support of Mitt Romney is now the focus of IRS and Labor Department audits.
Frank VanderSloot, in an interview with FoxNews.com on Tuesday, said he received the initial audit notice from the IRS last month. Two weeks later, he got one from the Labor Department stating the agency would be looking into records related to foreign employees working at his Idaho Falls cattle ranch.
It might all be a coincidence, he said -- but the timing was peculiar.
VanderSloot gave the pro-Romney money last year to the super PAC “Restore of Future.” Then in April, he was identified along with seven other donors on an Obama campaign website as “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.”
At the time, VanderSloot spoke out and accused the campaign of targeting him unfairly. Then came the audits.
“It seems coincidental, but who knows,” VanderSloot told FoxNews.com Tuesday. “The problem is the president made the list, and 61 days later I get the first letter. One has to ask: Is the fact I’m being shot at the result of having a target on my back? … Was the list made with that intent?”
VanderSloot expected some scrutiny, considering he is a co-chairman on the Romney campaign, and years of contributing to state and national races had already exposed him to the rough-and-tumble world of politics.
He has also been targeted by liberal bloggers and an opposition research team that directed an investigator to poke around his local courthouse, looking at divorce records and other cases.
Yet VanderSloot, owner of the Melaleuca wellness product company, never expected to be branded on an presidential campaign website as a “litigious, combative and bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”
“I had never heard anybody say that,” said VanderSloot, who speculated the anti-gay claim is largely the result of him about 13 years ago opposing the film “It’s Elementary -- Talking about Gay Issues in School” airing on public TV because it was not suitable for viewing by young children.
“Ninety percent of my gay friends agreed,” he said.
VanderSloot was prescient in his public comments after appearing on the list, musing on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” about whether the list was perhaps a tip-sheet for media critics or federal agencies.
“Am I going to get a call from the FDA … or the IRS?” he said Tuesday, echoing his comments from the show.
Still, the 63-year-old VanderSloot doesn’t think President Obama directly ordered the audits, because simply allowing the so-called "enemy list" to be posted on the original “Keeping GOP Honest” site was enough.
“I doubt he said, ‘Let’s get these guys,’ ” VanderSloot said.
The Obama campaign did not return an email seeking comment. Representatives from the IRS and Labor Department also did not return requests for comment.
The documents requested by the IRS have been turned over to his accountant, VanderSloot said, and the Labor Department audit is just getting started, but he will fully comply and expects no problems.
"I’m not worried,” he said. “We’ll be fine.”
VanderSloot also said the scrutiny has only strengthened his commitment to stay engaged in the political system.
“I am not going to stay away,” he said. “This has given me even more resolve that we need a new president.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/24/romney-donor-bashed-by-obama-campaign-now-target-two-federal-audits/
>:(
Strassel: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top
The bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service did exactly what the president said was the right and honorable thing to do.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.
President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.
But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.
Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. "He put a target on our backs, and he's now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?" asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.
Enlarge Image
Getty Images
At the White House, President Obama addresses the IRS scandal, May 15.
Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."
This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.
Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.
The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn't account for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.
The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy—one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone.
The same threat was made to conservative groups that might dare play in the election. As early as January 2010, Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups).
The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to "terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he intoned.
In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."
Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets. Especially as top congressional Democrats were putting in their own versions of phone calls, sending letters to the IRS that accused it of having "failed to address" the "problem" of groups that were "improperly engaged" in campaigns. Because guess who controls that "independent" agency's budget?
The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders—openly, for the world to see. In his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press Secretary Jay Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the matter: Given the president's "animosity" toward Citizens United, might he have "appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and scrutinizing those . . ." Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with "That's a preposterous assertion."
Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and "angry" that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute integrity." Even when he does not.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487332636180800.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
-
Gibson, Boein, Tea Party, Koch bros, bush, fox news , rove, you name it.
>:(
Strassel: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top
The bureaucrats at the Internal Revenue Service did exactly what the president said was the right and honorable thing to do.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Was the White House involved in the IRS's targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.
President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an "independent" agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.
But that's not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn't need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he'd like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.
Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. "He put a target on our backs, and he's now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?" asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.
Enlarge Image
Getty Images
At the White House, President Obama addresses the IRS scandal, May 15.
Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a "wealthy individual" with a "less-than-reputable record." Other donors were described as having been "on the wrong side of the law."
This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.
Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot's divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.
The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn't account for what the president's vilification has done to his business and reputation.
The Obama call for scrutiny wasn't a mistake; it was the president's strategy—one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as "less than reputable" to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn't need a telephone; he had a megaphone.
The same threat was made to conservative groups that might dare play in the election. As early as January 2010, Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups).
The president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to "terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he intoned.
In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."
Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets. Especially as top congressional Democrats were putting in their own versions of phone calls, sending letters to the IRS that accused it of having "failed to address" the "problem" of groups that were "improperly engaged" in campaigns. Because guess who controls that "independent" agency's budget?
The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders—openly, for the world to see. In his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press Secretary Jay Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the matter: Given the president's "animosity" toward Citizens United, might he have "appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and scrutinizing those . . ." Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with "That's a preposterous assertion."
Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and "angry" that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute integrity." Even when he does not.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578487332636180800.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
-
Name a time in the recent past where a GOP candidate for anything has directly targeted democratic campaign donors by publicizing their personal information or making their names public.
These "common knowledge" proclamations made by numbskulled sheep to the effect of "nobody is better than anybody else and everybody is the best at everything", has to stop. How about some actual, factual evidence?
Yeah I know, get the money out of politics, the republicans are as bad as the democrats, Hugo Chavez was kidding when he said he wanted to fuck the corpse of Simon Bolivar-- etc. etc.--- ::)
Show me something besides your feeble minded attempt to perpetuate a lie because your too stupid to do your own research.
this wasn't remotely the first time "who's donating" has been an issue used in a campaign ::) I'm not even defending Obama, I can't stand him but this is silly. The article made it sound like he gathered the list when the list is open for anybody to see already. I have a lot of complaints about Obama, this isn't one lol.
-
Man, that was a year ago.
I don't even remember why I went after you in this thread.
I probably saw the moderator decals and thought you were Oz.
-
just saw there was something I didn't answer because it was bumped. I didn't bump it.
-
New enemies on the list.
-
Hillary has a list too.
Kerry, Kennedy top Clinton's traitor list
By Niall Stanage
Aides on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign kept a detailed list of party colleagues who staffers believed had betrayed her during the long and bitter primary battle with President Obama, a new book reveals.
The list included rankings, with those who were considered the most egregious traitors by Clinton loyalists receiving the worst possible score of 7 on a point scale.
Then-Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who would ultimately succeed Clinton as Secretary of State in the Obama administration, was among those receiving the blackest of black marks, according to the book HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton by The Hill’s Amie Parnes and Politico’s Jonathan Allen.
So too was Kerry’s Senate colleague from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy, who died in 2009. Also on the political hit-list were Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) as well as Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) and former Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.).
The book makes clear the depth of the wounds inflicted during the primary struggle.
“Years later,” Parnes and Allen write, Clinton aides “would joke about the fates of folks who they felt had betrayed them. ‘Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down,’ one said to another. ‘Ted Kennedy,’ the aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, ‘dead.’”
Kerry was the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer in the 2004 presidential election and President Clinton had campaigned hard for him in the final stretch of that campaign, even though he was recovering from major heart surgery at the time.
In 2008, however, Kerry did not merely endorse Obama; he did so at a very vulnerable time for the then-senator from Illinois. Having won the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, Obama then lost the New Hampshire primary to Clinton despite holding a large lead in almost all opinion polls.
Two days later, Kerry appeared at a rally with Obama in South Carolina. “Who better than Barack Obama to turn a new page in American politics so that Democrats, independents and Republicans alike can look to the leadership that unites to find common ground?” he said.
The reference to a “new page” was most obviously a criticism of the administration of President George W. Bush, who had vanquished Kerry in 2004. But it was also seen by some as a jab at the Clintons, whom the Obama campaign was trying to paint as synonymous with politics as usual.
Leahy endorsed Obama approximately one week later. Rockefeller would do so at the end of February and Casey at the end of March. Casey’s endorsement came amid a full-court press from the Clinton campaign to win the April primary in his state of Pennsylvania by a convincing margin. They accomplished that goal, but it was not enough to halt Obama’s momentum on his way to the nomination.
HRC will be published by Crown on Feb. 11. It will tell the inside story of Clinton’s relationship with Obama, and of how she recovered after the bruising 2008 campaign and restored her political standing.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/195192-kerry-kennedy-top-clintons-traitor-list#ixzz2qJ2RnEuy
-
Hillary is as corrupt as they get - a political thug in her own right
-
Dr. Ben Carson Blasts 'Gestapo' IRS Tactics
Monday, 10 Feb 2014
By David A. Patten
Dr. Benjamin Carson, the former director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital who is considered a possible GOP contender for the 2016 GOP nomination, told Newsmax TV on Monday that he and his family have been personally targeted by the IRS in retribution for his frank critique of President Obama’s policies at the February 2013 National Prayer Breakfast.
Carson said audits and other harassment began in May or June of 2013 and gradually expanded to include family members, associates, and his charitable endeavors.
"I’ve been quite I would say astonished at the level of hostility that I have encountered," Carson said in an exclusive interview with host John Bachman on "America’s Forum" on Newsmax TV.
"The IRS has investigated me. They said, ‘I want to look at your real estate holdings.’ There was nothing there. ‘Well, let’s expand to an entire [year], everything.’ There was nothing there. ‘Let’s do another year.’ Finally, after a few months, they went away. But they’ve come after my family, they’ve come after my friends, they’ve come after associates."
Carson received the presidential Medal of Freedom from former President George W. Bush in 2008. Previously, he has stated that he was audited by the IRS under unusual circumstances but has shied away from drawing a direct link between his opposition to the president’s policies and the IRS audits.
"You know," Carson told Newsmax TV, "we live in a Gestapo age, people don’t realize it. But what I say is the Congress has to, at some point, step up to the plate. The reason we have divided government is if one branch of the government gets out of control, starts thinking they’re too big for their britches, you need to be able to have control."
Carson said the audits, which began a few months after his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, marked the first time he had been audited in his life.
He also said a charitable organization that aids inmates’ children was informed last year, for the first time in recent years, that they would no longer be receiving a $1 million annual grant from the Justice Department.
"This is solely because you were involved?" Bachman asked.
"Correct," Carson replied, adding: "…They’ve come after my children in terms of their employment and things like this."
Carson declined to elaborate specifically on how his family had been affected.
"It is very disturbing," he said. "I don’t really want to go into the details too much, because I don’t want them to further go after these organizations, charities, children etc.
"Because the problem right now is we as a society are just letting them do this. We sit there and we say, ‘Oh this is horrible.’ But we don’t do anything. And see, that’s what I’m trying to get our congressional people, our lawmakers – they’ve got to get courage. Because why would anybody who has an agenda to fundamentally change this nation, why would they stop if no one is opposing them?"
Pressed as to whether he feels he and his family were targeted out of retribution, Carson replied: "And probably will continue to do so. And this is what we have to stop.
"We cannot allow it," he continued. "The only reason that I haven’t shut up is because in Romans 8 it says ‘If God be for you, who can be against you?’ And I believe in that protection that God gives you."
Carson’s interview comes in the context of explosive testimony on Capitol Hill last week. It included charges by GOP super lawyer Cleta Mitchell that the IRS targeting — which singled out groups whose names contained words like "tea party" and "patriot," and sidetracked their applications for intensive review — continues against conservative organizations.
The conservative American Center for Law and Justice is pursuing a lawsuit on behalf of 41 grass-roots plaintiffs who were affected. ACLJ officials tell Newsmax many of those groups still have not received a ruling from the IRS on applications that date back as far as December of 2009.
Late last year, the IRS unveiled proposed new rules that would substantially limit the activities that "social welfare" organizations, such as those regulated by section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue code, would be permitted to engage in. Those regulations may be adopted later this year, and conservatives feel they add insult to injury by further limiting their activities.
Mitchell told Newsmax on Monday afternoon that Carson’s experience of suddenly being audited after taking a more active role in conservative politics sounds similar to the complaints of targeting that she’s received from many other conservatives. She called Carson’s experience "pretty scary."
"I have heard this same story over and over and over throughout the last year … as I’ve traveled and spoken all across the country," she says.
"I cannot tell you how many donors to conservative organizations, people who have become active, have said ‘I was never audited until I started giving money to X conservative candidate or cause.’"
She tells Newsmax the targeting includes Romney donors, Perry donors, and donors to conservative issue groups.
Mitchell says Carson’s experience "is not that different from what many others are experiencing. It’s quite, quite troublesome and disturbing."
Until recently Mitchell had resisted calls for Congress to request a special prosecutor, because the investigator would be designated by Attorney General Eric Holder, who himself has been at the center of several controversies involving the administration.
But Mitchell tells Newsmax she has changed her mind since learning Holder had appointed DOJ trial attorney Barbara Bosserman, who has donated over $6,700 to President Obama’s election campaigns and to the Democratic National Committee in recent years, to head the DOJ’s investigation into the handling of conservative organizations’ applications for non-profit status.
"The problem is the IRS is being allowed to just stonewall the investigation [of] the targeting of conservative groups," said Mitchell, who represents several grass-roots conservative organizations that have been affected.
She added: "It’s pretty scary because the people who are supposed to be the neutral arbiter and law enforcement officials appear to me to be completely in the bag for the administration.
"And the IRS appears to me to be doing exactly what Dr. Carson has said is happening. I think he’s exactly right. I hate to say it, but I agree with him. I’ve had too many people across the country say the same things to me. It’s just not possible that it is a coincidence. It’s not statistically possible.
"Suffice to say that I think that what Dr. Carson is describing is an experience that … far too many other Americans have had in the last four years," she said.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ben-carson-targeted-irs/2014/02/10/id/552027#ixzz2t2kK5asr
-
What a coincidence.
Breitbart News says IRS targeted company for audit
Published September 09, 2014
FoxNews.com
The company that runs the conservative Breitbart.com news site says the IRS has selected the network for an audit, in a move company executives suggest is politically motivated.
Breitbart News Network, a California-based company which runs several conservative websites, says the IRS recently audited its 2012 financial information.
"The Obama administration's timing on this is exquisite, but try as they might through various methods to silence us, we will only get more emboldened,” Stephen K. Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart News Network, said in a written statement.
The audit comes as the agency faces sustained complaints that it targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny as they sought nonprofit status, before the agency ended the practice last year.
Since the practice was made public – by the IRS itself and the inspector general’s office – other conservative groups have come forward claiming they were subjected to unwarranted scrutiny by the agency.
In this case, it remains unclear whether the apparent audit of Breitbart News is anything out of the ordinary. The IRS conducts audits of tens of thousands of businesses every year.
The agency said in a statement: "Federal privacy laws prohibit the IRS from commenting on specific taxpayer situations. The IRS stresses that audits are based on the information related to tax returns and the underlying tax law -- nothing else. Audits are handled by career, non-partisan civil servants, and the IRS has safeguards in place to protect the exam process."
A copy of the IRS notice to Breitbart News, obtained by FoxNews.com, asked about the company’s financial information for calendar year 2012.
The IRS asked for a litany of documents, including logs of its receipts and expenses, but also its partnership agreement and a “written narrative” of the business.
Larry Solov, president and CEO of Breitbart News Network said: "We stand ready to cooperate with the Internal Revenue Service on its audit of our company, but this will not deter us in the least from continuing our aggressive coverage of this president or his administration.”
The company was founded by the late media entrepreneur and conservative activist Andrew Breitbart.
The main website, Breitbart.com, houses a number of offshoot sites including Big Hollywood and Big Journalism. The website played a key role in breaking the scandal over former Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner sharing sexually explicit photos on Twitter.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/09/breitbart-news-says-irs-targeted-company-for-audit/
-
James Risen is on the list.
NY Times Reporter James Risen Says 'Obama Hates The Press'
The Huffington Post | By Catherine Taibi
Posted: 10/06/2014 2:51 pm EDT Updated: 10/07/2014 9:59 am
New York Times reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner James Risen said that he believes the U.S. government's crackdown on journalists and whistleblowers is a direct result of President Barack Obama's personal dislike for the press, the Morning Sentinel of Maine reported Sunday.
Risen has been targeted by the Obama administration for years in an attempt to get him to reveal information about sources for his 2006 book "State of War." The Department of Justice ordered him to testify against one of his alleged sources, former CIA agent Jeffrey Sterling, whom prosecutors think leaked details to Risen about a failed CIA operation in Iran. Risen has pledged over and over that he will not reveal the name of his source, and would rather go to prison than comply with what he believes is an attack on press freedom.
Speaking at the Lorimer Chapel at Colby College on Sunday, Risen said that today's government "treats whistle-blowers like criminals," and urged journalists to "fight back" against unfair government pressure. Risen was on campus to receive the Elijah Parish Lovejoy Award for courageous journalism.
When asked by one professor how much his own prosecution has to do with Obama's power, Risen replied that it has everything to do with him.
"I don’t think any of this would be happening under the Obama administration if Obama didn’t want to do it,” he said. “I think Obama hates the press. I think he doesn’t like the press and he hates leaks.”
Risen's words also echoed comments he made in August, calling Obama the "greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/obama-hates-press-james-risen-new-york-times-leaks_n_5940960.html
-
most corrupt ever
-
Sharyl Attkisson is on the list.
(http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/modal_800/2014/11/sharyl_attkisson.jpg)
Former CBS News Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Claims Existence of Obama Enemies' List
11/03/2014 by Paul Bond
"I kind of assume I'm on a list. I don’t think I'm the only one"
. . .
And why do you think they would target you as opposed to more partisan voices, like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck?
The question carries the assumption that they haven’t targeted others. I kind of assume I’m on a list. I don’t think I’m the only one, along with James Rosen and the Associated Press, that garnered special attention. There’s probably a list of people.
So an enemies list, like in the Nixon administration?
I’ve been told there is such a list, yes.
And who do you suspect is on that list?
Well, there’s an internal email that indicated reporters who were working with leakers in government agencies or perceived as enemies of the White House are being targeted. So I think that’s probably accurate — anybody that they perceive as harmful to their agenda or working with leakers and whistle-blowers, which I did a lot of.
Do you have sources who told you the names on that list? Is Rush Limbaugh on that list, for example?
Another reporter told me — I can’t remember who — that they thought he was on some sort of target list, but I don’t know that to be the case. I have someone who told me the existence of a list but not the names on it.
. . .
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cbs-news-reporter-sharyl-attkisson-745982
-
He needs to be tried for treason
-
This is chilling. You should be very afraid of what your government can do to you. I hope I never make it onto the president's enemies list. :-\
-
Sharyl Attkisson sues administration over computer hacking
By Howard Kurtz
Published January 05, 2015
FoxNews.com
Former CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has sued the Justice Department over the hacking of her computers, officially accusing the Obama administration of illegal surveillance while she was reporting on administration scandals.
In a series of legal filings that seek $35 million in damages, Attkisson alleges that three separate computer forensic exams showed that hackers used sophisticated methods to surreptitiously monitor her work between 2011 and 2013.
"I just think it's important to send a message that people shouldn't be victimized and throw up their hands and think there's nothing they can do and they're powerless," Attkisson said in an interview.
The department has steadfastly denied any involvement in the hacking, saying in a 2013 statement: "To our knowledge, the Justice Department has never compromised Ms. Attkisson's computers, or otherwise sought any information from or concerning any telephone, computer, or other media device she may own or use."
In the lawsuit and related claims against the Postal Service, filed in Washington, Attkisson says the intruders installed and periodically refreshed software to steal data and obtain passwords on her home and work computers. She also charges that the hackers monitored her audio using a Skype account.
The award-winning reporter says she and her attorneys have "pretty good evidence" that these efforts were "connected" to the Justice Department. She said she was caught in a "Catch-22," forcing her to use the lawsuit and an administrative complaint to discover more about the surveillance through the discovery process and to learn the identities of the "John Does" named in the complaints.
"The Justice Department has not been very forthcoming with questions," she said. "The question is, will anybody ever be held responsible?"
The multimillion-dollar damage figure relates to her loss of privacy and that of her husband and family, she said.
Attkisson learned through a Freedom of Information request that the FBI opened an investigation of the hacking case in May 2013, but says the bureau never interviewed her or even notified her of the probe.
Attkisson resigned from CBS last March after complaining that she was increasingly unable to get her investigative stories on the air. She has published a best-selling book, "Stonewalled," about her battles against the network and the administration as she investigated stories on such subjects as Benghazi, Fast and Furious and ObamaCare.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/05/sharyl-attkisson-sues-administration-over-computer-hacking/
-
Prime Minister Netanyahu is on the list.
‘There will be a price’: Obama team reportedly fuming over Netanyahu visit
Published January 23, 2015
FoxNews.com
The Obama administration reportedly is fuming over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to address Congress in March regarding the Iranian threat, with one unnamed official telling an Israeli newspaper he will pay “a price” for the snub.
House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu -- and the Israeli leader accepted – without any involvement from the White House.
In public, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest politely describes this as a “departure” from protocol. He also says the president will not meet with Netanyahu when he visits in early March, but has attributed that decision only to a desire not to appear to be influencing Israel’s upcoming elections.
But in private, Obama’s team is livid with the Israeli leader, according to Haaretz.
"We thought we've seen everything," a source identified as a senior American official was quoted as saying. "But Bibi managed to surprise even us. There are things you simply don't do.
“He spat in our face publicly and that's no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price."
The anonymous quote was a throwback to when, last year, Atlantic magazine quoted another unnamed senior administration official calling Netanyahu a “chickenshit.”
Administration officials, including Earnest, did not deny the quote at the time, though the White House stressed the criticism did not reflect how the rest of the administration views Netanyahu.
On Friday, Earnest once again was asked about tensions with the Israeli government. Asked if the decision to speak to Congress was a slap at the Obama administration, he said, “I certainly didn’t interpret it that way.”
As for the decision for Obama not to meet with his Israeli counterpart, he stood by the earlier explanation.
“This administration goes to great lengths to ensure that we don’t give even the appearance of interfering or attempting to influence the outcome” of democratic elections abroad, he said.
Meanwhile, Haaretz also reported that Obama had directly warned Netanyahu to stop urging U.S. lawmakers to back legislation teeing up new sanctions against Iran.
Obama has threatened to veto such a bill, saying it could derail delicate talks over Iran’s nuclear program – and Netanyahu’s visit to Washington could give him an opportunity to further encourage sanctions legislation.
Haaretz reported that Israel’s ambassador already has been urging members of Congress to support the measures. The newspaper reported that Obama told Netanyahu to stop during a Jan. 12 phone call.
On Friday, Earnest acknowledged that Obama and Netanyahu have a “fundamental disagreement” about the diplomatic talks with Iran.
“He doesn’t share [the administration’s] view,” he said. But Earnest also said the “differences of opinion” do not undermine America’s commitment to Israel’s security.
As Obama officials often do, he described that commitment as “unshakable.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/23/there-will-be-price-obama-team-reportedly-fuming-over-netanyahu-visit/
-
If Boehner invited ISIS to the WH - they would all applaud
Prime Minister Netanyahu is on the list.
‘There will be a price’: Obama team reportedly fuming over Netanyahu visit
Published January 23, 2015
FoxNews.com
The Obama administration reportedly is fuming over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to address Congress in March regarding the Iranian threat, with one unnamed official telling an Israeli newspaper he will pay “a price” for the snub.
House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu -- and the Israeli leader accepted – without any involvement from the White House.
In public, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest politely describes this as a “departure” from protocol. He also says the president will not meet with Netanyahu when he visits in early March, but has attributed that decision only to a desire not to appear to be influencing Israel’s upcoming elections.
But in private, Obama’s team is livid with the Israeli leader, according to Haaretz.
"We thought we've seen everything," a source identified as a senior American official was quoted as saying. "But Bibi managed to surprise even us. There are things you simply don't do.
“He spat in our face publicly and that's no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price."
The anonymous quote was a throwback to when, last year, Atlantic magazine quoted another unnamed senior administration official calling Netanyahu a “chickenshit.”
Administration officials, including Earnest, did not deny the quote at the time, though the White House stressed the criticism did not reflect how the rest of the administration views Netanyahu.
On Friday, Earnest once again was asked about tensions with the Israeli government. Asked if the decision to speak to Congress was a slap at the Obama administration, he said, “I certainly didn’t interpret it that way.”
As for the decision for Obama not to meet with his Israeli counterpart, he stood by the earlier explanation.
“This administration goes to great lengths to ensure that we don’t give even the appearance of interfering or attempting to influence the outcome” of democratic elections abroad, he said.
Meanwhile, Haaretz also reported that Obama had directly warned Netanyahu to stop urging U.S. lawmakers to back legislation teeing up new sanctions against Iran.
Obama has threatened to veto such a bill, saying it could derail delicate talks over Iran’s nuclear program – and Netanyahu’s visit to Washington could give him an opportunity to further encourage sanctions legislation.
Haaretz reported that Israel’s ambassador already has been urging members of Congress to support the measures. The newspaper reported that Obama told Netanyahu to stop during a Jan. 12 phone call.
On Friday, Earnest acknowledged that Obama and Netanyahu have a “fundamental disagreement” about the diplomatic talks with Iran.
“He doesn’t share [the administration’s] view,” he said. But Earnest also said the “differences of opinion” do not undermine America’s commitment to Israel’s security.
As Obama officials often do, he described that commitment as “unshakable.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/23/there-will-be-price-obama-team-reportedly-fuming-over-netanyahu-visit/
-
If Boehner invited ISIS to the WH - they would all applaud
countdown til reagan with talaben pic, or rumsfeld with saddam pic lol....
-
Sharyl Attkisson sues administration over computer hacking
By Howard Kurtz
Published January 05, 2015
FoxNews.com
Former CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has sued the Justice Department over the hacking of her computers, officially accusing the Obama administration of illegal surveillance while she was reporting on administration scandals.
In a series of legal filings that seek $35 million in damages, Attkisson alleges that three separate computer forensic exams showed that hackers used sophisticated methods to surreptitiously monitor her work between 2011 and 2013.
"I just think it's important to send a message that people shouldn't be victimized and throw up their hands and think there's nothing they can do and they're powerless," Attkisson said in an interview.
The department has steadfastly denied any involvement in the hacking, saying in a 2013 statement: "To our knowledge, the Justice Department has never compromised Ms. Attkisson's computers, or otherwise sought any information from or concerning any telephone, computer, or other media device she may own or use."
In the lawsuit and related claims against the Postal Service, filed in Washington, Attkisson says the intruders installed and periodically refreshed software to steal data and obtain passwords on her home and work computers. She also charges that the hackers monitored her audio using a Skype account.
The award-winning reporter says she and her attorneys have "pretty good evidence" that these efforts were "connected" to the Justice Department. She said she was caught in a "Catch-22," forcing her to use the lawsuit and an administrative complaint to discover more about the surveillance through the discovery process and to learn the identities of the "John Does" named in the complaints.
"The Justice Department has not been very forthcoming with questions," she said. "The question is, will anybody ever be held responsible?"
The multimillion-dollar damage figure relates to her loss of privacy and that of her husband and family, she said.
Attkisson learned through a Freedom of Information request that the FBI opened an investigation of the hacking case in May 2013, but says the bureau never interviewed her or even notified her of the probe.
Attkisson resigned from CBS last March after complaining that she was increasingly unable to get her investigative stories on the air. She has published a best-selling book, "Stonewalled," about her battles against the network and the administration as she investigated stories on such subjects as Benghazi, Fast and Furious and ObamaCare.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/05/sharyl-attkisson-sues-administration-over-computer-hacking/
This should be a good one to follow.
And what she says about CBS, too. Man. If only we had media with legitimately competing interests, imagine the stuff that would be brought forth.
As it is, the CIA can monitor the computers of the Senate assistants investigating them, and the story won't even be pursued. Wow. But you'll be shown some dumb video that's "gone viral", and there's your news.
-
Judicial Watch: New Documents Reveal DOJ, IRS, and FBI Plan to Seek Criminal Charges of Obama Opponents
JULY 07, 2015
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today 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.
The newly obtained records also reveal that the Obama DOJ wanted IRS employees who were going to testify to Congress to turn over documents to the DOJ before giving them to Congress. Records also detail how the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks, containing 1.25 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 nonprofit social 501(c)(4) welfare groups – or nearly every 501(c)(4) in the United States – as part of its prosecution effort. According to a letter from then-House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, “This revelation likely means that the IRS – including possibly Lois Lerner – violated federal tax law by transmitting this information to the Justice Department.”
The documents were produced subsequent to court orders in two Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits: Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:14-cv-1956) and Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No. 1:14-cv-1239).
The new IRS documents include a October 11, 2010 “DOJ Recap” memo sent by IRS Exempt Organizations Tax Law Specialist Siri Buller to Lerner and other top IRS officials explaining an October 8 meeting with representatives from the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and “one representative from the FBI” to discuss the possible criminal prosecution of nonprofit organizations for alleged political activity:
On October 8, 2010, Lois Lerner, Joe Urban [IRS Technical Advisor, TEGE], Judy Kindell [top aide to Lerner], Justin Lowe [Technical Advisor to the Commissioner of Tax-Exempt and Government Entities], and Siri Buller met with the section chief and other attorneys from the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, and one representative from the FBI, to discuss recent attention to the political activity of exempt organizations.
The section’s attorneys expressed concern that certain section 501(c) organizations are actually political committees “posing” as if they are not subject to FEC law, and therefore may be subject to criminal liability. The attorneys mentioned several possible theories to bring criminal charges under FEC law. In response, Lois and Judy eloquently explained the following points:
Under section 7805(b), we may only revoke or modify an organization’s exemption retroactively if it omitted or misstated a material fact or operated in a manner materially different from that originally represented.
If we do not have these misrepresentations, the organization may rely on our determination it is exempt. However, the likelihood of revocation is diminished by the fact that section 501(c)(4)-(c)(6) organizations are not required to apply for recognition of exemption.
We discussed the hypothetical situation of a section 501(c)(4) organization that declares itself exempt as a social welfare organization, but at the end of the taxable year has in fact functioned as a political organization. Judy explained that such an organization, in order to be in compliance, would simply file Form 1120-POL and paying tax at the highest corporate rate.
Lois stated that although we do not believe that organizations which are subject to a civil audit subsequently receive any type of immunity from a criminal investigation, she will refer them to individuals from CI who can better answer that question. She explained that we are legally required to separate the civil and criminal aspects of any examination and that while we do not have EO law experts in CI, our FIU agents are experienced in coordinating with CI.
The attorneys asked whether a change in the law is necessary, and whether a three-way partnership among DOJ, the FEC, and the IRS is possible to prevent prohibited activity by these organizations. Lois listed a number of obstacles to the attorneys’ theories:
[REDACTED]
She pointed to Revenue Ruling 2004-6, which was drafted in light of the electioneering communication rules before they were litigated.
Just prior this meeting, the IRS began the process of providing the FBI confidential taxpayer information on nonprofit groups. An IRS document confirms the IRS supplied the FBI with 21 disks containing 1.25 million pages of taxpayer records:
FROM: Hamilton David K
SENT: Tuesday, October 5, 2010 2:49 PM
TO: Whittaker Sherry [Director, GE Program Management], Blackwell Robert M
SUBJECT: RE: Question
There are 113,000 C4 returns from January 1, 2007 to now. Assuming they want all pages including redacted ones, that’s 1.25 million pages … If we get started on it right away, before the 10th when the monthly extracts start, we can probably get it done in a week or so….
The DOJ documents also include a July 16, 2013, email from an undisclosed Justice Department official to a lawyer for IRS employees asking that the Obama administration get information from congressional witnesses before Congress does:
One last issue. If any of your clients have documents they are providing to Congress that you can (or would like to) provide to us before their testimony, we would be pleased to receive them. We are 6103 authorized and I can connect you with TIGTA to confirm; we would like the unredacted documents.
“These new documents show that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama DOJ and FBI scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his reelection. And this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information. How can the Justice Department and FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?”
On April 16, 2014, Judicial Watch forced the IRS to release documents revealing for the first time that Lerner communicated with the DOJ in May 2013 about whether it was possible to launch criminal prosecutions against targeted tax-exempt entities. The documents were obtained due to court order in an October 2013 Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit filed against the IRS.
Those documents contained an email exchange between Lerner and Nikole C. Flax, then-chief of staff to then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller discussing plans to work with the DOJ to prosecute nonprofit groups that “lied” (Lerner’s quotation marks) about political activities. The exchange included a May 8, 2013, email by Lerner:
I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…
Democratic Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse held a hearing on April 9, 2013, during which, “in questioning the witnesses from the DOJ and IRS, Whitehouse asked why they have not prosecuted 501(c)(4) groups that have seemingly made false statements about their political activities…”
The House Oversight Committee followed up on these Judicial Watch disclosures with hearings and interviews of Pilger and his boss, DOJ Public Integrity Chief Jack Smith. Besides confirming the DOJ’s 2013 communications with Lerner, Pilger admitted to the committee that DOJ officials met with Lerner in October 2010. Judicial Watch obtained new documents about these meetings in December 2014 showing the Obama DOJ initiated outreach to the IRS about prosecuting tax-exempt entities.
Following Judicial Watch’s lead, the House also found out about the IRS transmittal of the confidential taxpayer information to the FBI. Because of this public disclosure, the FBI was forced to return the 1.25 million pages to the IRS.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-documents-reveal-doj-irs-and-fbi-plan-to-seek-criminal-charges-of-obama-opponents/
-
Is Hobby Lobby on the list?
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/10/29/obama-nemesis-hobby-lobby-probed-for-allegedly-buying-black-market-biblical.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
Chuck Hagel is on the list.
Hagel says he OK’d plan to strike Damascus after 'red line;' Obama told him stand down
Published December 18, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2015/12/18/hagel-says-ok-d-plan-to-strike-damascus-after-red-line-obama-told-him-stand-down/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1450450280035.jpg?ve=1&tl=1).
Then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel speaks to reporters in this April 4, 2014, file photo, while en route to Tokyo, from Honolulu. (The Associated Press)
Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel revealed in an extensive interview published Friday that he had approved plans to strike Damascus with Tomahawk cruise missiles after Syria’s Bashar al-Assad crossed the “red line” by using chemical weapons – but President Obama told him to stand down.
The interview with Foreign Policy comes nearly a year after his acrimonious exit from the Obama administration. Still smarting from the circumstances of his departure, Hagel told Foreign Policy that the White House tried to “destroy” him even after he resigned.
The interview explored the tensions between Hagel and others on Obama’s team, but offered particularly revealing details about the backstory to the president’s decision backing off his “red line” with Assad.
The former Pentagon chief said that decision in 2013 dealt a big blow to U.S. credibility.
“Whether it was the right decision or not, history will determine that,” Hagel told Foreign Policy. “There’s no question in my mind that it hurt the credibility of the president’s word when this occurred.”
While it is well-known that Obama chose not to go forward with any military action against Assad in 2013 despite drawing that line – and instead pursued a diplomatic path to have Assad hand over his chemical weapons stockpile – Hagel described the military option as robust up until the moment Obama nixed it.
According to the article, on Aug. 30 of that year, Hagel spent the day giving the OK to plans for a “barrage” of missile strikes on Syria’s capital. Naval destroyers also reportedly were awaiting orders to strike.
But then, while Hagel was at dinner with his wife in northern Virginia, the White House called to connect him with Obama.
The president, according to the piece, told Hagel to stand down and that the U.S. would not take military action.
“A president’s word is a big thing, and when the president says things, that’s a big deal,” Hagel said in the interview.
A senior administration official defended the decision to Foreign Policy, saying Obama was not prepared to take military action without consulting Congress first – and the diplomatic deal that had Assad relinquish his weapons resulted in a Syria “free of its chemical weapons program.”
In the interview, Hagel also complained about the allegedly extensive and meandering deliberations over Syria policy, including hours-long meetings that “were not productive.” He agreed with the reluctance to dispatch a large ground force to the region, but voiced frustration over the confusion about how far the U.S. would go to back rebels in Syria.
Meanwhile, Hagel fumed over how “certain people” were “vilifying me in a gutless, off-the-record kind of way” as he left the administration.
This was a reference to White House officials criticizing him anonymously to news outlets, including saying he didn’t speak up at key meetings.
“They already had my resignation, so what was the point of just continuing to try to destroy me?” he told Foreign Policy.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/18/hagel-says-ok-d-plan-to-strike-damascus-after-red-line-obama-told-him-stand-down.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
Peter Thiel is on the list.
PAYBACK: Obama Admin Sues Peter Thiel’s Palantir for Bogus ‘Racial Discrimination’
by Joel B. Pollak
26 Sep 2016
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/Peter-Thiel-at-RNC-Screenshot-640x480.jpg)
Palantir Technologies co-founder
Peter Thiel is evidently paying the price for backing Republican nominee Donald Trump, as the Obama administration has slapped his company with a frivolous lawsuit alleging “racial discrimination” against Asians.
The lawsuit, filed and announced Monday by the Department of Labor, threatens the complete cancellation of every contract Palantir has with the federal government — a penalty worth $340 million, the lawsuit claims, which would end the company.
The claims in the lawsuit are laughable. The Obama administration alleges that Palantir discriminated against Asians. But it has to admit that Palantir, in fact, hired many Asians — 11 out of 25 software engineers, for example. The government does not even bother to claim that Palantir deliberately excluded Asians. Rather, it argues that since only 44% of Palantir’s software engineers are Asian, but 85% of the applicant pool was Asian, Palantir must, statistically, have discriminated against Asians.
In other words: almost all of the software engineers at Palantir have to be Asian, or else it is guilty of “racial discrimination.” Apparently left-wing concern for “diversity” in the workplace is a flexible concept, based on political expediency.
(It is notoriously difficult for anyone, Asian or otherwise, to be hired by Palantir, which deals with very sensitive and advanced intelligence-oriented projects — a fact that is well-known in the tech, defense, and public policy communities.)
The lawsuit is obvious revenge for Thiel’s support of Trump. In his speech at the Republican National Convention in July, Thiel blasted the government for its technological backwardness: “[T]oday our government is broken … it would be kind to say the government’s software works poorly, because much of the time it doesn’t even work at all.”
Thiel’s government clients clearly did not take kindly to that — and wanted to send a message to other potential Trump fans in the business and tech communities.
One expert interviewed by the San Jose Mercury News was highly skeptical of the lawsuit’s merits:
“This is unusual,” said Buck Gee, a former Cisco executive who studies Asian diversity in Silicon Valley, said of the accusations against Palantir. “If it’s true, it would be an anomaly.”
But Gee said Asian employees are less likely to be promoted once they are hired. At Facebook, for example, just 21 percent of the company’s senior leadership staff is Asian.
As for the Palantir lawsuit, Gee is skeptical about the discrimination claims. The complaint leaves out key information, he said, such as what percentage of the company’s overall workforce is Asian. And the Labor Department didn’t explain how it determined which rejected applicants were qualified for the engineering jobs in question.
The Department of Labor hopes to weaponize the Supreme Court’s disastrous ruling last year in Texas Housing on so-called “disparate impact” discrimination to bully Thiel and others. Thiel, who was recently revealed as the main force behind a years-long battle against Gawker, probably has the guts to fight back. But others will not.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/09/26/palantir-obama-admin-sues-peter-thiels-racial-discrimination/
-
Manafort and Trump were on the list.
It looks like Obama did spy on Trump, just as he apparently did to me
BY SHARYL ATTKISSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 09/20/17
TheHill.com
Many in the media are diving deeply into minutiae in order to discredit any notion that President Trump might have been onto something in March when he fired off a series of tweets claiming President Obama had “tapped” “wires” in Trump Tower just before the election.
According to media reports this week, the FBI did indeed “wiretap” the former head of Trump’s campaign, Paul Manafort, both before and after Trump was elected. If Trump officials — or Trump himself — communicated with Manafort during the wiretaps, they would have been recorded, too.
But we’re missing the bigger story.
If these reports are accurate, it means U.S. intelligence agencies secretly surveilled at least a half dozen Trump associates. And those are just the ones we know about.
Besides Manafort, the officials include former Trump advisers Carter Page and Michael Flynn. Last week, we discovered multiple Trump “transition officials” were “incidentally” captured during government surveillance of a foreign official. We know this because former Obama adviser Susan Rice reportedly admitted “unmasking,” or asking to know the identities of, the officials. Spying on U.S. citizens is considered so sensitive, their names are supposed to be hidden or “masked,” even inside the government, to protect their privacy.
In May, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates acknowledged they, too, reviewed communications of political figures, secretly collected under President Obama.
Weaponization of intel agencies?
Nobody wants our intel agencies to be used like the Stasi in East Germany; the secret police spying on its own citizens for political purposes. The prospect of our own NSA, CIA and FBI becoming politically weaponized has been shrouded by untruths, accusations and justifications.
You’ll recall DNI Clapper falsely assured Congress in 2013 that the NSA was not collecting “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”
Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the Iran nuclear deal.
In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, though CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly denied that.
There were also wiretaps on then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in 2011 under Obama. The same happened under President George W. Bush to former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.).
Journalists have been targeted, too. This internal email, exposed by WikiLeaks, should give everyone chills. It did me.
Dated Sept. 21, 2010, the “global intelligence” firm Stratfor wrote:
[John] Brennan [then an Obama Homeland Security adviser] is behind the witch hunts of investigative journalists learning information from inside the beltway sources.
Note -- There is specific tasker from the WH to go after anyone printing materials negative to the Obama agenda (oh my.) Even the FBI is shocked. The Wonder Boys must be in meltdown mode...
The government subsequently got caught monitoring journalists at Fox News, The Associated Press, and, as I allege in a federal lawsuit, my computers while I worked as an investigative correspondent at CBS News. On Aug. 7, 2013, CBS News publicly announced:
… correspondent Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was hacked by ‘an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions,’ confirming Attkisson’s previous revelation of the hacking.
Then, as now, instead of getting the bigger story, some in the news media and quasi-news media published false and misleading narratives pushed by government interests. They implied the computer intrusions were the stuff of vivid imagination, conveniently dismissed forensic evidence from three independent examinations that they didn’t review. All seemed happy enough to let news of the government’s alleged unlawful behavior fade away, rather than get to the bottom of it.
I have spent more than two years litigating against the Department of Justice for the computer intrusions. Forensics have revealed dates, times and methods of some of the illegal activities. The software used was proprietary to a federal intel agency. The intruders deployed a keystroke monitoring program, accessed the CBS News corporate computer system, listened in on my conversations by activating the computer’s microphone and used Skype to exfiltrate files.
We survived the government’s latest attempt to dismiss my lawsuit. There’s another hearing Friday. To date, the Trump Department of Justice — like the Obama Department of Justice — is fighting me in court and working to keep hidden the identities of those who accessed a government internet protocol address found in my computers.
Evidence continues to build. I recently filed new information unearthed through forensic exams. As one expert told the court, it was “not a mistake; it is not a random event; and it is not technically possible for these IP addresses to simply appear on her computer systems without activity by someone using them as part of the cyber-attack.”
Patterns
It’s difficult not to see patterns in the government’s behavior, unless you’re wearing blinders.
The intelligence community secretly expanded its authority in 2011 so it can monitor innocent U.S. citizens like you and me for doing nothing more than mentioning a target’s name a single time.
In January 2016, a top secret inspector general report found the NSA violated the very laws designed to prevent abuse.
In 2016, Obama officials searched through intelligence on U.S. citizens a record 30,000 times, up from 9,500 in 2013.
Two weeks before the election, at a secret hearing before the FISA court overseeing government surveillance, NSA officials confessed they’d violated privacy safeguards “with much greater frequency” than they’d admitted. The judge accused them of “institutional lack of candor” and said, “this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”
Officials involved in the surveillance and unmasking of U.S. citizens have said their actions were legal and not politically motivated. And there are certainly legitimate areas of inquiry to be made by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. But look at the patterns. It seems that government monitoring of journalists, members of Congress and political enemies — under multiple administrations — has become more common than anyone would have imagined two decades ago. So has the unmasking of sensitive and highly protected names by political officials.
Those deflecting with minutiae are missing the point. To me, they sound like the ones who aren’t thinking.
Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) is an Emmy-award winning investigative journalist, author of The New York Times bestsellers “The Smear” and “Stonewalled,” and host of Sinclair’s Sunday TV program “Full Measure.”
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/351495-it-looks-like-obama-did-spy-on-trump-just-as-he-did-to-me
-
Judicial Watch: New Documents Reveal DOJ, IRS, and FBI Plan to Seek Criminal Charges of Obama Opponents
JULY 07, 2015
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today 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.
The newly obtained records also reveal that the Obama DOJ wanted IRS employees who were going to testify to Congress to turn over documents to the DOJ before giving them to Congress. Records also detail how the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks, containing 1.25 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 nonprofit social 501(c)(4) welfare groups – or nearly every 501(c)(4) in the United States – as part of its prosecution effort. According to a letter from then-House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, “This revelation likely means that the IRS – including possibly Lois Lerner – violated federal tax law by transmitting this information to the Justice Department.”
The documents were produced subsequent to court orders in two Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits: Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:14-cv-1956) and Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No. 1:14-cv-1239).
The new IRS documents include a October 11, 2010 “DOJ Recap” memo sent by IRS Exempt Organizations Tax Law Specialist Siri Buller to Lerner and other top IRS officials explaining an October 8 meeting with representatives from the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and “one representative from the FBI” to discuss the possible criminal prosecution of nonprofit organizations for alleged political activity:
On October 8, 2010, Lois Lerner, Joe Urban [IRS Technical Advisor, TEGE], Judy Kindell [top aide to Lerner], Justin Lowe [Technical Advisor to the Commissioner of Tax-Exempt and Government Entities], and Siri Buller met with the section chief and other attorneys from the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section, and one representative from the FBI, to discuss recent attention to the political activity of exempt organizations.
The section’s attorneys expressed concern that certain section 501(c) organizations are actually political committees “posing” as if they are not subject to FEC law, and therefore may be subject to criminal liability. The attorneys mentioned several possible theories to bring criminal charges under FEC law. In response, Lois and Judy eloquently explained the following points:
Under section 7805(b), we may only revoke or modify an organization’s exemption retroactively if it omitted or misstated a material fact or operated in a manner materially different from that originally represented.
If we do not have these misrepresentations, the organization may rely on our determination it is exempt. However, the likelihood of revocation is diminished by the fact that section 501(c)(4)-(c)(6) organizations are not required to apply for recognition of exemption.
We discussed the hypothetical situation of a section 501(c)(4) organization that declares itself exempt as a social welfare organization, but at the end of the taxable year has in fact functioned as a political organization. Judy explained that such an organization, in order to be in compliance, would simply file Form 1120-POL and paying tax at the highest corporate rate.
Lois stated that although we do not believe that organizations which are subject to a civil audit subsequently receive any type of immunity from a criminal investigation, she will refer them to individuals from CI who can better answer that question. She explained that we are legally required to separate the civil and criminal aspects of any examination and that while we do not have EO law experts in CI, our FIU agents are experienced in coordinating with CI.
The attorneys asked whether a change in the law is necessary, and whether a three-way partnership among DOJ, the FEC, and the IRS is possible to prevent prohibited activity by these organizations. Lois listed a number of obstacles to the attorneys’ theories:
[REDACTED]
She pointed to Revenue Ruling 2004-6, which was drafted in light of the electioneering communication rules before they were litigated.
Just prior this meeting, the IRS began the process of providing the FBI confidential taxpayer information on nonprofit groups. An IRS document confirms the IRS supplied the FBI with 21 disks containing 1.25 million pages of taxpayer records:
FROM: Hamilton David K
SENT: Tuesday, October 5, 2010 2:49 PM
TO: Whittaker Sherry [Director, GE Program Management], Blackwell Robert M
SUBJECT: RE: Question
There are 113,000 C4 returns from January 1, 2007 to now. Assuming they want all pages including redacted ones, that’s 1.25 million pages … If we get started on it right away, before the 10th when the monthly extracts start, we can probably get it done in a week or so….
The DOJ documents also include a July 16, 2013, email from an undisclosed Justice Department official to a lawyer for IRS employees asking that the Obama administration get information from congressional witnesses before Congress does:
One last issue. If any of your clients have documents they are providing to Congress that you can (or would like to) provide to us before their testimony, we would be pleased to receive them. We are 6103 authorized and I can connect you with TIGTA to confirm; we would like the unredacted documents.
“These new documents show that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama DOJ and FBI scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his reelection. And this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information. How can the Justice Department and FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?”
On April 16, 2014, Judicial Watch forced the IRS to release documents revealing for the first time that Lerner communicated with the DOJ in May 2013 about whether it was possible to launch criminal prosecutions against targeted tax-exempt entities. The documents were obtained due to court order in an October 2013 Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit filed against the IRS.
Those documents contained an email exchange between Lerner and Nikole C. Flax, then-chief of staff to then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller discussing plans to work with the DOJ to prosecute nonprofit groups that “lied” (Lerner’s quotation marks) about political activities. The exchange included a May 8, 2013, email by Lerner:
I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s –saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…
Democratic Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse held a hearing on April 9, 2013, during which, “in questioning the witnesses from the DOJ and IRS, Whitehouse asked why they have not prosecuted 501(c)(4) groups that have seemingly made false statements about their political activities…”
The House Oversight Committee followed up on these Judicial Watch disclosures with hearings and interviews of Pilger and his boss, DOJ Public Integrity Chief Jack Smith. Besides confirming the DOJ’s 2013 communications with Lerner, Pilger admitted to the committee that DOJ officials met with Lerner in October 2010. Judicial Watch obtained new documents about these meetings in December 2014 showing the Obama DOJ initiated outreach to the IRS about prosecuting tax-exempt entities.
Following Judicial Watch’s lead, the House also found out about the IRS transmittal of the confidential taxpayer information to the FBI. Because of this public disclosure, the FBI was forced to return the 1.25 million pages to the IRS.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-documents-reveal-doj-irs-and-fbi-plan-to-seek-criminal-charges-of-obama-opponents/
I must have missed the story where these charges were filed
-
No way that a petty, vindictive, paranoid criminal like Trump would have a list like the one that Republicans imagined Obama had ..you know, the list he gave to his DOJ so they could prosecute his political enemies
-
No way that a petty, vindictive, paranoid criminal like Trump would have a list like the one that Republicans imagined Obama had ..you know, the list he gave to his DOJ so they could prosecute his political enemies
Bwahahahahaha!!
Do you ever get tired of making a COMPLETE ass of yourself?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/grenell-releases-list-of-officials-who-sought-to-unmask-flynn-biden-comey-obama-intel-chiefs-among-them
-
ODS is still strong on this board.