Let me give you a little warm up to the story below. This is starting to smell like the FBI investigation of the IRS scandal.
Anybody remember this?
Rep. Jim Jordan DESTROYS FBI Director Mueller on IRS Targeting Scandal
Video 153
The IRS scandal is a very big deal yet FBI Director Mueller can't name who the lead investigator is nor how many people are working the case? Does anyone find that odd? What was more pressing consuming his time than the IRS scandal? To this day not one TeaPartier was ever contacted by the FBI.
This is what I think transpired:
In 2010 the TeaParty was a force to be reckoned with. Anybody remember Barry mocking them waving an imaginary teabag around?
Video 154
In the 2010 House of Representatives election the Democrats were obliterated. 63 seats went from Democrat to Republican. The highest loss of a party in a House midterm election since 1938!!!
In the 2010 House of Representatives election the Democrats were obliterated. 63 seats went from Democrat to Republican. The highest loss of a party in a House midterm election since 1938!!!
Barry was really pissed. Even went on TV and said “we got shellacked”. Shortly thereafter he started getting visits in the WH from the IRS. My eyes popped when I saw the total number. After the election and just before the IRS scandal broke there was a whopping 357 documented visits! They explained it away saying this had all to do with the implementation of ObamaCare. Maybe…not all of it. I think Barry, shall we say, sowed the seed in these meeting with the IRS. He wanted to destroy the TeaParty who he blamed for the House flipping Republican. His operatives Miller, Lois Lerner, among others got to work targeting conservative in particular the TeaParty.
This from Wikipedia:
Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party", "patriots", or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period, only 4 were approved. During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as “progressive”, “progress", "liberal", or "equality".
(Imagine--same scenario Bush administration targeting liberals. Think it might have been a different outcome?)
Over that period of time Learner and her crew got a little, lets say, “over zealous” targeting conservatives. It reached the boiling point and they knew they could no longer keep a lid on it. In early May 2013, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration released an audit report confirming that the IRS used inappropriate criteria to identify potential political cases, including organizations with Tea Party in their names. Stop right here. Didn't they just break the law? I have no proof but I bet Barry cooked this up. The Treasury Inspector General releases this bombshell story and Barry shorty thereafter goes on the air and gives us a bullshit story about "two low-level rogue employees in Cincinnati" and proclaims how “outraged” he is and "he's going to get to the bottom of it". So why was this bombshell story released in this manner? Better coming from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration... than James Rosen breaking the story at FOX News!
Boehner once warned. "My question isn't about who's going to resign. My question is about who’s going to jail over this scandal." So where are we today after countless investigations? Not one person was fired or went to jail. Learner as far as I know retired with a full pension in the neighborhood of $180,000 a year.
Barry on O'Reilly
We have all heard the stories missing emails, hard drives wiped clean, etc. But this should really shine a light on it. The odds of seven different hard drives failing in the same month (like what happened at the IRS when they received a letter asking about emails targeting conservative and pro Israeli groups) is 37 to the 7th power = 1 in 78,664,164,096. (that’s over 78 Billion) In other words, the odds are greater that you will win the Florida Lottery 342 times than having those seven IRS hard drives crashing in the same month!
Barry on O'Reilly
Video 155
Barry was right it wasn't a smidgen it was a boatload!
We have all heard the stories missing emails, hard drives wiped clean, etc. But this should really shine a light on it. The odds of seven different hard drives failing in the same month (like what happened at the IRS when they received a letter asking about emails targeting conservative and pro Israeli groups) is 37 to the 7th power = 1 in 78,664,164,096. (that’s over 78 Billion) In other words, the odds are greater that you will win the Florida Lottery 342 times than having those seven IRS hard drives crashing in the same month!
It also doesn’t even mention the fact that these hard drives crashed right after people were demanding to see the emails, making the odds that much more preposterous. Barry's tentacles creep into the IRS and the FBI. Both are a cess pool of corruption.
Even Helen Keller could see it.
-----------------------------------------------------
The FBI refused to cooperate Monday with a court-ordered inquiry into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email server, telling the State Department that they won’t even confirm they are investigating the matter themselves, much less willing to tell the rest of the government what’s going on.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan had ordered the State Department to talk with the FBI and see what sort of information could be recovered from Mrs. Clinton’s email server, which her lawyer has said she turned over to the Justice Department over the summer.
The FBI’s refusal, however, leaves things muddled.
“At this time, consistent with long-standing Department of Justice and FBI policy, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation, nor are we in a position to provide additional information at this time,” FBI General Counsel James A. Baker wrote in a letter dated Monday — a week after the deadline the Justice Department had set for the FBI to reply.
Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that is pursuing at least 16 open records cases seeking emails from Mrs. Clinton and her top aides, said at this point it’s not even clear what Mrs. Clinton provided, since all that’s been made public at this point are the former secretary of state’s public comments and some assertions, made through her lawyer, to the State Department.
Judicial Watch is prodding the courts to try to delve more deeply into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and the group said a number of questions persevere about both Mrs. Clinton and top aides such as Huma Abedin, who did public business on an account tied to the server Mrs. Clinton maintained.
“We still do not know whether the FBI — or any other government agency for that matter — has possession of the email server that was used by Mrs. Clintonand Ms. Abedin to conduct official government business during their four years of employment at the State Department,” Judicial Watch said.
“We also do not know whether the server purportedly in the possession of the FBI — an assumption based on unsworn statements by third parties — is the actual email server that was used by Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin to conduct official government business during their four years of employment at the State Department or whether it is a copy of such an email server. Nor do we know whether any copies of the email server or copies of the records from the email server exist,” the group said in its own court filing Monday afternoon.
Judicial Watch did release more than 50 pages Monday of emails it obtained from Ms. Abedin’s account on Mrs. Clinton’s server, and said it was clear she was talking about “sensitive” topics that shouldn’t have been discussed on an insecure account.
Many of those were details of Mrs. Clinton’s movements overseas, such as hotels she was staying at.
“These emails Judicial Watch forced out through a federal lawsuit show that Huma Abedin used her separate clintonemail.com account to conduct the most sensitive government business, endangering not only her safety but the safety of Hillary Clinton and countless others,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
He questioned what reason Ms. Abedin — who did maintain an account, huma@clintonemail.com, on State.gov servers — would have for using the other account for important business. Mrs. Clinton said she kept only one account, the one on the clintonemail.com server, because it was more convenient, but that reasoning does not appear to apply to Ms. Abedin.
The State Department is making all of Mrs. Clinton’s emails public under order of Judge Rudolph Contreras. But the department has said it won’t make all of the emails public from Ms. Abedin or other top Clinton aides Cheryl Mills or Philippe Reines. Instead the department only plans to release those messages specifically requested in open records demands.
Mrs. Clinton turned over about 30,000 email messages in December, while her aides turned over more than 100,000 pages between them, with the final set only being returned, by Ms. Abedin, earlier this month, the departmentsaid in court filings.
Without those documents in hand, the State Department has been unable to do full and complete searches in response to subpoenas, congressional inquiries or Freedom of Information Act requests.
The State Department has asked for dozens of cases to be put on hold while it tries to get a single judge to coordinate all of its searches in more than two dozen cases. But the people requesting the records have objected, and say the State Department has nobody to blame but itself.
“The State Department acts as if Ms. Abedin’s and Ms. Mills’ documents fell from the sky on the eve of the State Department’s production deadline, but that is not remotely the case,” Citizens United, one of the plaintiffs who has sued under the FOIA, said in a filing late last week.
Citizens United says the State Department missed its own deadline for producing Ms. Mills’ and Ms. Abedin’s documents.
The Obama administration countered that it went above and beyond its duties under the law by asking Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills to return their records and then to search them in response to open records requests. The State Department says it’s moving as quickly as possible, but says the sheer number of documents — and the number of requests for them — calls for a stay in most cases.
But of the 26 requests where the State Department has sought to halt proceedings, six have already been denied. Only one has been granted, one was granted in part and denied in part by the same judge, and another is being held in abeyance.
The State Department told one of the federal judges Monday that it’s facing nearly 100 different open records lawsuits — not all of them related to Mrs. Clinton’s email server — that have stretched officials to their limit.
Monday’s FBI letter underscores the tangled situation Mrs. Clinton’s emails have produced. The letter was addressed to Mary McLeod, a lawyer at the Justice Department, which oversees the FBI — and which means, in effect, that the FBI is refusing to talk to its own parent department about the matter.
Mr. Baker pointedly noted in his letter that he was aware the response would be submitted to the court, which would presumably make it public.
Earlier this month the Justice Department, in another pleading, insisted Mrs. Clinton didn’t do anything wrong in being the one who decided which of her messages were official business records that must be returned to the government and which were purely personal and able to be expunged.
Judicial Watch said that raises thorny questions for a department that is supposedly investigating Mrs. Clinton.
Last week Sen. John Cornyn, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, called for Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch to name a special counsel to oversee the investigation, citing too many potential conflicts of interest.
------------------------
And who appointed Loretta E. Lynch? If I'm not mistaken the House and the Senate has the power to by-pass Lynch and appoint a special prosecutor. Why don't they do it?
------------------------
And who appointed Loretta E. Lynch? If I'm not mistaken the House and the Senate has the power to by-pass Lynch and appoint a special prosecutor. Why don't they do it?
No comments :
Post a Comment