The news just keeps getting piled higher and deeper. The Obama administration continues to gain ground in the CNN Poll while losing ground in the Gallup Poll, which is the one that has been used for decades. Just two days ago, I posted several articles from The Blaze regarding a series of updates on the IRS scandal, and this morning when I checked to see what all has transpired, the charges have become more serious. At what point do the American people and the liberal mass media come to an understandig that this is the most politically-profligate administration we have ever seen?
For instance, legendary Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, who was chiefly responsible for uncovering many of the details behind the Watergate scandal that brought down the Nixon administration, had this to say about the Benghazi scandal:
“…On the whole Benghazi thing, you look at those talking points, and the initial draft by the CIA very explicitly said we know that activists who have ties to al-Qaeda were involved in the attack. And then you see what comes out a couple of days later and there is no reference to this. This is a business where you have to tell the truth, and that did not happen here.” (Courtesy of The Blaze.)While acknowledging that these scandals are "not Watergate," Woodward said that “some people in the administration…have acted as if they want to be Nixonian, and that’s a very big problem. I think…”
***
And while I have not reported on this one yet, the Justice Department under Eric Holder, who brought the American people "Fast and Furious," also obtained phone records from a Fox News reporter. Dated May 13, here is what Fox News says about this unconstitutional transgression:
Justice Department targeted Fox News reporter
- Last Updated: 4:15 PM, May 20, 2013
- Posted: 11:22 AM, May 20, 2013
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department grabbed a trove of information about Fox News correspondent James Rosen in an effort to try advance a leak investigation, it was revealed today – including tracking the reporter’s movements inside the State Department with a government-issued ID pass.
MORE: WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF KNEW IRS WAS TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS
The feds also got access to Rosen’s phone records and got a warrant to examine his personal email account, the Washington Post reported today, citing a court affidavit.
The effort to track the prominent reporter was part of the case ongoing against State official Jin-Woo Kim.
JAMES ROSEN
It comes just a week after the Associated Press revealed that DOJ had obtained a sweeping subpoena that provided two months’ worth of phone records for 21 different phone lines used by 100 journalists as part of a separate investigation into another leak.
The government’s case against Kim began after Rosen reported in an online story about US intelligence official warnings that North Korea would likely respond to US sanctions with additional nuclear tests.
As parts of the government’s investigation, The FBI tracked Rosen’s movements in and out of State, and matched them up against Kim’s movements, according documents that include the statements of an FBI agent.
The data about the movements, gleaned from State’s security system, were used to try to establish that the two had a 'face-to-face' meeting off campus, according to the affidavit.It isn’t known how many other people left and entered the building at about the same time, which occurred just after noon, when many people eat lunch.
Both Fox News and the Post are owned by News Corp.
The affidavit, includes a statement by FBI agent Reginald Reyes that there was evidence Rosen broke the law “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”'We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter. In fact, it is downright chilling,' said Fox News executive VP Michael Clemente. 'We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press.'
A range of members of Congress condemned the government’s sweeping examination of the AP’s phone records last week.
President Obama said at a press conference he made 'no apologies' for the leak investigation, saying national security leaks 'put people at risk.'”
So, the president is condoning this act against freedom of the press? It is almost like the now-famous quote from one of my favorite comedies of all time, Tommy Boy, that starred the late, great Chris Farley and David. In one scene when Tommy (Farley) was confronting auto parts magnate Ray Zalinsky (played by Dan Aykroyd) who was in the process of purchasing Tommy's inherited corporation called Callahan Auto Parts, Zalinsky uttered these words:
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public, alright?"
Never in my memory have I ever seen a president more restrictive of the American people's constitutional rights than what I have learned about in over the past two or three weeks.
But this is not all. There are further updates about the Fox News abuses, as journalist James Rosen and a national -security senior producer Mike Levine were similarly targeted. As many on the Left know, most of Fox News' political analysts are conservatives, whereas the liberal lunatic fringe in America has both CNN and MSNBC as the cable news networks espousing their beliefs. It is scary to think that despite covering better than 66.6% of the cable news market, the Obama administration is so threatened by Fox News that it is willing to go to extreme lengths to incriminate members of a conservative media outlet who happen to come across further evidence of yet another cover-up by the White House.
GOVERNMENT
DOJ REPORTEDLY SNOOPED ON TWO ADDITIONAL FOX NEWS EMPLOYEES
May. 20, 2013 7:59pm
The Department of Justice in its ongoing efforts to plug national security leaks closely monitored James Rosen, Fox News’ chief Washington correspondent, the Washington Post reported Sunday evening.
The DOJ kept track of Rosen’s security badge access records to monitor his comings and goings from the State Department, the Post reports. The department also traced the timing of his calls with a State Department official and obtained a search warrant for his personal emails.
But if you think that’s bad, it apparently gets worse: Rosen wasn’t the only Fox News employee to come under intense DOJ scrutiny.
Fox News’ Megyn Kelly said Monday that Fox News correspondent William La Jeunesse and DOJ and national-security senior producer Mike Levine were also targeted by President Obama’s Justice Department.
So, what are some members of the media saying about the Justice Department's and IRS's roles in trampling all over the people's rights as well as the directives of the Constitution? The Washington Post's columnist Armstrong Williams had this to say about the legality on May 19:
"The Associated Press: The Department of Justice acquired the phone records of AP reporters over two months in an effort to locate an administration leak.
APgate is troubling, but the problem for the Republicans is that acquiring phone records is legal and part of the Patriot Act. Attempts to roll this particular part of the legislation back have been convincingly voted down by both parties. Suddenly, the Republicans realize that an overreaching Patriot Act may not have been a good thing, but that stance looks to be driven by politics rather than ideology.
The IRS scandal is the most relatable and represents the most immediate problem for our country. Only a fool would believe that two to four field workers took it upon themselves to institute a policy of red taping conservative groups. The scandal rises higher, but I seriously doubt Mr. Obama directed such actions...
...And finally, regarding the AP do we need more Patriot Act provisions to protect the U.S. by suspecting every citizen and stopping potential whistleblowers? Does the government need more power to track everyone’s movements and communications now that modern technology gives them the ability to do so?
I think we need to take a serious look at the Patriot Act and begin rolling it back. Our government was founded on the belief that we are all “innocent until proven guilty” and should be afforded due process.
In order for our republic to function, we must be able to trust the government to faithfully protect our rights and privacy. However, treating everyone like a suspected criminal only weakens our confidence in the government’s willingness to safeguard our liberties. A government dedicated to civil rights is more trusting and less invasive, which compels it to be smaller."
The Patriot Act is unconstitutional. President George W. Bush opened Pandora's Box when he rammed that bill through the Republican-controlled Congress. His use of fear and scare tactics led to a vast and expansive future of egregious abuses of power on the civil liberties of the American people. Sadly, Williams is right.
So, what this amounts to, then, is the old tried-and-true political phrase that was made famous during the Watergate investigation by then-Tennessee Republican Senator Howard Baker: "What did the president know and when did he know it?" The House of Representatives passed the final three resolutions for articles of impeachment on July 27, 1974 charging President Richard Nixon with obstruction of justice. Because of this fait accompli, Nixon was forced to resign from office, the first president ever to do so. This seems to be what is going on with President Obama. While he may have had the legal ammunition to persecute the media at least in the AP scandal as Armstrong Williams claims, there is something else extremely fishy about what I am about to post about the deeper-than-we-realized penetration into Fox News' investigative reporting according to Fox News in an article from May 20:
"Justice Department affidavit labels Fox News journalist as possible ‘co-conspirator’Published May 20, 2013FoxNews.com
"A Fox News correspondent was accused in a Justice Department affidavit of being a possible criminal "co-conspirator" for his alleged role in publishing sensitive security information -- in a leak case that takes the highly unusual step of claiming a journalist broke the law.
According to court documents, the Justice Department obtained a portfolio of information about Fox News' James Rosen's conversations and visits to the State Department. This included a search warrant for his personal emails.
The effort follows that by the department to secretly obtain two months of phone records from Associated Press journalists as part of a separate leak probe. The department in this case, though, went a step further -- as an FBI agent claimed there's evidence the Fox News correspondent broke the law, 'at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator'"
Michael Clemente, Fox News' executive vice president of news, defended Rosen in a statement issued Monday afternoon.
'We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter,' Clemente said. 'In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press.'
The case has also caught the attention of Congress. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said in a statement Monday he was 'very concerned' about the reports of 'possible criminal prosecution for doing what appears to be normal news-gathering protected by the First Amendment.'
He added: 'The sort of reporting by James Rosen detailed in the report is the same sort of reporting that helped Mr. Rosen aggressively pursue questions about the Administration's handling of Benghazi. National security leaks are criminal and put American lives on the line, and federal prosecutors should, of course, vigorously investigate. But we expect that they do so within the bounds of the law, and that the investigations focus on the leakers within the government -- not on media organizations that have First Amendment protections and serve vital function in our democracy.'
In the case involving Rosen, a government adviser was accused of leaking information after a 2009 story was published online which said North Korea planned to respond to looming U.N. sanctions with another nuclear test.
An affidavit entered by FBI agent Reginald Reyes claimed there was "probable cause" to believe Rosen -- identified only as "the reporter" -- had violated a provision of U.S. law barring the unauthorized disclosure of defense information. This is where Reyes labeled Rosen as a possible "co-conspirator" -- an allegation used to gain access to two days' worth of emails.
The search warrant for that request was ultimately approved, the records show.
Investigators, in pursuing the case, also obtained records of Rosen's visits to the State Department headquarters by tracking security-badge information. As first reported by The Washington Post, a court affidavit said they used the badge records to log his visits as well as the movements of the adviser, Stephen Jim-Woo Kim.
The FBI agent said in the affidavit that the visits suggested a 'face-to-face' meeting.
According to the Post, investigators also obtained two months of phone records from Kim's office.
Rosen said Monday that 'as a reporter, I always honor the confidentiality of my dealings with all of my sources.'
He was not contacted by any government or law enforcement representative during the investigation.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, asked about the case Monday, said he could not comment on the 'ongoing investigation.' He said President Obama is a "strong defender of the First Amendment," but also is "insistent that we protect our secrets, that we protect classified information."
The Department of Justice said in a statement Monday that 'leaks of classified information to the press can pose a serious risk of harm to our national security and it is important that we pursue these matters using appropriate law enforcement tools.'
The U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia also said the government, before seeking approval for the search warrant, 'exhausted all reasonable non-media alternatives for collecting this evidence.'
While Kim has already been indicted, the office said no other charges have been brought. 'Based on the investigation and all of the facts known to date, no other individuals, including the reporter, have been charged since Mr. Kim was indicted nearly three years ago,' the office said.
Attorney General Eric Holder said at a House hearing last week that he is not interested in prosecuting the press.
"With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I've ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy," he said on May 15.
The seizure of records from the AP offices also spanned two months.
AP President Gary Pruitt said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday that the AP records grab was not only unconstitutional but damaging to the operation of the press.
'It will hurt,' he said. 'We're already seeing some impact. Officials are saying they're reluctant to talk.'"
Williams also said this about the Benghazi affair:
However, as I agree with Williams on the first three sets of points, I diverge with him on this point about the IRS scandal and the involvement of the Obama administration:"Benghazi was undoubtedly a tragedy. Was there negligence? Yes. Was there a poor attempt at spin? Most definitely. Were departments pointing fingers at each other? As sure as the sun shines. Is anything that happened impeachable? No. More than anything Benghazi is another example of an administration getting caught flat-footed and stumbling to fudge the facts for fear that Americans could not handle the truth, especially so close to the elections.And that, my dear readers, gets to the heart of what the week was really about: the competence of a government ruled by a party that thinks the solution to every problem is more government."
"The IRS scandal is the most relatable and represents the most immediate problem for our country. Only a fool would believe that two to four field workers took it upon themselves to institute a policy of red taping conservative groups. The scandal rises higher, but I seriously doubt Mr. Obama directed such actions."
There are articles which will either bring into question or even refute Mr. Williams' claim here. Glenn Hall of The Blaze reports on the news that the president might have known about the IRS' targeting of conservative, Christian, and pro-Israeli groups since last summer. Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) requested an audit of the IRS on June 28, 2012 in a letter sent directly to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George that pointed out examples of the IRS' series of abuses:
"GOVERNMENT
REP. JORDAN PLEDGES TO GET TO BOTTOM OF IRS ‘ABUSE OF TAXPAYERS’ FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS’
May. 20, 2013 9:30pm
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) pledged that the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will get to the bottom of the 'IRS’ abuse of taxpayers’ First Amendment rights,' which he said members of the Obama administration have been aware of since last summer when he and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) called for an inspector general’s investigation.
'At the risk of sounding, I guess a little boastful, we’d like to think that because Congressman Issa and I requested the audit of the IRS — when Tea Party groups from all over the country and specifically from the fourth district of Ohio, came to us and said ‘look we’re getting harassed,’ — we said let’s check into this and so we requested the audit and the audit by the inspector general is what prompted the IRS to actually come forward and admit to what they did,' Issa said in a video response (below) via TellDC.com, a website that allows people to ask questions to their elected representatives.
Jordan and Issa requested the audit in a June 28, 2012 letter sent directly to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George that pointed out examples of IRS 'overreach.'
Gearing up for a hearing next Wednesday, Jordan told TellDC.com that the committee is planning to seek testimony from other IRS witnesses in addition to Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Division, who will be a key witness.
Watch the rest of Jordan’s response to Melissa Hopkins, Executive Producer at TellDC.com:
Video courtesy of TellDC.com.
Front page image credit: AP"
Then, there's this article from The American Spectator that seems to shatter the well-intended, yet too-naive Mr. Williams' argument that the president played no role in the decision by the IRS to target conservative groups:
"Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
By JEFFREY LORD on 5.20.13 @ 6:11AM
President met with anti-Tea Party IRS union chief the day before agency targeted Tea Party.
'For me, it’s about collaboration.' — National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley on the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama White House
Is President Obama directly implicated in the IRS scandal?
Is the White House Visitors Log the trail to the smoking gun?
The stunning questions are raised by the following set of new facts.
March 31, 2010.
According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.
The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:
Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30
In White House language, “POTUS” stands for 'President of the United States.'
The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:
April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.
In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS 'Determinations Unit Program agreed' to open a 'Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.' As stated by the IG report.
The NTEU is the 150,000 member union that represents IRS employees along with 30 other separate government agencies. Kelley herself is a 14-year IRS veteran agent. The union’s PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates.
Putting IRS employees in the position of actively financing anti-Tea Party candidates themselves, while in their official positions in the IRS blocking, auditing, or intimidating Tea Party and conservative groups around the country.
The IG report contained a timeline prepared by examining internal IRS e-mails. The IG report did not examine White House Visitor Logs, e-mails, or phone records relating to the relationship between the IRS union, the IRS, and the White House.
(Page 2 of 8)
In fact, this record in the White House Visitors Log of a 12:30 Wednesday, March 31, 2010 meeting between President Obama and the IRS union’s Kelley was not unusual.
On yet another occasion, Kelley’s presence at the White House was followed shortly afterwards by the President issuing Executive Order 13522. A presidential directive that gave the anti-Tea Party NTEU — the IRS union — a greater role in the day-to-day operation of the IRS than it had already — which was considerable.
Kelley is recorded as visiting the White House over a year earlier, listed in this fashion:
Kelley, Colleen Potus/Flotus 12/03/2009 18:30
The inclusion of “FLOTUS” — First Lady Michelle Obama — and the 6:30 pm time of the December event on this entry in the Visitors Log indicates this was the White House Christmas Party held that evening and written up here in the Chicago Sun-Times. The Sun-Times focused on party guests from the President’s home state of Illinois and did not mention Kelley. Notably, the Illinois guests, who are reported to have attended the same party as Kelley, included what the paper described as four labor 'activists': Dennis Gannon of the Chicago Federation of Labor, Tom Balanoff of the Service Employees International Union, Henry Tamarin of UNITE, and Ron Powell of the United Food and Commercial Workers.
Six days following Kelley’s attendance at the White House Christmas party with labor activists like herself, the President issued Executive Order 13522 (text found here, with an explanation here). The Executive Order, titled: 'Creating Labor-Management Forums To Improve Delivery of Government Services' applied across the federal government and included the IRS. The directive was designed to:
Allow employees and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters….
However else this December 2009 Executive Order can be described, the directive was a serious grant of authority within the IRS to the powerful anti-Tea Party union. A union that by this time already had the clout to determine the rules for IRS employees, right down to who would be allowed a Blackberry or what size office the employee was entitled to. The same union that would shortly be doling out serious 2010 (and later 2012) campaign contributions to anti-Tea Party candidates with money supplied from IRS employees. The union, as noted last week here in this space, already has the authority to decide all manner of IRS matters, right down to who does and does not get a Blackberry.
It is the same union whose IRS employee-members were beingurged in 2012 by Senate Democrats (Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, Max Baucus, and others) to target Tea Party and other conservative groups.
Which, as the IG records, they did.
Both Mr. Obama and the NTEU’s Kelley have been by turns evasive and tight-lipped about their roles in the blossoming IRS scandal.
Kelley refused to open up to the Washington Post. In an article titled 'IRS, union mum on employees held accountable in ‘sin’ of political targeting,' the Post quoted the following:
'NTEU is working to get the facts but does not have any specifics at this time. Moreover, IRS employees are not permitted to discuss taxpayer cases. We cannot comment further at this time,' NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley said via e-mail.
A call to the NTEU office in Cincinnati resulted in a similar response: 'We’ve been directed by national office. We have no comment.'
The President approached things in a more evasive manner.
(Page 3 of 8)
Last Thursday at the President’s press conference with the Turkish prime minister, Julianna Goldman of Bloomberg News asked the following question, bold print for emphasis:
'Mr. President, I want to ask you about the IRS. Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd? And when they did find out, do you think that you should have learned about it before you learned about it from news reports as you said last Friday? And also, are you opposed to there being a special counsel appointed to lead the Justice Department investigation?'
The President’s response? (Again bold print emphasis.)
'But let me make sure that I answer your specific question. I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press.'
Take note: Goldman’s question was:
'Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd?'
The President evaded by answering:
'I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report…..'
The question was not whether he knew about the IG report ahead of time. The question was whether he could 'assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions.'
In response, the President ducked.
In other words, the IRS union chief went to the White House to meet personally with the president on March 31. The union already had Executive Order 13522 behind it, issued by the President barely three months earlier. An Executive Order directing that the IRS must 'allow employees and unions to have pre-decisional involvement in all workplace matters….'.
The very next day after that March 31 meeting at the White House, the IRS, with the union involved in its decision-making, was setting up its 'Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party.'
Which raises the famous question from Watergate: What did the President know and when did he know it?
While potentially explosive now, in fact the Obama Administration hadn’t been in office a month before Kelley was boasting of the IRS union’s influence in the White House.
In a February 15, 2009 interview given to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh is Kelley’s home town), there was this question from the PG reporter, with the now Washington-based Kelley boasting as below, key point in bold print:
(Page 4 of 8)
Q: Has the Obama staff been receptive?
A: Yes. We have worked with the transition team, given them suggestions; and throughout the campaign, President Obama talked about working with the federal employees and unions. He’s recognized the contributions federal employees make. I was just at the White House(Jan. 30) while he was signing some executive orders to undo some things the prior administration did.
Catch that?
The boast?
'I was just at the White House…'
Which is to say, the election of 2008, in which the union had endorsed Obama, was no sooner over than the head of the IRS union had 'worked with the transition team” and “given them suggestions.' Literally ten days after the Obama January 20 inaugural in 2009 — January 30 the article notes — Kelley was boasting that 'I was just at the White House while he (the President) was signing some executive orders to undo some things the prior administration did.'
And what did Kelley see as the IRS union’s relationship with the White House she had already visited ten days into the President’s first term?
Kelley responded candidly, again with the bold print added for emphasis:
'We are looking for a return to what we used to call partnership. I don’t really care what it’s called. For me, it’s about collaboration.'
Catch those words?
Collaboration. Partnership.
In addition to Kelley’s three visits to see the President — in January of 2009, December of 2009, and March of 2010 — she is listed for three other visits, the contact names those of presidential aides:
'Kelley, Colleen Weiss, Margaret 11/04/2009 10:00'
'Kelley, Colleen Weiss, Margaret 12/01/2009 12:00'
'Kelley, Colleen Nelson, Greg 01/14/2010 13:40'
(Page 5 of 8)
The obvious question instantly arises with the revelation that Kelley was meeting with the President personally — the day before the IRS kicked into high gear with its 'Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party'.
Were the President of the United States and the President of the NTEU meeting in the White House at 12:30 on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 — and engaged in 'collaboration' and 'partnership'? A 'collaboration' and 'partnership' that was all about targeting the Tea Party?
And did that collaboration and partnership result in the IRS letting loose the hounds on the Tea Party and conservative groups — the very next day after the Obama-Kelley meeting?
To add to the administration’s IRS-NTEU woes is the fact that beyond the Inspector General, there is another IRS-connected agency in the Treasury Department: the IRS Oversight Board.
And on that board sits a presidential appointee named Robert M. Tobias. Tobias, oddly, was a Clinton appointee in 2005, confirmed by the Senate for a five-year term. He is still there. He is the longtime NTEU general counsel and Kelley’s predecessor as the union president. Here’s the statement, from the IRS Oversight Board, on all of this. It is headed:
IRS Oversight Board Deeply Troubled by Breakdown in IRS Process in Reviewing Tax-Exempt Applications.
There was no reference to the influence of the anti-Tea Party NTEU in the statement. Why would there be when the union’s ex-president sits on the Oversight Board itself?
Obama’s problem here is considerable.
By not forthrightly answering Goldman’s question, he seems to be evading the issue in the manner that brought so much trouble in the form of congressional investigations, special prosecutors, and impeachment threats to Presidents Nixon and Clinton, with Nixon being forced to resign the presidency and Clinton brought to a Senate trial.
The President’s too-clever-by half evasion added to Kelley’s silence leaves open the question of whether the union and the White House, not to mention the IRS Oversight Board, are collaborating — collaborating right now — on a cover-up.
Nixon looked the American people in the television eye and flatly lied about his personal involvement in the Watergate scandal, lies that came from a frantic attempt to conduct a cover-up.
Clinton looked the American people in the eye and famously wagged his finger as he lied that he 'did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.' In Clinton’s case this extended to lying to a federal grand jury.
For a good long while, the American people in fact believed both Nixon and Clinton. The stories are now legion of Nixon cabinet and staff believing their man, and Clinton’s cabinet and staff believing their man’s protestations of innocence as well.
Finally, in both cases, the truth was out.
As Washington and the country have long since twice-learned the hard way, the parsing of presidential words in cases like this, not to mention looking into the cameras and boldly lying on the prayer of getting away with the lie, always bodes ill for presidents. It leads inevitably to that simple question famously uttered by then-Tennessee GOP Senator Howard Baker and posed of Nixon at the Senate Watergate hearings: 'What did the President know and when did he know it?'
(Page 6 of 8)
Twice in recent American history the answer to this question, once for Nixon and once for Clinton, has landed popular, powerful presidents in impeachment hot water. Ending Republican Nixon’s presidency altogether and coming close to doing the same with Democrat Clinton. Leaving the legacy of each permanently scarred.
The notion that the players in the IRS scandal did what they did to get past the 2012 election will only add to an Obama presidential reputation as borrowing the Nixon playbook on skirting scandal in a presidential election year.
Ironically re-casting the image of America’s first black president as the black Nixon.
With the examples of how Nixon and Clinton dodged, evaded, and lied, Obama’s non-answer to Juliana Goldman’s question at last week’s press conference comes in for much more scrutiny. Matched to the silence of Kelley it begins raising obvious questions. Such as:
• Did the President himself ever discuss the Tea Party with Kelley?
• Did the President ever communicate his thoughts on the Tea Party to Kelley — in any fashion other than a face-to-face conversation such as e-mail, text, or by phone?
• What was the subject of the Obama-Kelley March 31, 2010 meeting?
• Who was present at the Obama-Kelley March 31 meeting?
• Was the Tea Party or any other group opposing the President’s agenda discussed at the March 31 meeting, or before or after that meeting?
• Is the White House going to release any e-mails, text, or phone records that detail Kelley’s contacts with not only Mr. Obama but his staff?
• Will the IRS release all e-mail, text, or phone records between Kelley or any other leader of the NTEU with IRS employees?
• What role did Executive Order 13522 play in the IRS investigations of the Tea Party and all these other conservative groups?
Doubtless there are others, considerable others and the list of questions will grow.
Not to be lost sight of here is the role of the NTEU in raising money for Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles — the exact period when the IRS was busy going after the Tea Party and the others to curb any possible influence the groups could have in the elections of 2010 and 2012.
The NTEU, through its political action committee, raised $613,633 in the 2010 cycle, giving 98% of its contributions to anti-Tea Party Democrats. In 2012 the figure was $729,708, with 94% going to anti-Tea Party candidates. One NTEU candidate after another, as discussed last week in this space, campaigned vigorously against.
(Page 7 of 8)
So the motivations here — defeating the Tea Party in 2010, and failing at that, making sure that the news of the metastasizing cancer in the IRS was kept quiet until after the 2012 presidential election was over — are clear.
What is particularly interesting here are the automatic assumptions of the mainstream media in all of this.
Like this 'given' from the Washington Post’s Dan Balz, bold print added for emphasis.
The most corrosive of the controversies is what happened at the IRS, which singled out tea party and other conservative groups for special scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status. That Obama knew nothing about it does little to quell concerns that one of the most-feared units in government was operating out of control.
But if in fact the President did know about it?
Here’s the Washington Post’s “Journolist” [sic] Ezra Klein:
The crucial ingredient for a scandal is the prospect of high-level White House involvement and wide political repercussions.…
If new information emerges showing a connection between the Determination Unit’s decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama administration, it would crack this White House wide open. That would be a genuine scandal. But the IG report says that there’s no evidence of that. And so it’s hard to see where this one goes from here.
Exactly.
Which is why it will be a curious sight indeed to see the efforts the media will go to ignore/dismiss the tight, on-the-record connection between the President personally and a vociferously anti-Tea Party union. A union that has the literal run of the IRS — and whose union chief is recorded as having met with the President in the White House the day before the IRS launched 'a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases.' A decision with which, according to the IG report: “The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.” Check those words from Mr. Klein again:
If new information emerges showing a connection between the Determination Unit’s decisions and the Obama campaign, or the Obama administration, it would crack this White House wide open. That would be a genuine scandal.
The question now is a simple one.
In 1974, 'the smoking gun' was a tape recording that ended the Nixon presidency.
In 1998, the smoking gun was a blue dress — and it almost undid Bill Clinton’s White House.
Now the all-too-familiar pattern of scandal and its day-by-day drip-drip-drip nature has begun to set in. Newsmax is now quoting Washington attorney and conservative activist Cleta Mitchell as saying: the Tea Party.
(Page 8 of 8)
'There were nearly 100 groups across the country that got the very egregious set of letters from the IRS that were almost identical and they came from offices all over the country, so I know of at least 85 to 90, maybe more, organizations.'
Regular American[s] all over the country are coming forward with their stories. Understanding the relationship between the Obama White House and the IRS union will be a must for congressional investigators.
President Obama is coming perilously closer to becoming the new Nixon. The next Bill Clinton.
And once again, as news of exactly what a president was doing in the Oval Office on a particular day and time goes public, yet again the old question becomes new.
What did the President know? And when did he know it?"
And as if the "trifecta" of scandals is not enough for the Obama administration to rectify, there is the issue with more news about "Fast and Furious" involving, once again, the Justice Department and the great Eric Holder resurrecting itself after the media has tried to bury the scandal for the past two years. (Courtesy of Fox News):
"Watchdog report says DOJ official retaliated against ‘Furious’ whistle-blower, lied about it
By William La Jeunesse Published May 20, 2013 FoxNews.com
The former U.S. Attorney for Arizona could be disbarred, after an investigation found he lied to the Justice Department about his role in trying to discredit the federal whistle-blower who exposed the botched gun-running scheme known as Fast and Furious.
An Office of Inspector General report showed that Dennis Burke -- the former chief of staff for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano appointed as U.S. Attorney for Arizona by President Obama in September 2009 -- lied when asked if he leaked sensitive documents to the press meant to undermine the credibility of ATF whistle-blower John Dodson.
The IG report also said Burke likely leaked the memo in retaliation for Dodson's whistle-blowing, and challenged the credibility of statements he made to congressional investigators. Dodson first went to Congress in 2010 after his own agency and the Justice Department refused to investigate his complaints that Operation Fast and Furious, an anti-gun-trafficking effort, was out of control.
'We also concluded that Burke's disclosure of the Dodson memorandum was likely motivated by a desire to undermine Dodson's public criticisms of Operation Fast and Furious. Although Burke denied to congressional investigators that he had any retaliatory motive for his actions, we found substantial evidence to the contrary,' the IG report, released Monday, said.
Dodson appeared before Congress in June 2011. At the time, the Department of Justice denied his claim that the federal government approved a plan to knowingly assist criminals in smuggling thousands of guns to the Mexican drug cartels.
Dodson's credibility was crucial since nearly everyone above him denied the allegation. The report found that Burke leaked information that sought to undermine Dodson's story to a Fox News producer.
'The report brings into question, yet again, the treatment that whistle-blowers receive from this administration," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Monday. "Instead of examining the allegations that came forward, the Justice Department almost immediately began to attack the credibility and good name of a dedicated federal agent upset with what he was ordered to do.'
Burke used his private email account to leak the information to a friend in Washington who then hand-delivered the information to the Fox producer. The IG said in its report it used an 'administrative subpoena' to identify the personal email of relevant Department employees to confirm the leak.
Once contacted by IG staff, Burke admitted he was the source. The IG's office had asked 150 Justice Department employees to affirm they were not the leak.
But the report said he gave misleading information to congressional investigators. Asked about the issue by congressional investigators, Burke said: 'I was under the impression that (the Dodson memo) had gone to the Hill and that I was basically giving (the Fox producer) a time advantage.'
He also allegedly misled his own superior in Washington, Assistant Attorney General James Cole.
At the time, Cole had seen a New York Times story about Fast and Furious. In it, the paper published a picture which showed the document had been faxed from the U.S. attorney's office in Arizona. When confronted, the report said Burke told Cole, "I don't think we have a fax machine."
The IG report claims Burke was "admonished by Deputy Attorney General Cole for lying to him ... and had been put on notice such disclosures should not occur."
After speaking with Burke, Cole wrote 'another horrible incident of bad judgment.' The following day, Aug. 13, Burke resigned.
Fox News tried unsuccessfully to contact Burke, who recently formed a security and lobbying firm with former Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, Chicago White Sox and Chicago Bulls Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf and Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano's Chief of Staff Noah Kroloff.
The Office of Inspector General is an investigative arm that monitors the Justice Department. It tried to interview Burke, but he resigned.
The IG said Burke violated numerous federal and professional rules of conduct and it would forward a copy of its report to the Arizona State Bar Association for disciplinary conduct.
***
So, where does all this lead? One column from The Washington Post by a conservative political analyst claims the government has the legal authority to subpoena phone records, E-mails, and other files from the media in the name of national security due to the infamous Patriot Act passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Republican president George W. Bush after September 11, 2001. This law, apparently for now, overrides the First Amendment, and is yet another example of an oppressive government infringing upon the rights of the American people. The Patriot Act is, and should be declared, unconstitutional, but no one has challenged it in a court of law as far as I am aware, and therefore it super cedes the most important fundamental liberty we as a people once had. Meanwhile, Armstrong Williams describes the situation in which we currently find ourselves and the failures of the liberal ideology perfectly here:
"And that, my dear readers, gets to the heart of what the week was really about: the competence of a government ruled by a party that thinks the solution to every problem is more government.
This is not about Obama the man, or even about Obama the president. This is not even about Republicans and Democrats. This is about the fundamental failure of progressive liberal ideology.
Logistics alone make it impossible for a government to solve every citizen’s problem. Yet, a bigger government is expected to do just that. Big government is inflexible; it cannot respond to priorities because, over time, there are too many competing priorities. The greater the bureaucracy grows, the more it becomes impersonal, wasteful, over-stretched, and difficult to rein in.
Furthermore, big government does not trust you to know how best to run your life, yet other imperfect beings are somehow capable of properly directing your life as soon as they are employed by the government. People are fallible, and so is the state.
If liberals are right about the role of government, then how did these scandals happen? Do we truly need more government to stop these things from happening?"
At the very least, what we are dealing with is a government that is so vast in its expanses that one hand does not know what the other is doing. At the most is a more dubious scenario, one where the Obama administration either knew what was going on a year or more in advance and chose to hide the truth from the American people, or worse still, actually ordered the egregious attacks on America's constitutional liberties himself. We already know outgoing IRS chief Steven Miller admitted that the agency targeted conservative non-profit organizations, but he used the excuse of "[being] more efficient in the workload" to cover up the truth that this was a blatant act of political partisanship and corruption in the attempt to stamp out the opposition. Also, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's handling of the Benghazi situation was at best reckless and irresponsible and was exacerbated by the fact that President Obama chose to cover up that it was a terrorist attack for a period of three days. Furthermore, the AP and Fox News scandals are testing the boundaries of the freedom of speech stipulation in the First Amendment as well as the Fourth Amendment due to the broad powers granted to the federal government by the Bush-era law passed following the September 11, 2001 attacks called the Patriot Act. I fully expect the Patriot Act to be tested in the court system to see if it is declared constitutional or if it violates those two previously-mentioned amendments. And now, on top of everything else the Obama administration is having to reconcile with regard to the recent three scandals, the old, familiar face of "Fast and Furious" is back in the news with new revelations of an official within the Department of Justice retaliating against the whistleblower in the case. What does this all mean for the president? He has a lot to answer for, to say the least.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was quoted by the British news outlet The Daily Mail Online:
"Carney has denied that Obama was informed about that probe, and said Monday that the president 'is committed to the press's ability to pursue information and protecting the First Amendment.
Obama is 'also mindful,' he added, 'of secret and classified information needing to stay secret and classified for national security reasons.'"
"Convinced that the republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind, my prayers & efforts shall be cordially distributed to the support of that we have so happily established. It is indeed an animating thought that, while we are securing the rights of ourselves & our posterity, we are pointing out the way to struggling nations who wish, like us, to emerge from their tyrannies also. Heaven help their struggles, and lead them, as it has done us, triumphantly thro' them."
and:
"We have the greatest opportunity the world has ever seen, as long as we remain honest -- which will be as long as we can keep the attention of our people alive. If they once become inattentive to public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors would all become wolves."
and:
"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."
While no one has ever referred to Thomas Jefferson as being a saint -- he did carry on secretive affairs with two married women (Betsey Walker and Maria Cosway) as well as with his slave concubine Sally Hemings -- these were not issues pertaining to government. These words from the most important of America's Founders have often been twisted to morally justify the course of actions various presidents and still other politicians have taken. The American people voted Barack Obama president of the United States in November 2009 with the demand that his administration be fully and completely transparent. Though Carney said in an interview with Piers Morgan just last week that the Obama administration was the most transparent of any previous administration, then how does he explain the cover up of "Fast and Furious," plus all of the chaos that is ensuing with the Justice and State Departments, as well as the IRS?
There is an old and very famous phrase made famous by former president Harry S. Truman: "The Buck Stops Here!" Perhaps the president should learn from this and take responsibility for the ineptness of his colossus of a government.
No comments:
Post a Comment