A bombshell revelation has brought the IRS scandal to a new level. Judicial Watch has released internal IRS communications revealing that former Tax Exempt Organizations director Lois Lerner was in contact with the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding whether it was possible to criminally prosecute tax-exempt groups she believed had “lied” about their political activity. Judicial Watch obtained the documents by successfully filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the IRS in October 2013, following the agency’s stonewall of four FOIA requests dating back to the previous May.
Contained in those documents is an email exchange between Lerner and Nikole C. Flax, then-Chief of Staff to then-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller. On May 8, 2013, Lerner sent the following email to Flax:
“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…”
Flax responded the next day:
“I think we should do it – also need to include CI [Criminal Investigation Division], which we can help coordinate. Also, we need to reach out to FEC. Does it make sense to consider including them in this or keep it separate?”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) had chaired a hearing on Apr. 9, 2013 in which he discussed the abuse of the 501(c)(4) tax-exempt designation. During that hearing, he made his leftist agenda clear, insisting that “after the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to big money in elections in its disgraceful Citizens United decision, big donors like to use these non-profit entities to launder campaign spending and hide their identities.”
Whitehouse also asked witnesses from DOJ and IRS why they hadn’t prosecuted 501(c)(4) groups who have made false statements about their activities, or donors who have used shell companies to mask their donations to Super PACs. He urged both entities to “put together a criminal case showing a fairly straightforward false statement or a fairly [straightforward] shell corporation disclosure violation.”
In a March 27, 2013 email to a top staffer at the IRS, Lerner revealed the impetus behind that meeting:
“As I mentioned yesterday — there are several groups of folks from the FEC world that are pushing tax fraud prosecution for c4s who report they are not conducting political activity when they are (or these folks think they are). One is my ex-boss Larry Noble (former General Counsel at the FEC), who is now president of Americans for Campaign Reform. This is their latest push to shut these down. One IRS prosecution would make an impact and they wouldn’t feel so comfortable doing the stuff.
So, don’t be fooled about how this is being articulated – it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity”
An IRS prosecution for the sake of “impact” sounds remarkably like a show trial, but the fact that Lerner advocated such an idea is not surprising. She too had nothing but contempt for Citizens United, a reality she made clear during a 2010 speech at Duke University. At the time she insisted the Supreme Court “dealt a huge blow, overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn’t give directly to political campaigns.”
Apparently Lerner knew such a prosecution might be at odds with the law. Minutes before sending the above email she sent this one:
“Whether there was a false statement or fraud regarding an [sic] description of an alleged political expenditure that doesn’t say vote for or vote against is not realistic under current law. Everyone is looking for a magic bullet or scapegoat — there isn’t one. The law in this area is just hard.”
Just as damning are a trio of emails that show Lerner working to tamp down the emerging IRS scandal. They are important because all of them were sent before her May 10, 2013 speech attempting to blame the entire debacle on “low level” IRS employees in Cincinnati:
• May 1, 2013: After receiving an email from an assistant showing that 501(c)(4) applications had increased from 1591 in 2010 to 3398 in 2012 , Lerner wrote back, “Looks to me like 2010-2012 doubled too. Oh well – thanks.”
• May 2, 2013: Discussing an upcoming conference call with approximately 100 congressional staffers on May 22, Lerner cautions aides, “Need to be careful not to mention sequester/furlough unless asked although can allude to budget and resources restraints.”
• May 2, 2013: In response to an email reminding her about the upcoming conference call with congressional staffers, Lerner responded, “Arrgh – I just saw it. Sharon [White] could skate, but Cindy [Thomas] is the person who could answer that stuff. We need to give them some type of language in the event that type of question comes up” [apparently in reference to earlier email referencing “sensitive issues”].
Emails sent after the speech are equally revealing. One sent on May 10 blows a hole in the left’s contention that IRS targeting was a bipartisan affair:
• May 10, 2013: In an email to an aide responding to a request for information from a Washington Post reporter, Lerner admits that she “can’t confirm that there was anyone on the other side of the political spectrum” who had been targeted by the IRS. She then adds that “The one with the names used were only know [sic] because they have been very loud in the press.”
• May 10, 2013: An email from former Cincinnati program manager Cindy Thomas excoriates Lerner for her comments blaming the aforementioned low level employees. Highlighting the words “low-level workers” in bold-face type each of the seven times she used it in a short email, Thomas asked, “How am I supposed to keep the low-level workers motivated when the public believes they are nothing more than low-level workers and now will have no respect for how they are working cases?” Lerner’s response nearly an hour later was a terse, “I will be back shortly and give you a call.”
• May 15, 2013: In an email from an aide to Lerner, the aide specifically mentions “Tea Party Organizations,” the “Tea Party movement,” and “Tea Party Patriots” as organizations targeted by the IRS.
All of the above indicate a despicable level of strategizing aimed at not merely suppressing the efforts of conservative organizations — but targeting them with criminal prosecution and threatening them with imprisonment. Yet one sentence in the above emails stands out above all the rest. It is the one where Lerner states that “everyone is looking for a magic bullet or scapegoat.”
Who is “everyone”? IRS emails released by the House Oversight Committee reveal staff members working for Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the Committee’s Democratic Ranking Member, were in contact with the IRS multiple times between 2012 and 2013 regarding True the Vote, a conservative organization that works to prevent vote fraud. We now know the DOJ was in the loop as well. So was Lerner’s former employer, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). They were given access by the IRS to highly confidential tax information about Tea Party groups, in clear violation of federal law.
Who gave them that access? Lois Lerner in an email chain that began Feb. 3, 2009, when the FEC made its request to her. That revelation also comes courtesy of an FOIA request filed by Judicial Watch.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton illuminates the implications of these latest document releases. “These new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the DOJ could prosecute the very same organizations that the IRS had already improperly targeted,” he said. “The IRS emails show Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is now implicated and conflicted in the IRS scandal. No wonder we had to sue in federal court to get these documents.”
Now that it is clear the DOJ is part of the scandal, it becomes clear that they are incapable of handling the investigation of it. Thus, there is only one alternative: an independent prosecutor must be appointed. There is no question that Eric Holder’s March 10, 2014 letter to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), saying that “such an appointment is not warranted” because the case does not present a conflict of interest or other extraordinary circumstances, is an utter fraud. Three major government entities—the IRS, the DOJ and the FEC–now known to be involved in the effort to harass right wing groups represents a gargantuan conflict of interest and the epitome of extraordinary circumstances.
The American people must rise up and demand such an appointment. The highest offices in the nation have been exposed colluding to persecute politically engaged citizens using any means at their disposal. The American people must do likewise to excise this rot from our most vital institutions.
(Rush Limbaugh) – BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: So I won’t be able to be here and chronicle this prediction for you, but it’s almost a guarantee that the number of uninsured Americans is going to dramatically drop, because they are massaging this Census Bureau data. It doesn’t matter what the real number is. It doesn’t matter …
Ten days without school for teenager under more zero tolerance madness. (Info Wars) – A student in Maine has been suspended for ten days after he brought a bright yellow water gun to school, in yet another case of zero tolerance insanity. The unidentified boy was handed the punishment by officials at the Lewiston High …
’IRS has to follow letter of the law, just like we do’ (Tea Party) - “We want to know what they are doing and who is doing it,” said Washington attorney Cleta Mitchell of the IRS. Mitchell made this statement when she announced a lawsuit that is intended to force the Obama administration to reveal the …
The next time a liberal tries to guilt trip you into giving more funding for education, regardless of the results, show them this chart:
There is no connection between more funding and better education results; but the stagnation in educational quality has come not only with more funding, but increased federal control over education.
Decentralize control over public education and give parents and educators more options. You have the data that spending America into a huge amount of debt for all manner of feel-good social spending projects doesn’t work, now do it for the children – especially since they’re paying for it.
1) You justify your beliefs about yourself by your status as a liberal, not your deeds. The most sexist liberal can think of himself as a feminist while the greediest liberal can think of himself as generous. This is because liberals define themselves as being compassionate, open minded, kind, pro-science and intelligent not based on their actions or achievements, but based on their ideology. This is one of the most psychologically appealing aspects of liberalism because it allows you to be an awful person while still thinking of yourself as better than everyone else.
2) You exempt yourself from your attacks on America: Ever notice that liberals don’t include themselves in their attacks on America? When they say, “This is a racist country,” or “,This is a mean country,” they certainly aren’t referring to themselves or people who hold their views. Even though liberals supported the KKK, slaughtering the Indians, and putting the Japanese in internment camps, when they criticize those things, it’s meant as an attack on everyone else EXCEPT LIBERALS. The only thing a liberal believes he can truly do wrong is to be insufficiently liberal.
3) What liberals like should be mandatory and what they don’t like should be banned: There’s an almost instinctual form of fascism that runs through most liberals. It’s not enough for liberals to love gay marriage; everyone must be forced to love gay marriage. It’s not enough for liberals to be afraid of guns; guns have to be banned. It’s not enough for liberals to want to use energy-saving light bulbs; incandescent light bulbs must be banned. It’s not enough for liberals to make sure most speakers on campuses are left-wing; conservative speakers must be shouted down or blocked from speaking.
4) The past is always inferior to the present: Liberals tend to view traditions, policies, and morals of past generations as arbitrary designs put in place by less enlightened people. Because of this, liberals don’t pay much attention to why traditions developed or wonder about possible ramifications of their social engineering. It’s like an architect ripping out the foundation of a house without questioning the consequences and if the living room falls in on itself as a result, he concludes that means he needs to make even more changes.
5) Liberalism is a jealous god and no other God may come before it: A liberal “Christian” or “Jew” is almost an oxymoron because liberalism trumps faith for liberals. Taking your religious beliefs seriously means drawing hard lines about right and wrong and that’s simply not allowed. Liberals demand that even God bow down on the altar of liberalism.
6) Liberals believe in indiscriminateness for thought: This one was so good that I stole it from my buddy, Evan Sayet: ” Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. It leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? Very simply if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything else then success is de facto unjust. There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than anything else and the greater the success the greater the injustice. Conversely and for the same reason, failure is de facto proof of victimization and the greater the failure, the greater the proof of the victim is, or the greater the victimization.”
7) Intentions are much more important than results: Liberals decide what programs to support based on whether they make them feel good or bad about themselves, not because they work or don’t work. A DDT ban that has killed millions is judged a success by liberals because it makes them feel as if they care about the environment. A government program that wastes billions and doesn’t work is a stunning triumph to the Left if it has a compassionate sounding name. It would be easier to convince a liberal to support a program by calling it the “Saving Women And Puppies Bill” than showing that it would save 100,000 lives.
8) The only real sins are helping conservatism or harming liberalism: Conservatives often marvel at the fact that liberals will happily elect every sort of pervert, deviant, and criminal you can imagine without a second thought. That’s because right and wrong don’t come into the picture for liberals. They have one standard: Does this politician help or hurt liberalism? If a politician helps liberalism, he has a free pass to do almost anything and many of them do just that.
9) All solutions must be government-oriented: Liberals may not be as down on government as conservatives are, but on some level, even they recognize that it doesn’t work very well. So, why are liberals so hell bent on centralizing as much power as possible in government? Simple, because they believe that they are better and smarter than everyone else by virtue of being liberals and centralized power gives them the opportunity to control more people’s lives. There’s nothing scarier to liberals than free people living their lives as they please without wanting or needing the government to nanny them.
10) You must be absolutely close minded: One of the key reasons liberals spend so much time vilifying people they don’t like and questioning their motivations is to protect themselves from having to consider their arguments. This helps create a completely closed system for liberals. Conservative arguments are considered wrong by default since they’re conservative and not worth hearing. On the other hand, liberals aren’t going to make conservative arguments. So, a liberal goes to a liberal school, watches liberal news, listens to liberal politicians, has liberal friends, and then convinces himself that conservatives are all hateful, evil, racist Nazis so that any stray conservatism he hears should be ignored. It makes liberal minds into perfectly closed loops that are impervious to anything other than liberal doctrine.
11) Feelings are more important than logic: Liberals base their positions on emotions, not facts and logic and then they work backwards to shore up their position. This is why it’s a waste of time to try to convince a liberal of anything based on logic. You don’t “logic” someone out of a position that he didn’t use “logic” to come up with in the first place.
12) Tribal affiliation is more important than individual action: There’s one set of rules for members of the tribe and one set of rules for everyone else. Lying, breaking the rules, or fomenting hatred against a liberal in good standing may be out of bounds, but there are no rules when dealing with outsiders, who are viewed either as potential recruits, dupes to be tricked, or foes to be defeated. This is the same backwards mentality you see in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, except it’s based on ideology, not religion.
On Thursday, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius resigned her position. The New York Times reported the resignation as a punishment for failure:
Officials said Ms. Sebelius, 65, made the decision to resign and was not forced out. But the frustration at the White House over her performance had become increasingly clear, as administration aides worried that the crippling problems at HealthCare.gov, the website set up to enroll Americans in insurance exchanges, would result in lasting damage to the president’s legacy.
So Sebelius stuck around just long enough to reach the mythical 7 million enrollment number so Obama didn’t have a major public relations fiasco on his hands. Then she was forced out – although, in a final touch of somewhat charming bewilderment, she announced to the press that she had no clue just how many Americans who signed up for Obamacare were previously uninsured. Competent to the very last drop.
This, of course, provided a vicious coup de grace to Sebelius’ waning reputation. In order to prevent the fallout from wounding The One, Obama acolytes rushed to Sebelius’ defense, hoping to rehabilitate both her and Obamacare by proxy. Ezra Klein, Wonk To The World and former Sebelius critic (“Heads should roll,” he announced in October), quickly tweeted that Sebelius was leaving because she had come, she had seen, and she had conquered:
The Wonk Brigade may look ridiculous today – but then again, the Obama press has been ridiculous in its defense of Sebelius from the start. Here are just a few of the characters who spun wildly in defense of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and who touted her recent 7.1 million announcement as a massive triumph:
President Obama. During the failed rollout of Healthcare.gov, Obama repeatedly defended Sebelius – a position that made no sense, given that Obama had one documented one-on-one meeting with Sebelius in three years and claimed ignorance about its failures. In October, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that Sebelius had Obama’s trust. That same month, Valerie Jarrett stated, “”He is interested in solutions, not scapegoats.”
In November, Obama said Sebelius “doesn’t write code; yeah, she wasn’t our I.T. person.” In February, Obama told Bill O’Reilly, “We hold everybody up and down the line accountable but when we’re midstream, Bill, we want to make sure that our main focus is how do we make this thing work so people are able to sign up.” Just 11 days ago, Carney denied that Sebelius would be leaving. And at the same time, Obama championed Sebelius’ 7.1 million as the greatest news since sliced bread: “As messy as it’s been sometimes, as contentious as it’s been sometimes, it’s progress.”
It appears that Obama no longer considers Obamacare “midstream.” So Sebelius gets pushed out of the boat.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Pelosi defended Sebelius after Sebelius solicited donations from nonprofit healthcare groups regulated under Obamacare to push Obamacare.
“There were hundreds of millions of dollars spent during the debate misrepresenting, mischaracterizing – I don’t like to use this word, lying – about what was in or not in the Affordable Care Act. It was going to be death panels, it was going to be about abortion, it was going to be this, that and the other thing – none of which was true,” Pelosi explained. “So this is not an unusual thing that the private sector would weigh in. And it’s people who want to have people sign up. … And so, no, I don’t have any problem with her [Sebelius] doing that.”
Pelosi is still sticking with Sebelius, too:
Secretary Sebelius was a leader in the long effort to make history for our country with passage of the Affordable Care Act. She has been the key figure in the day-to-day work of implementing the law and securing new protections for patients. Her legacy will be found in the 7.5 million Americans signed up on the marketplaces so far, the 3.1 million people covered on their parents’ plans, and the millions more gaining coverage through the expansion of Medicaid.
So why is Sebelius leaving, just a few days after saying she would be staying through November 2014?
ABC News’ Matthew Dowd: After the 7.1 million figure emerged, ABC News’ Matthew Dowd told Republicans they should laud the Obama administration: “You have to give the President ground to have some celebration. A little bit of dancing in the end zone. I think Republicans would be really smart, let him have the touchdown, don’t ask for instant replay… Get off of repeal. And basically try to argue over cost. Get off of the whole idea – this is the law of the land. Admit reality. And move on and try to argue over costs surrounding it.”
If that 7.1 million figure was so wonderful, why did Obama tell Sebelius not to let the door hit her on the way out?
But that was the theme of the media just last week.
ABC’s Jonathan Karl: “The final sign-up figures will be over seven million when all the numbers are added up. More than seven million! That is an incredibly high number!”
CNN’s John King: “They have seven million!”
CNN’s Jim Acosta: “If Obamacare were a patient, this would be a pretty miraculous recovery, when you consider the fact that this program, this website, HealthCare.gov, was almost pulled offline by the President himself during that disastrous rollout in October and November. But of course they got things back on track—they got the website working. And now, according to a senior administration official, yes, they are on track to hit seven million signing up, as of this week. And that is… pretty big news over here at the White House. They’re reacting with a lot of glee and happiness, I can tell you.”
The Los Angeles Times: “Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people.”
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): Appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos in October, Manchin explained that Sebelius should stay, asking people to join “Team America” in her support:
I think she should stay, and I think she will get the job done. We’ve gotta move forward. If you want to kill the program, and you start making all these changes, that would kill the program. All we’re asking for is don’t have the fine go into place, get market-driven products, make sure you can entice, through incentives, young people that are healthy. We are a consumer nation, we are great entrepreneurs. We can make this happen, but we have to be on the same team, and that is Team America.
Manchin seems to have changed his tune. In February, Manchin flip-flopped on whether Obamacare should be repealed.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL): As the problems with Obamacare unfolded in October, Durbin told the press that attempts to subpoena her for testimony were totally unfair: “I spoke to her personally and the Republicans called her and said would you came and testify and she said I have a conflict that day and they said we will do it the following week. Then they went to the press and announced that she refused to come.” Just last week, Durbin
All of his strenuous defense went for naught, apparently, given her new position under the Obama bus.
Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD): Just last month, the governor was asked about Sebelius’ performance. She’s doing a “good job,” O’Malley said.
Kathleen Sebelius. Just a few days ago, she explained that she would not be leaving her post. So there’s that.
“The real voter fraud is those that try to deny our rights by making arguments about voter fraud.”
President Barack Obama tore into state voter ID laws Friday when speaking to the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, accusing Republicans of trying to block minorities, women and seniors from voting and calling the laws a fraud.
President Barack Obama shakes hands with Rev. All Sharpton as he arrives to speak at the National Action Network conference, Friday, April 11, 2014, in New York. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
“We don’t want folks voting that shouldn’t be voting,” Obama told the gathering in New York. “Let’s stipulate to that as the lawyers say, but there is a reason why those who argue that harsh restrictions on voting are somehow necessary to fight voter fraud are having such a hard time proving any real widespread voter fraud.”
Obama said most studies show voter fraud is not a problem.
“The real voter fraud is those that try to deny our rights by making arguments about voter fraud. but i have to say, there have been some of these officials who have been passing these laws have been more blunt,” Obama said.
He noted that he visited the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library the day before. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to prevent efforts by local government to prevent blacks from voting.
“The right to vote is threatened today in a way that it has not since nearly five decades ago. Across the country, Republicans have led efforts to pass laws making it harder, not easier, for people to vote,” Obama said. He went on to say, “We won’t let voter suppression go unchallenged.”
Obama’s Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder sued both Texas and North Carolina last year for adopting voter ID laws. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of voter ID laws in a 6-3 vote in 2008.
Since the high court’s ruling, a total of 34 states have enacted some type of voter ID law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, though not all are photo ID, for the purpose of preventing potential voter fraud.
Obama went on to say who is the target of his perceived attack on the right to vote – it included key voting blocks.
“In some places women could be turned away from the poll just because they’re registered under their maiden name but their driver’s license has their married name,” Obama said. “Senior citizens are told they cannot vote unless they come up with the right ID.”
Obama was speaking to a group run by Sharpton, known for using divisive rhetoric. Just this week, reports surfaced the Sharpton worked as an FBI informant against the mob in New York.
The host of MSNBC’s Politics Nation is a long time activist in New York, and first became a national figure for falsely accusing a state prosecutor of rape in the Tawana Brawley hoax, for which he lost a defamation suit in the late 1980s. He was also criticized for the Crown Heights riots in 1991 that took on an anti-Jewish tone. In 2004, Sharpton ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Boston bombing survivor Adrianne Haslet-Davis, a dancer who lost her leg in the horrific attack, is outraged that NBC’s “Meet the Press” allegedly failed to honor her request not to use the names of the bombers during her segment, a request she claims the network agreed to previously.
Adrianne Haslet-Davis (Twitter)
“Cannot believe @meetthepress chose to use the bombers name instead of respect their guest. Had to walk off set crying,” she tweeted on Friday.
“I feel so disrespected @meetthepress I asked politely yesterday and you said yes. Now you choose to use the name instead,” Haslet-Davis wrote in another tweet.
The survivor has since seen an outpouring of support on Twitter, with many users blasting “Meet the Press” over the incident.
However, an NBC source told TheBlaze that Haslet-Davis never actually made it to the set. During conversations prior to the taping, she became upset when staffers told her they couldn’t “guarantee” the names of the Boston bombing suspects wouldn’t be brought up at some point in the program, the source said.
It was reportedly at that point that she left.
The NBC source also said the entire “Meet the Press” team is upset that Haslet-Davis had such a poor experience, but argued they had nothing but “good intentions.”
A spokesperson for the program echoed that account in a statement released on Friday. The statement said Haslet-Davis “requested that the alleged bombers’ name not be used in the entire program, but given the nature of the discussion we couldn’t make that guarantee.”
“We regret any distress caused by this miscommunication,” the statement said.
Since then, “Meet the Press” host David Gregory tweeted an apology to Haslet-Davis over the “bad experience.”
The special edition of “Meet the Press,” titled “The Boston Bombing One Year Later,” is set to air on Sunday. The program will include a “roundtable discussion with Doris Kearns Goodwin, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), and former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis as well as interviews with Boston Globe photographerJohn Tlumacki and former New England Patriots player Joe Andruzzi,” Mediaite reports.
“Let’s change the dialect to honor the survivors and not focus on the criminals. Shame on you @meetthepress,” the survivor later tweeted