Obama White House reacting to "scandals"?

[Stangkiller]

For the past few days Fox News has run a series of headlines implying the Obama White House was in a bit of a scramble to minimize the impact of the "trifecta" of scandals all hitting Washington at the same time. Am I the only person that doesn't think the White House cares in the least about these, nor do I really think they should?

The folks that drank the coolaid and support Obama couldn't care less about the "politicized" Benghazi, the alleged harassment of conservative groups, nor would they care about an investigation of White House leaks.

Even with these 3 investigations on going, who's mind will it change? Washington is so partisan at this point, I don't really see the messiah losing supporters over any of these issues. Nothing's going to happen to Obama, even IF he were at the forefront of all 3 'scandals'.

[mrvette]

U rite, nothing will come of it, out comes the smear machine backed up by the RACE card.....

[RedLS1GTO]

The only one that has even a remote chance of hurting them is the crap with the Associated Press... and only then because the media is his biggest tool in convincing the slurpers.

If the media were to turn on him (fat chance) it would be game over for the entire steaming pile of shit administration.

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

The only one that has even a remote chance of hurting them is the crap with the Associated Press... and only then because the media is his biggest tool in convincing the slurpers.

If the media were to turn on him (fat chance) it would be game over for the entire steaming pile of shit administration.

But, mark my words, the media won't turn on Obama.

In the end of all of this Congress is going to look like a bunch of useless powerless fools, who ask a bunch of pointed jackass questions they won't get any truthful answers to, and stand around patting themselves on the backs for looking like the jackasses they really are.

[Doug28450]

As much as I hate to say it, I think Fred Thompson has it right.

Why We Need a Special Committee | National Review Online

MAY 14, 2013 1:00 PM

Why We Need a Special Committee

There’s only one good way to get to the truth.

By Fred Thompson

Since last September, many Americans have had the sick feeling that their government was getting away with a cover-up of massive proportions. Four Americans representing our country in Libya were left unprotected by their own government, and then abandoned during the terrorist attack that would eventually claim their lives. It seemed the problem would never be rectified and accountability would never be assessed.

All of that changed last week with the testimony of three courageous State Department employees before the House Oversight Committee. Their statements, along with e-mails leaked from the White House, the State Department, and other agencies, provided damning evidence of an administration cover-up in the months before the 2012 election. No longer able to ignore the obvious, major media organizations now are asking serious questions about the Obama administration’s behavior.

As serious as the cover-up is, it may be overshadowed by what happened before and during the attack. There is already substantial reason to believe that gross negligence, as well as shocking political and military timidity, may have been directly responsible for the loss of our ambassador and the three others, creating an international crisis in one of the most politically sensitive regions of the world.

Although it has taken eight months for us to get answers to a very few questions, those answers make one thing abundantly clear: Now is the time for the House of Representatives to form a relatively small, special bipartisan committee with broad subpoena power to focus on this matter.

The special committee should hire respected, experienced counsel. The counsel should be responsible for the committee staff, and have the authority to question all of the public witnesses. Giving the counsel 30 or 45 minutes in which to question each witness will ensure all of the appropriate facts see the light of day. The current practice of giving each committee member five minutes, with each usually having his own line of questioning, is not designed to get to the bottom of anything. A hostile or reluctant witness doesn’t even have to be especially clever to avoid having to answer anything of substance in just five minutes.

The present situation, with five or so different standing committees that have other responsibilities (which seem to be expanding, with the IRS scandal, etc.), is time-consuming and runs many unnecessary security risks. After last week, the House may feel that it has the wind at its back, but that feeling may be fleeting.

Expectations are now higher than ever before. There is likely to be competition among the committees to try to quickly follow up with more big witnesses, but this would be a mistake. The investigation must be built from the bottom up, not the top down — based upon exhaustive interviews and thorough investigation of e-mails and documents. Only then will the committee be ready to publicly question the so-called big witnesses.

Benghazi involves the State Department., military operations, foreign relations, intelligence, and government operations. There are standing committees for each of these areas, but no committee with jurisdiction over all of them. The special committee, which has been utilized regularly for important matters throughout our history, could use expertise from all of these committees while avoiding the mess created by five committees’ competing for witnesses, running separate investigations, while at the same time attending to their normal committee responsibilities. Further, history tells us that a select committee such as the one I describe is much more likely to attract whistleblowers with knowledge of important facts. Good work has already been done on Benghazi, but a committee of members selected because of their standing with their peers or their expertise, a committee with a specific congressional mandate, will simply have more credibility.

Today’s media will turn on Republicans at the first sign of disorganization and highlight every witness who does not produce a smoking gun. They will pounce on the first comment made by a member that shows it’s “all political.” These are pitfalls that can be better handled by a smaller, disciplined committee.

The stakes are extremely high for the administration, and it is likely to use everything at its disposal to thwart any investigation and resist disclosure. There are several well-worn tactics available to them, including ongoing criminal investigations and the veil of security clearances.

The administration may purposefully direct information to the intelligence committee because they know it cannot be shared with other committees. When the White House and other executive offices are probed, claims of executive privilege can be expected. Legal battles may ensue. Material will be withheld with the excuse, “We’ve already turned over thousands of documents,” regardless of their relevance or the importance of what is being withheld.

There will be delay, delay, delay, then the release of select information late on Friday afternoon, to be called, when it is subsequently brought up in the committee, “old news.” Or there will be information turned over to the committee then leaked, so the committee can be blamed, providing an excuse to slow walk or deny them further information. Every attempt will be made to discredit an investigating committee and its members.

The obstacles are higher than they may look today. All of this can best be overcome with a unified effort, a single strategy, and a specific congressional mandate. That kind of effort has the best chance of reaching the truth. The American people, and especially the relatives of those who lost their lives for our country, deserve nothing less.

— Fred Thompson is a former U.S. senator from Tennessee.

[Joecooool]

1) Libya - EVEN IF the allegation that Obama did not specifically call the attack a "terrorist attack" for a week (and ignoring the fact that he did refer to it as an act of terror the day after the attack) for political gain - so what. What law was broken? He isn't ever going to run for any office again, so why the massive waste of time and money?

2) IRS - To think Obama had anything to do with this is simply dumb. The guy running the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee. If an investigation proves someone at the IRS was unfairly treating a conservative group, then they need to be punished. On a side note, I sure wish political groups - along with churches - lost their tax exempt status. Regardless, I don't see how this has anything to do with Obama

3) AP - Justice department investigates a leak of one news outlet for two months a year ago. Cleary they were looking for the guy in the government that was leaking classified info on an al Qaeda attack. What would all of you say if that had resulted in the plot being foiled before the people were captured and they had escaped to plan another attack? Its not like the Justice department had been bugging the phones of all news outlets. The Supreme Court has ruled in instances where classified information being leaked to reporters was grounds for the type of wire tapping that went on. And again, I don't see how this has anything to do with Obama.

Now having said all that, lets take a look at the conservative motivation for all this stupid shit.

It keeps real issues off the table. Remember a few weeks ago when they were talking about REAL immigration reform? When are we going to have congressional hearings on that issue - that affects tens of millions of people - instead of dumb ass show boating over shit that makes no difference?

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

1) Libya - EVEN IF the allegation that Obama did not specifically call the attack a "terrorist attack" for a week (and ignoring the fact that he did refer to it as an act of terror the day after the attack) for political gain - so what. What law was broken? He isn't ever going to run for any office again, so why the massive waste of time and money?

2) IRS - To think Obama had anything to do with this is simply dumb. The guy running the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee. If an investigation proves someone at the IRS was unfairly treating a conservative group, then they need to be punished. On a side note, I sure wish political groups - along with churches - lost their tax exempt status. Regardless, I don't see how this has anything to do with Obama

3) AP - Justice department investigates a leak of one news outlet for two months a year ago. Cleary they were looking for the guy in the government that was leaking classified info on an al Qaeda attack. What would all of you say if that had resulted in the plot being foiled before the people were captured and they had escaped to plan another attack? Its not like the Justice department had been bugging the phones of all news outlets. The Supreme Court has ruled in instances where classified information being leaked to reporters was grounds for the type of wire tapping that went on. And again, I don't see how this has anything to do with Obama.

Now having said all that, lets take a look at the conservative motivation for all this stupid shit.

It keeps real issues off the table. Remember a few weeks ago when they were talking about REAL immigration reform? When are we going to have congressional hearings on that issue - that affects tens of millions of people - instead of dumb ass show boating over shit that makes no difference?

1) Libya is not about BHO not calling it a terror attack. It's about his failureHe said he gave an order to "Help them anyway possible"
Where is a copy of that order?
Who did he give it to?
And what did they do or not do?

And the fact that the President, his staff and others all refused to accept the reality of the attack as Muslim extremist SIMPLY because in accepting reality they would have made their foreign policy statements on winning the war on terror look foolish. Pure politics that puts ALL of America at risk.

Pretty simple
2) The IRS
Again you fail to realize this is an excess of Government. I do not believe the IRS was directed by BHO but I do believe that , as government employees, they acted in a illegal manner and should be fired not apologized for. This case is an Example of why the Right keeps claiming, rightfully , that big government=Tyranny. And let's not forget the little matter of the IRS Quickly and retro actively approving BHO's BROTHER tax exempt status with in one month of he, late, application. Or the many Right wing people who , once singled out by BHO, were audited and chased by the IRS with no wrong doing found.


3) AP sacndal.
The DoJ violated their own rules. And they overstepped the authority of their office. The tapped 20 people phones for two months on a story they held back after consulting with White house. Or that this administration has gone after the press and Whistle blowers more aggressively than Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton Combined.


But of course you cannot see the massive overreach of the government and the failure of leadership of the President in Benghazi

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

1) Libya - EVEN IF the allegation that Obama did not specifically call the attack a "terrorist attack" for a week (and ignoring the fact that he did refer to it as an act of terror the day after the attack) for political gain - so what. What law was broken? He isn't ever going to run for any office again, so why the massive waste of time and money?

2) IRS - To think Obama had anything to do with this is simply dumb. The guy running the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee. If an investigation proves someone at the IRS was unfairly treating a conservative group, then they need to be punished. On a side note, I sure wish political groups - along with churches - lost their tax exempt status. Regardless, I don't see how this has anything to do with Obama

3) AP - Justice department investigates a leak of one news outlet for two months a year ago. Cleary they were looking for the guy in the government that was leaking classified info on an al Qaeda attack. What would all of you say if that had resulted in the plot being foiled before the people were captured and they had escaped to plan another attack? Its not like the Justice department had been bugging the phones of all news outlets. The Supreme Court has ruled in instances where classified information being leaked to reporters was grounds for the type of wire tapping that went on. And again, I don't see how this has anything to do with Obama.

Now having said all that, lets take a look at the conservative motivation for all this stupid shit.

It keeps real issues off the table. Remember a few weeks ago when they were talking about REAL immigration reform? When are we going to have congressional hearings on that issue - that affects tens of millions of people - instead of dumb ass show boating over shit that makes no difference?

This is the problem. All the Obamaslurpers that steadfastly refuse to see a thug politicial community organizer for what he truly is.

Hopefully the more rational portins of the left will begin to note the content of his character.

[VITE1]

Lois Lerner approved exemption for Obama brother's 'charity' | The Daily Caller

[VITE1]

NBC's Lisa Myers: Obama Admin has History of Intimidating Reporters & Sources - YouTube

[VITE1]

Romney donor Frank VanderSloot attacked by Obama audited twice

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Stangkiller

The folks that drank the coolaid and support Obama couldn't care less about the "politicized" Benghazi, the alleged harassment of conservative groups, nor would they care about an investigation of White House leaks.

...and if there was any doubt, I will refer you to slurper exhibit A above.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by VITE1

Obama Admin Are You Lying About Benghazi To Get Elected? - Judge Jeanine Pirro - YouTube

Originally Posted by VITE1

Powers on Obama and Benghazi Lies ... | Benghazi | Fox Nation

Kirstin Powers on Obama's Strategy: I'm Just Going to Call Them Lies Because They're Lies - YouTube

Originally Posted by VITE1

Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an ‘act of terrorism’ - The Washington Post




Obama did not want to call it a terror attack since that would show his statements that we had won the war on terror were false.

Since you must have missed this in the other thread.

[Loco Vette]

This seems appropos' for this thread:

[VITE1]

IRS official knew in 2011 of 'Tea Party' targeting: watchdog report | Reuters

Excerpt

CHANGING CRITERIA

The IRS screening criteria were broadened in July 2011 to cover "organizations involved with political, lobbying or advocacy" seeking tax exemption, according to a TIGTA timeline of events.

Further broadening of the criteria occurred in January 2012 and again in May 2012, the document said.

Issa has vowed to investigate the matter and the House committee he chairs has the power to issue subpoenas. At least one other congressional panel intends to hold hearings, giving Republicans multiple opportunities to hammer the agency and the White House over the affair that had been brewing for months.

Interesting that the they kept of broadening the criteria. Could it have had anything to do with BHO polling numbers?

And who was in the committee that decided this?

[VITE1]

IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

Tax-exempt groups and the IRS

The controversy over the Internal Revenue Service's targeting conservative groups for additional scrutiny has focused new attention on tax-exempt organizations.

IRS
501(c)(3)
501(c)(4)
501(c)(5)
501(c)(6)


Source: USA TODAY research

By Frank Pompa, Fredreka Schouten, Tory Hargro, USA TODAY


Gregory Korte, USA TODAY10:04 p.m. EDT May 14, 2013





(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP)


WASHINGTON -- In the 27 months that the Internal Revenue Service put a hold on all Tea Party applications for non-profit status, it approved applications from similar liberal groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with obviously liberal names were approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like "Progress" or "Progressive," these groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups.

The controversial, 3-year-old strategy to manage the increasing number of political groups seeking tax-exempt status came under fire Tuesday. The agency's own inspector general blamed IRS leadership for "ineffective management."

MORE: IRS approved liberal groups while Tea Party in limbo

The Justice Department wants to know if that was more than just mismanagement. Calling the IRS' actions "outrageous and unacceptable," Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that he has asked the FBI to investigate. "We're examining the facts to see if there were any criminal violations," he said.

A federal official who has been briefed on the matter said the investigation could focus on potential violations of civil rights law, including targeting groups based on political affiliation and infringing free speech. The official, who is not authorized to comment publicly, said authorities could consider possible violations of the Hatch Act, which restricts political activities of government workers.


The IRS inspector general, in an audit issued Tuesday, said the agency used "inappropriate criteria that identified Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions" instead of evidence of political activity. The tax exemption requires that organizations have "social welfare" as their primary purpose, but IRS officials said the rules are unclear how much political activity they can engage in.

The White House says it knew nothing of the screening until a few weeks ago. In a statement Tuesday, President Obama said, "The report's findings are intolerable and inexcusable." Obama said he has directed Treasury Secretary Jack Lew "to hold those responsible for these failures accountable, and to make sure that each of the Inspector General's recommendations are implemented quickly, so that such conduct never happens again."

Contributing: Kevin Johnson

[VITE1]

NOM planning lawsuit against the IRS - Salon.com

As the controversy over the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups continues, the National Organization for Marriage has announced that it is planning to sue the agency over alleged leaks of NOM’s tax records.

“Not only has the IRS retaliated against conservative, small-government and tea party groups as they apply for recognition of tax exemption AND lied about it, but it has criminally released our confidential tax return including the identity of dozens of major donors to a political enemy,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president, in a statement. “In addition to being our principal combatant in the war on traditional marriage, the HRC’s president at the time was serving as a Co-Chair of President Obama’s reelection campaign. This is a chilling set of circumstances that should ring alarm bells across the nation.”

As Politico explains, NOM has been calling for an investigation into who leaked information about its donors:



In April 2012, the Huffington Post and the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, posted IRS documents indicating GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney had given $10,000 to the anti-gay marriage group. While the same inspector general who uncovered the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups was investigating the case, NOM has been frustrated with the pace of the investigation.

Several Tea Party groups, allegedly among those targeted by the agency, have also threatened to sue.


Jillian Rayfield is an Assistant News Editor for Salon, focusing on politics. Follow her on Twitter at @jillrayfield or email her at [email protected]. More Jillian Rayfield.

So after ALL these stories PLUS the fact the IRS is being sued under FOIA to the the list of people who BHO has requested tax returns for and has been stalled since last October does ANYONE think this was not an effort on the part of the Dems to use every avenue available to damage their opponents?

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by VITE1

IRS gave liberals a pass; Tea Party groups put on hold

I for one was amazed at that headline on USA Today!

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by VITE1

IRS official knew in 2011 of 'Tea Party' targeting: watchdog report | Reuters

Excerpt



Interesting that the they kept of broadening the criteria. Could it have had anything to do with BHO polling numbers?

And who was in the committee that decided this?

Oh wait. Could it be that Dem leadership asked them too?

Karl Rove: IRS did what Democrats wanted - Kevin Cirilli - POLITICO.com

Karl Rove is linking congressional Democrats to the IRS scandal, saying that the agency was just doing what some on the Hill wanted.

“The administration is blaming this on low-level bureaucrats in Cincinnati and that turned out not to be true. We know people at the [IRS central headquarters] in Washington were involved. But we are missing something else. Remember, they were doing what people on Capitol Hill wanted them to do,” Rove said on Fox News on Tuesday.
Continue Reading


Last week, the IRS apologized for unfairly targeting conservative groups — including tea party organizations — that were seeking nonprofit status.


Rove said that Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) all deserve scrutiny for signing a letter that urged the IRS to bolster their scrutiny of certain “political” groups, as ABC News noted on Tuesday.

“In 2010, [Senate Finance Committee Chairman] Max Baucus… wrote a letter to the director of the IRS saying,’Go investigate these kinds of groups.’ We had Chuck Schumer, who has been stirring this around for a number of years, by 2012 he goes out and gives a similar tough letter to the head of the IRS saying, ‘Look at these groups,’ and [he] gets six others to sign the letter,” Rove said, naming the senators above that signed the letter.

(Also on POLITICO: The IRS wants YOU — to share everything)

Rove continued: “Maybe the low-level bureaucrats aren’t so low level and maybe they were influenced by Democrats in the Congress saying take on these groups or else you will face the consequences in front of us.”

Baucus spokeswoman Meaghan Smith told POLITICO that Baucus just wanted the IRS to be practicing proper oversight.

“In 2010, with hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in elections by tax-exempt entities, Chairman Baucus wanted to make sure the IRS was conducting proper oversight of tax-exempt organizations involved in political campaign activity to ensure they were complying with the Internal Revenue Code’s rules for nonprofits and that taxpayer dollars were being protected,” Smith told POLITICO.

Smith added: “Chairman Baucus of course expected this oversight to be thorough and equitable and administered across the board and he still expects proper oversight to be conducted equally across the board.”


Read more: Karl Rove: IRS did what Democrats wanted - Kevin Cirilli - POLITICO.com

[VITE1]

White House, IRS show interest in Watchdog in December « Watchdog.org

By Will Swaim and Ryan Ekvall | Watchdog.org

President Barack Obama’s executive staff reviewed Watchdog’s news website in record numbers at precisely the moment when Internal Revenue Service visits to the same site spiked, Watchdog.org’s analytics show.

A similar report reveals that the Executive Office of the President and IRS were the source of a similar December traffic spike on the website of Watchdog.org, the online news network of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. (Updated: an earlier version of this incorrectly reported that traffic spiked in January.)

The White House has said that IRS reviews of conservative nonprofits were procedurally “inappropriate on the part of fairly low-level agents.

This new data suggests at least a coincidence of interests in Watchdog.

According to Google analytics, the IRS generated 456 unique visitors, between January 2009 and May 2013. The report notes 552 visits and 709 page views from the IRS. Most of the traffic occurred between the second half of 2012 and this week.

One day in December, watchdog.org received more than 100 visits from the tax agency.

The analytics show 60 unique visitors and 84 page views to Watchdog.org from eop.gov, the Executive Office of the President, between December 2009 and May 2013.

The IRS has apologized in recent days for targeting conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status. Republicans are calling for criminal prosecutions, and the FBI is now investigating.

The source of White House visits, eop.gov, redirects visitors to the official White House website. A message on that redirect reads, “You have requested a page on EOP.gov and have been redirected here. EOP.gov is a domain operated by the Executive Office of the President. WhiteHouse.gov is the public-facing website for the EOP.”

Watchdog.org is a free-market oriented news organization with reporters in several state capitals, each focused on waste, fraud and abuse in local government. The news site’s parent Franklin Center, its site says, focuses its efforts on “driving a conversation about transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility at the grassroots level and putting a human face on public policy.”

M.D. Kittle contributed

Will Swaim is managing editor of Watchdog.org. Contact Swaim at [email protected]

I wonder if this "coincidence of interests" is really a coincidence.

If we see more of these "coincidence of interests" will the left admit government is out of control and BHO and his administration are corrupt. Or will they Call us racists and Tea Baggers and ignore the threat to our way of life.