Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 19, 2014, 05:30:00 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79146 Posts in 2226 Topics by 1037 Members
Latest Member: DCoutinho
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The war on the rule of law
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print
Author Topic: The war on the rule of law  (Read 6949 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #200 on: March 16, 2014, 12:08:04 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373218/following-trail-nixon-blazed-victor-davis-hanson
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #201 on: March 17, 2014, 11:07:30 AM »

Amnesty by Executive Order
Amnesty may be coming without Congress. According to a White House release, Barack Obama is looking at how to manage the deportation system "more humanely within the confines of the law." The White House announced the shift after the president met with three leading members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The statement said, "The president emphasized his deep concern about the pain too many families feel from the separation that comes from our broken immigration system." Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) in particular couldn't understand why Obama could issue waivers and delays on ObamaCare and yet not change the immigration system on his own. A fair point -- when the "confines of the law" don't actually confine a president, where is the line?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #202 on: March 19, 2014, 11:26:33 PM »

A Special Prosecutor for the IRS
Despite her denials, it's now plain that Lois Lerner was deeply involved in targeting conservative nonprofit groups.
By Jim Jordan
March 19, 2014 7:22 p.m. ET

The House Oversight Committee's investigation of the IRS is at an inflection point. The president's congressional supporters realize that the administration's version of the agency's targeting of conservative nonprofits seeking tax-exempt status—such as blaming local officials in the Cincinnati office or claiming that liberal groups were victimized along with conservative groups—is nonsense. Instead of debating the substance, they have resorted to procedural antics and misleading rhetoric.

I have spent a considerable amount of time and energy on the investigation—which included 38 daylong interviews of IRS and Treasury employees ranging from line employees in Cincinnati to the IRS commissioner to the chief of staff of the U.S. Treasury. The real news has been revealed at the Lois Lerner hearing on March 5 and in the report of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on March 11: "Lois Lerner's Involvement in the IRS Targeting of Tax-Exempt Organizations."

The evidence brought to light in that hearing and report completely discredited Ms. Lerner's claims about her involvement in what went on. It also eviscerated the notion that liberal and conservative groups were targeted.
Enlarge Image

Former IRS official Lois Lerner at a March 5 congressional hearing where she declined to testify. Associated Press

When Ms. Lerner appeared before Congress in May 2013, she made this statement: "I have done nothing wrong. I have not broken any laws. I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations." But Ms. Lerner, we discovered, forwarded confidential taxpayer information to her personal email account in early May 2013, which is a violation of IRS rules. About the infamous "Be on the Lookout" targeting list—a document used to identify conservative groups for additional scrutiny—she told Congress that the criteria for screening tax-exempt groups for extra scrutiny never changed. In fact, she personally ordered it changed in July 2011 according to documents and testimony received by the committee.

Ms. Lerner was most certainly driven by politics. One email of June 11, 2011, shows that she directed her subordinate to focus on the issues surrounding the application of Karl Rove's group, Crossroads GPS. In another email of Feb. 1, 2011, she frets about the Supreme Court "overturning the ban on corporate spending" as it applies to nonprofits. (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission also overturned the ban on union political spending, but she expressed no concern about that.)

Emails and testimony that we confronted Ms. Lerner with showed her saying that the tea party is "very dangerous," ordering a "multitiered review" (read: delay) of the cases, and managing the optics of her operation so it would not be revealed as a political project.

Last May, and again on March 5 of this year, Ms. Lerner refused to answer the committee's questions about the IRS treatment of tax-exempt groups, asserting her right under the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. Yet we learned on March 6 in reporting by this newspaper that she had previously given an interview to the Justice Department and, according to her lawyer, spoke with no grant of immunity.

Ms. Lerner's lawyer claims she gave an interview to the Justice Department because she did not believe the Oversight Committee would treat her fairly. More likely, the reason is because Justice is friendly territory. The lead investigator is a substantial Obama campaign contributor, and Justice has already leaked that it doesn't expect to prosecute anyone. As to the claim that liberal groups were also victimized, our committee investigation has yet to hear from a single progressive group that received the systematic scrutiny and harassment faced by the tea party and other conservative groups.

Congress is charged with oversight of the executive branch. The House Oversight Committee will not stop until we have all the answers, although I fully expect continued obstruction from the Obama administration and its foot soldiers in the House.

When Congress is thwarted in our attempts to get answers—as is clearly the case given Ms. Lerner's willingness to speak with the Justice Department but not to the public's elected representatives—we have an obligation to hold accountable those hiding the facts. Contempt of Congress is a power the House of Representatives exercised toward only five individuals in the last 30 years. The relevant statute states that any person who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" may be held in contempt. Ms. Lerner's actions easily rise to a level worthy of contempt and Congress's institutional integrity demands nothing less.

Additionally, it is necessary to appoint a special prosecutor. Mr. Holder called the IRS matter "outrageous and unacceptable" and ordered a Justice Department investigation to be conducted in coordination with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. No one can have confidence in this investigation, started by a politically appointed attorney general and led by a campaign contributor to his boss.

A special prosecutor, uncompromised by partisan political winds, provides hope of uncovering what happened at the IRS. As Elijah Cummings, my Democratic colleague on the Oversight Committee, said on May 22, 2013—the day of the committee's first IRS hearing—getting the truth and restoring trust must be paramount. "This is more important than one election," he explained. "The revelations that have come forward so far provides us with a moment pregnant for transformation; not transformation for a moment, but for generations to come and generations yet unborn."

I hope Mr. Cummings and fellow members of his party will join me in acknowledging the time has come for the appointment of an independent and unbiased special prosecutor.

Mr. Jordan, a Republican congressman from Ohio, serves on the House Committee on Oversight and Government. He is also chairman of its subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #203 on: March 21, 2014, 08:36:31 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/20/irs-employs-former-cop-convicted-of-fbi-snooping/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #204 on: March 21, 2014, 12:26:49 PM »


No worries, he'll only work on the returns on conservatives...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #205 on: March 24, 2014, 06:50:07 PM »

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303775504579395231042008894?mod=Opinion_newsreel_3
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #206 on: March 25, 2014, 06:03:07 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/374003/philly-da-blows-whistle-pennsylvanias-state-ag-john-fund#!

Philly DA Blows the Whistle on Pennsylvania’s State AG
 Why did the AG drop a case that exposed Democratic corruption?

By John Fund







Prosecutors almost never go to war against each other. But in Pennsylvania, Democratic attorney general Kathleen Kane is being brutally criticized by Seth Williams, Philadelphia’s district attorney and a fellow Democrat. Williams is upset that last year one of Kane’s first acts in office was to decline to prosecute four Philadelphia state legislators and other government officials. In a sting operation, all had been caught accepting cash or Tiffany jewelry in exchange for votes or favors. Kane, who is white, has defended herself, saying that the investigation was badly managed and tainted by racism. She claims the criticism comes from what she calls the “Good Ol’ Boys Club.” Williams, who is African American, has shot back: “I have seen racism. I know what it looks like. This isn’t it.”




 
The sting operation followed pretty much the same playbook as the federal Abscam investigation of the 1970s. Begun in 2010, the Philly probe was conducted under Kane’s three immediate predecessors as attorney general, and it resulted in more than 400 hours of video and audio recordings. Tyron B. Ali, a lobbyist originally from Trinidad, served as the undercover agent; after he was charged with fraud, he agreed to wear a wire in exchange for lenient treatment. Word of his cash offers eventually got around and prompted some elected officials to call him first. “Sources with knowledge of the sting said the investigation made financial pitches to both Republicans and Democrats, but only Democrats accepted the payments,” the Philadelphia Inquirer reported last week.

Attorney General Kane inherited the investigation when she took office in January 2013. She told the Inquirer that she stopped it without filing any charges because it was “poorly conceived, badly managed, and tainted by racism.” She quoted Claude Thomas, the chief investigator in the case, as saying he had been ordered to target “only members of the General Assembly’s Black Caucus” and to ignore “potentially illegal acts by white members.”

In response, Williams issued an angry statement and penned an op-ed in Sunday’s Inquirer. “The notion that they would target anyone based on race is ridiculous,” Williams said in a statement. “I am confident they are not racist, and it is regrettable that the attorney general would casually throw around such an explosive accusation.” Thomas, who is also African American, now works for Williams and denies he ever made such a statement.

What is clear is just how damning some of the collected evidence is. The Inquirer reported this exchange between Ali, the lobbyist, and state representative Vanessa Brown:


Ali went to Brown’s office and handed her an envelope with $2,000, according to people who have reviewed a transcript of a tape Ali made on that day.

As Brown accepted the money, they said, she put it in her purse and said: “Yo, good looking and Ooowee. . . . Thank you twice.”

After he gave Brown the money, Ali urged her to vote against a bill that would require voters to show identification at the polls, the sources said.

Kane’s supporters say that federal law-enforcement officials she consulted believed the probe had suffered from a lack of “quality control” and could be viewed as entrapment. “Is the acceptance of cash alarming? Absolutely,” one person close to Kane told the Inquirer. “But you’ve got to think: I’ve got to try this case.”

It certainly may have been politically awkward for Kane, as a Democrat, to prosecute only African-American defendants, but a conviction on something should have been a slam dunk. Even if prosecutors couldn’t prove a quid pro quo, it is illegal for politicians to accept payments to enrich themselves and also illegal not to report the income. Further, the prosecutors in this case have a sterling track record in securing convictions against the leadership of both parties in the legislature, winning 21 convictions in the 2010 “Bonusgate” scandal, which involved illegal payments to legislative staffers who performed political work. All of those convicted were white.

Kane has declined to answer detailed questions about why she dropped the investigation. Her critics, she says, are “playing political games to discredit me in order to fulfill their own selfish and improper agenda.” When she met with Inquirer editors last Thursday, she brought her personal attorney and on his advice declined to answer any questions after the meeting. Her attorney says she may file a defamation suit against the paper, a ploy frequently used by public figures to intimidate journalists.

Williams says he is tired of Kane’s “escalating excuses.” He points out that when she took office, the files on the probe were with federal prosecutors who hadn’t yet concluded whether they wanted to pursue their own case. “All she had to do was leave the investigation in the hands of federal authorities,” Williams wrote in Sunday’s Inquirer. “But she didn’t do that. Instead, she asked for the files back. And then, after going out of the way to reclaim the investigation, she shut it down.”

One bit player in the drama, who had dealings with Ali and was shocked to learn later that Ali was a government agent, says the whole thing reminds him of a John Grisham novel. My vote is for House of Cards. And from what we know so far, it shouldn’t be too hard to start matching up some of the Philadelphia players with their dramatic counterparts in the Netflix series.

— John Fund is a national-affairs columnist for National Review Online.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #207 on: March 27, 2014, 03:00:24 PM »

 The Right Opinion
Massaging of Critical Data Undermines Our Society
By Victor Davis Hanson · Mar. 27, 2014
11 Comments
Print Email Bigger Smaller

Transparency and truth are the fuels that run sophisticated civilizations. Without them, the state grinds to a halt. Lack of trust – not barbarians on the frontier, global warming or cooling, or even epidemics – doomed civilizations of the past, from imperial Rome to the former Soviet Union.

The United States can withstand the untruth of a particular presidential administration if the permanent government itself is honest. Dwight Eisenhower lied about the downed U-2 spy plane inside the Soviet Union. Almost nothing Richard Nixon said about Watergate was true. Intelligence reports of vast stockpiles of WMD in Iraq proved as accurate as Bill Clinton's assertion that he never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

Presidents fib. The nation gets outraged. The independent media digs out the truth. And so the system of trust repairs itself.

What distinguishes democracies from tin-horn dictatorships and totalitarian monstrosities are our permanent meritocratic government bureaus that remain nonpartisan and honestly report the truth.

The Benghazi, Associated Press and National Security Agency scandals are scary, but not as disturbing as growing doubts about the honesty of permanent government itself. It is no longer crackpot to doubt the once impeccable and nonpartisan IRS. When it assured the public that it was not making decisions about tax-exempt status based on politics, it lied. One of its top commissioners, Lois Lerner, resigned and invoked the Fifth Amendment.

A system of voluntary tax reporting rests on trust. If the IRS itself is untruthful, will it be able to expect truthful compliance from taxpayers?

Many doubt the officially reported government unemployment rates. That statistic is vital in assessing economic growth and is of enormous political importance in the way citizens vote.

It was reported in November that the Census Bureau may have fabricated survey results during the 2012 presidential campaign, sending false data to the Labor Department that could have altered official employment statistics.  In the 1990s, the method of assessing the official unemployment rate was massaged to make it seem lower than it actually was. Rules were changed to ignore millions who had been out of work longer than 52 weeks. They were suddenly classified as permanent dropouts and not part of the idled workforce.

Does the government release an accurate report on quarterly Gross Domestic Product growth – another vital barometer of how the economy is doing? Maybe not. Last year, the Bureau of Economic Analysis for the first time factored research and development costs of businesses into statistics on investment growth.

Suddenly, a cost became proof of business output and thus was added into the business investment contribution to GDP. That new accounting gimmick may have added hundreds of billions of dollars into the equation of figuring GDP growth last year alone. Not surprisingly, the government reported unexpectedly high 2.8 percent GDP growth after the changes.

Is inflation really as low as the government insists? In recent times the government has not just counted the increase in the prices of goods, but also factored into its calculus theories about changing consumer buying habits when prices increase. The changes have resulted in officially lowered inflation rates.

No one knows how many Americans have now bought and paid for Affordable Care Act health insurance policies. There is no accurate information about how many young people have enrolled – critical to the success of Obamacare. Nor do Americans know how many enrollees were previously uninsured. Nor does the public know how many enrollees simply switched insurance from Medicaid to the Affordable Care Act. There is no information about how many actually have paid their premiums.

No one knows how many foreign citizens who entered the U.S. illegally were apprehended inside the United States and returned to their country of origin last year – a figure vital for any compromise on passing comprehensive immigration reform.

The Obama administration claims near-record numbers of deportations. In fact, once again government agencies – in this case the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – have mysteriously changed the way they compile statistics. The ICE now counts as deportations those foreign nationals whom the Border Patrol immediately stops or turns away at the border. Such detentions were not previously counted as deportations.

The result is that bureaucrats can report near-record numbers of deportations, while privately assuring the administration that immigration enforcement has been greatly relaxed.

There is a pattern here. Changes in data collection seem to have a predictable result: Inflation and unemployment rates become lower. Economic growth becomes greater. The IRS focuses on government skeptics. The Affordable Care Act is not in trouble. Illegal immigration is not such a problem.

If the people increasingly believe that bureaucrats try to alter realty to reflect preconceived ideologies or the goals of the particular regime in power, then America as we know it is finished.

© 2014 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #208 on: March 31, 2014, 03:43:32 PM »

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/28/former-dc-resident-found-guilty-for-violating-city-gun-laws-for-owning-fake/?intcmp=trending

Some animals are more equal than others.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2014, 08:07:44 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #209 on: March 31, 2014, 10:37:06 PM »



http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2014/03/31/

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2014/04/01/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #210 on: April 01, 2014, 09:56:58 AM »

http://cis.org/catch-and-release
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #211 on: April 09, 2014, 12:33:25 PM »

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/09/more-irs-pro-obama-corruption-revealed/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #212 on: April 09, 2014, 09:25:04 PM »



http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/04/09/new-emaisl-show-lois-lerner-fed-information-about-true-the-vote-to-democrat-elijah-cummings-n1822247
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #213 on: April 10, 2014, 10:49:24 AM »

April 10, 2014
A Key IRS Manager, Dreaming of Working for the Obama Campaign

Remember that IRS investigation that seemed to have gone dormant? It woke up with a start Wednesday:

A House committee voted to refer a former top Internal Revenue Service official to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution, charging that she personally engineered crackdowns on large conservative organizations such as Crossroads GPS in addition to smaller tea-party groups.

Republicans also said the official, Lois Lerner, cooperated with a Democratic lawmaker in scrutinizing a conservative Texas group…

The referral letter, approved Wednesday by the committee in a party-line vote, says Ms. Lerner pushed IRS officials to deny an application for tax-exempt status by Crossroads in 2013. Around the same time, she also pushed other officials to audit Crossroads's activities to date.

"The evidence shows that without Lerner's intervention, neither adverse action would have been taken against Crossroads," the letter states.

Crossroads President Steven Law said the investigation "confirms that there was an organized high-level effort within the IRS to subvert the agency's own standards and procedures in order to harass law-abiding conservative advocacy groups like Crossroads GPS."

Ms. Lerner also asked for an internal IRS meeting concerning applications by other conservative groups, according to the letter.

Committee Republicans said Ms. Lerner appeared to show no interest in cracking down on liberal groups also seeking to operate as 501(c)(4) social-welfare organizations. According to emails the committee reviewed, Ms. Lerner emailed a colleague in response to a news story about the formation of Organizing for Action, an offshoot of President Barack Obama's campaign: "Oh--maybe I can get the DC office job!"

Until now, the focus of congressional investigations has been on IRS treatment of grass-roots tea-party groups. The new angle of the investigation suggests lawmakers believe IRS officials targeted higher-profile conservative groups that have emerged as important players in campaigns.

Then there's this potential explanation for why Democrats on the Government Reform Committee fought Issa every step of the way:

Issa on Wednesday accused the Maryland Democrat of colluding with the Internal Revenue Service in its targeting of the conservative nonprofit group True the Vote, whose founder, Catherine Engelbrecht, said she received multiple letters from Cummings in 2012 and personal visits from the IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Explosives. Engelbrecht's True the Vote is one of the many conservative groups that claims to have been improperly targeted by the IRS while it scrutinized the applications of tea-party groups. 

In a letter signed by his five subcommittee chairmen, Issa raised the possibility that Cummings coordinated with the IRS, "surreptitiously" contacting the agency to request information about True the Vote.

Get ready for more fireworks today: "The Oversight Committee will convene on Thursday morning to vote on whether to hold Lerner in contempt for her refusal to testify before the panel and House speaker John Boehner has indicated he will take the matter before the full House."
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5525


« Reply #214 on: April 10, 2014, 12:21:52 PM »

I wonder if Pres Obama knows how Nixon's second term went.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #215 on: April 10, 2014, 07:50:35 PM »

WSJ

April 10, 2014 6:53 p.m. ET

Nearly a year into the IRS scandal, we still don't know exactly what happened—though we are finally getting an inkling. That's thanks to the letter House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp sent this week to the Justice Department recommending a criminal probe of Lois Lerner.

The average citizen might be dizzied by the torrent of confusing terms—BOLO lists, Tigta, 501(c)(4)—and the array of accusations that have made up this IRS investigation. Mr. Camp's letter takes a step back to remind us why this matters, even as it provides compelling new information that goes to motive and method—and clarifies some of the curious behavior of Democrats during the investigation.

Motive: Republicans began this investigation looking for a direct link between the White House and IRS targeting. The more probable explanation all along was that Ms. Lerner felt emboldened by Democratic attacks against conservative groups to do what came naturally to her. We know from the record that she disdained money in politics. And we know from her prior tenure at the Federal Election Commission that she had a particular animus against conservative organizations.

As the illuminating timeline accompanying the Camp letter shows, Ms. Lerner's focus on shutting down Crossroads GPS came only after Obama adviser David Axelrod listed Crossroads among "front groups for foreign-controlled companies"; only after Senate Democrats Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer and others demanded the IRS investigate Crossroads; only after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched a website to "expose donors" of Crossroads; and only after Obama's campaign lawyer, Bob Bauer, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission about Crossroads.

The information in Mr. Camp's letter shows that Ms. Lerner sprang to action following a January 2013 meeting with Democracy 21, a campaign-finance outfit petitioning for a crackdown on Crossroads and the liberal big-dollar Priorities USA. (She never touched Priorities, run by former Obama aides.) The Camp outline suggests cause and effect, and that's new.


Method: The general prohibition on releasing taxpayer information has meant that—up until Ways and Means voted Wednesday to release this info—it was impossible to know what precise actions Ms. Lerner had taken against whom. We now know that she took it upon herself to track down the status of Crossroads, to give grief to an IRS unit for not having audited it, to apparently direct another unit to deny it tax-exempt status, and to try to influence the appeals process.

We know, too, that Ms. Lerner did some of this in contravention of IRS policy, for instance involving herself in an audit decision that was supposed to be left to a special review committee. We have the story of a powerful bureaucrat targeting an organization and circumventing IRS safeguards against political or personal bias. That ought to mortify all members of Congress. That Democrats seem not to care gets to another point.

Aftermath: Democrats quickly dropped any feigned outrage over IRS targeting and circled the wagons around the agency. Why? The targeting was outrageous, the public was fuming, and nobody likes the IRS. Joining with Republicans would have only been right and popular.

That is, unless Democrats are worried. As the Camp timeline and details show, the IRS responded to liberal calls to go after conservative groups. Democrats weren't just sending letters. Little noticed in the immediate aftermath of the IRS scandal was a letter sent May 23, 2013, by Carl Levin and (Republican) John McCain to the new acting director of the IRS disguised as an expression of outrage over IRS targeting. Artfully hidden within it was Mr. Levin's acknowledgment that his subcommittee on investigations had for a full year been corresponding and meeting with IRS staff (including Ms. Lerner) to ask "why it was not enforcing the 501(c)(4) statute."

What was said in the course of that year? How much specific information was demanded on conservative groups, and how many demands dispensed on how to handle them? Good questions.

In 2012, both the IRS and Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings were targeting the group True the Vote. We now have email showing contact between a Cummings staffer and the IRS over that organization. How much more contact was there? It's one thing to write a public letter calling on a regulator to act. It's another to haul the regulator in front of your committee, or have your staff correspond with or pressure said regulator, with regard to ongoing actions. That's a no-no.

The final merit of Mr. Camp's letter is that he's called out Justice and Democrats. Mr. Camp was careful in laying out the ways Ms. Lerner may have broken the law, with powerful details. Democrats can't refute the facts, so instead they are howling about all manner of trivia—the release of names, the "secret" vote to release taxpayer information. But it remains that they are putting themselves on record in support of IRS officials who target groups, circumvent rules, and potentially break the law. That ought to go down well with voters.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #216 on: April 15, 2014, 03:00:54 PM »

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304512504579491340045747178?mg=reno64-wsj

Wisconsin Civil-Rights March
Prosecutors targeting conservatives lose in federal court.
April 11, 2014 6:49 p.m. ET

Score another one for free political speech. On Tuesday, Federal District Judge Rudolph Randa soundly rejected a motion to dismiss a federal civil-rights lawsuit against Wisconsin prosecutors who are investigating the political activities of conservative groups (but not liberals).

In a 19-page ruling, Judge Randa wrote that Wisconsin Club for Growth Director Eric O'Keefe's claim that the unlawful investigation violates his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights may proceed. Mr. O'Keefe has standing to bring the lawsuit because "chilled speech is, unquestionably, an injury supporting standing" and that claim doesn't depend on whether he is charged with a crime; "the threat of prosecution is enough."

Prosecutors argued that the federal suit couldn't proceed under the 1971 Supreme Court ruling in Younger v. Harris, which prevents federal courts from intervening in a criminal prosecution. That precedent doesn't apply here, Judge Randa wrote, because the state's secretive John Doe proceeding is not a prosecution but "an investigatory device, similar to a grand jury proceeding, but lacking the oversight of a jury."

The Younger exemption also does not apply, the judge added, when the plaintiffs allege that the prosecution was "brought in bad faith for the purpose of retaliating for or deterring the exercise of constitutionally protected rights." Mr. O'Keefe's claim easily satisfies that requirement with its assertion that the John Doe investigation into possible campaign finance violations has been selectively used as a "pretext" to target conservative groups and deter their political engagement.

"The success or failure of O'Keefe's claims do not depend upon the state court's interpretation of its own campaign finance laws," Judge Randa wrote. "O'Keefe's rights under the First Amendment are not outweighed by the state's purported interest in running a secret John Doe investigation that targets conservative activists."

The ruling means that those named in the lawsuit, including special prosecutor Francis Schmitz, Democratic prosecutors John Chisholm, Bruce Landgraf, David Robles and Government Accountability Board contractor Dean Nickel can be held personally liable. The judge rejected their claims of immunity, noting that a prosecutor's absolute immunity is "limited to the performance of his prosecutorial duties, and not to other duties to which he might to assigned by his superiors or perform on his own initiative, such as investigating a crime before an arrest or indictment."

The John Doe probe has been a one-sided investigation conducted against political opponents to chill their ability to influence elections, and now the prosecutors will have to defend themselves in open court.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #217 on: April 16, 2014, 12:17:16 PM »

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/16/bombshell-lois-lerner-tried-to-get-obama-doj-and-fec-to-also-attack-tea-party-groups/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5525


« Reply #218 on: April 16, 2014, 01:10:45 PM »

I wonder if we will ever know why this suddenly heated up and why they suddenly backed down.  Why does the federal government still own 80% of Nevada?  How do we have armed resources available for this but can't defend our country 75 miles inside our southern border?  Will we waive the turtle protection when solar panels become the encroachment?  Again and again, it is whom you know (Harry Reid?), not what the law saws.

APRIL 16, 2014 4:00 AM
The Rule of the Lawless
Armed federal agents defend turtle habitat but fail to secure our national borders.
By Kevin D. Williamson
"our national borders are a joke, but the borders of that arid haven upon which ambles the merry Mojave desert tortoise are sacrosanct"

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375851/rule-lawless-kevin-d-williamson

The relevant facts are these: 1) Very powerful political interests in Washington insist upon the scrupulous enforcement of environmental laws, and if that diminishes the interests of private property owners, so much the better, in their view. 2) Very powerful political interests in Washington do not wish to see the scrupulous enforcement of immigration laws, and if that undercuts the bottom end of the labor market or boosts Democrats’ long-term chances in Texas, so much the better, in their view.  This isn’t the rule of law. This is the rule of narrow, parochial, self-interested political factions masquerading as the rule of law.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11489


« Reply #219 on: April 17, 2014, 04:20:36 AM »

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/04/16/the-terrifying-implications-of-the-irs-abuse-doj-connection/?singlepage=true
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3790


« Reply #220 on: April 17, 2014, 09:27:56 AM »

And what does the administration do?  Reduce funding to law enforcement on corruption and white collar crime and divert more to terrorism.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #221 on: April 17, 2014, 10:09:25 AM »

I don't have a citation for it, but I have seen in several usually sound sources reports that the Census Bureau is changing the questions it asks with regard to health care and that the net effect will be that it will eliminate a consistent basis for data with regards to how many people do not have health insurance and that Team Obama will be able to, yet again, lie.

In other words, yet again the non-political agencies of our government are being politicized.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29595


« Reply #222 on: April 17, 2014, 10:53:40 AM »

second post

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/us/us-deportations-drop-43-percent-in-last-five-years.html?emc=edit_th_20140417&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193

(Do note POTH failing to mention to dishonesty of the numbers being used by inflating them with at border deportations.)
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 444


« Reply #223 on: April 17, 2014, 12:18:36 PM »

Truly horrifying, treasonous behavior by this administration and colluding Democrats.  Meanwhile - the Republicans sit on their asses...

http://pamelageller.com/2014/04/documents-irs-leadership-colluded-holder-justice-department-jail-political-opponents-obama.html/
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5525


« Reply #224 on: April 17, 2014, 12:29:41 PM »

I don't have a citation for it, but I have seen in several usually sound sources reports that the Census Bureau is changing the questions it asks with regard to health care and that the net effect will be that it will eliminate a consistent basis for data with regards to how many people do not have health insurance and that Team Obama will be able to, yet again, lie.

In other words, yet again the non-political agencies of our government are being politicized.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/us/politics/census-survey-revisions-mask-health-law-effects.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON — The Census Bureau, the authoritative source of health insurance data for more than three decades, is changing its annual survey so thoroughly that it will be difficult to measure the effects of President Obama’s health care law in the next report, due this fall, census officials said.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!