Archive for the ‘Barry the Criminal’ Category

Latest Benghazi Bombshell Implicates White House in Benghazi Coverup!


Newly obtained emails by Judicial Watch point way past the State Department’s twisting of the Benghazi talking points following the September 11, 2012 jihad attacks that left four Americans dead.

Judicial Watch reports:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on April 18, 2014, it obtained 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents. They include a newly declassified email showing then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama administration public relations officials attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Other documents show that State Department officials initially described the incident as an “attack” and a possible kidnap attempt.

The documents were released Friday as result of a June 21, 2013, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the Department of State (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00951)) to gain access to documents about the controversial talking points used by then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice for a series of appearances on television Sunday news programs on September 16, 2012. Judicial Watch had been seeking these documents since October 18, 2012.

The Rhodes email was sent on sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 8:09 p.m. with the subject line: “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” The documents show that the “prep” was for Amb. Rice’s Sunday news show appearances to discuss the Benghazi attack.

The document lists as a “Goal”: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in and Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”

Rhodes returns to the “Internet video” scenario later in the email, the first point in a section labeled “Top-lines”:

[W]e’ve made our views on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message and its contents. We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence. And we are working to make sure that people around the globe hear that message.

Among the top administration PR personnel who received the Rhodes memo were White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Deputy Press Secretary Joshua Earnest, then-White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, then-White House Deputy Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri, then-National Security Council Director of Communications Erin Pelton, Special Assistant to the Press Secretary Howli Ledbetter, and then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe.


However, in another email sent by former Deputy Spokesman at U.S. Mission to the United Nations Payton Knopf to Susan Rice on September 12, 2012, he wrote:

Responding to a question about whether it was an organized terror attack, Toria said that she couldn’t speak to the identity of the perpetrators but that it was clearly a complex attack.

In another email dated September 11, 2012, Senior Advisor Eric Pelofsky wrote to Susan Rice:

As reported, the Benghazi compound came under attack and it took a bit of time for the ‘Annex’ colleagues and Libyan February 17 brigade to secure it. One of our colleagues was killed – IMO Sean Smith. Amb Chris Stevens, who was visiting Benghazi this week is missing. U.S. and Libyan colleagues are looking for him…

Rice would later appear on five Sunday shows and knowingly lie to the American public. However, she was only one of many who lied. Both Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah and Hillary Clinton knowingly and willingly lied to the families of the victims and the American people about the attacks in Benghazi.

Clearly, Benghazi became a coverup and at the center of it was an orchestrated lie, which was centered on a video with ties to the company that created the Obamacare website and that was produced by a Muslim tied to the Obama Justice Department.

Obama marches armed forces leftward

Corruption • Crime • Politics Two House Republicans Introduce Resolution to Investigate Obama for High Crimes and Misdemeanors!

Obama Calls for an End to Catholic Schools

Earlier this week in Northern Ireland, Notre Dame honorary-degree holder President Obama called for an end to Catholic schools, in front of an audience of about 2,000 young people — many of them Catholic

This was part of his official prepared remarks which are now available on the White House website:

“…Because issues like segregated schools and housing, lack of jobs and opportunity — symbols of history that are a source of pride for some and pain for others — these are not tangential to peace; they’re essential to it. If towns remain divided — if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs — if we can’t see ourselves in one another, if fear or resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division. It discourages cooperation.”

I would argue this is actually even worse than it seems at first glance.

After all, under Obama we have seen the rise of a toxic government culture where unelected bureaucrats feel enabled to target and harass American citizens whose political views differ from their own.

Now that President Obama has essentially saw fit to declare open season on Catholic schools abroad, what’s to stop the U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan or other officials in that department from seeing Obama’s remarks as their excuse to start harassing Catholic schools here?

This sounds crazy, remember how crazy it sounded only a few years ago that Catholic institutions would be forced by the government to pay for contraception and abortifacient pills, or how crazy it sounded only a few months ago that the IRS would intentionally target conservatives for audits and other politically-motivated harassment.

Obama’s remarks also, once again, went out of their way to single out Catholics. As Fr. Z pointed out:

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a foreign visit to a Islamic nation where he told people on his arrival that they shouldn’t have madrasas. Can you?

Did he when visiting, say, Israel, say “You Jews shouldn’t have synagogue schools and you Muslims shouldn’t have mosque schools.” I can’t remember. Did he?

Of course not — because such comments would rightfully invite criticism and be condemned.

Outside Catholic circles, I don’t see anyone talking about what Obama said about Catholic schools in Ireland.

Protestants should be offended as well.

And here’s my biggest concern — Obama really believes what he said. He really does believe Catholics and Protestants having their own schools is “part of the problem.” And so does the left.

So speak up now, while we still have a chance of grabbing his attention and showing him we’re not going to stand for it.

Barack Obama Brought A 3 Billion Dollar Check To Paris To Grease The Skids.

Just in case you believe that we’re making all of this up, Congressman Morgan Griffith and over 100 Members of Congress just sent a letter to Barack Obama and castigated him for promising to write a 3 billion dollar check to the UN Green Climate Fund without consulting Congress.

Griffith wrote: “[W]ithout the consent of Congress and despite serious domestic budget constraints, President Obama unilaterally pledged 3 billion in U.S. taxpayer funding for the Green Climate Fund.”

That 3 billion dollars is just a token, good-faith payment… chump change to grease the skids… but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Here’s what the media is not reporting.

The so-called UN Green Climate Fund was initially proposed at the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen in 2009, the precursor to the one that just concluded in Paris, and it was decided at that conference that the developed nations of the world would contribute a whopping 100 Billion dollars per year to the fund.

How much of that bill will be picked up by the United States is anyone’s guess, but if current trends hold (according to the Associated Press, the United States currently contributes 5 billion of the 10 billion dollars allocated every year for other UN green initiatives), the United States could be on the hook for as much as half… or 50 Billion Dollars Per Year.

But wait… it gets worse. If you think the UN is going to be satisfied with a paltry 100 billion, think again. As Congressman Griffith stated in his letter to Barack Obama:

“The Green Climate Fund’s Executive Director recently stated that estimated funding needed by developing countries would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020. The United Nations’ top climate change official, Christina Figueres, has described the current goal of $100 billion as ‘peanuts’ and envisions trillions of dollars in spending over the next 15 years.”

Trillions of dollars… and we’ll be on the hook for the lion’s share. Folks, the GDP of the United States is about 18 trillion dollars per year. Even if this money was going to a good cause (and it’s not), there is no way we could afford to pay it. The UN Green Climate Fund will cripple our economy and transform the United States into a third-world-country.

And therein lies the rub. Call it sauce for the goose. As we said in the beginning, this UN Green Climate Fund has NOTHING to do with so-called Climate Change. It’s really a scam to transfer the wealth of the United States to UN plutocrats and third-world dictators and it must be stopped.

How Obama cooks the terrorism numbers

By Wesley Pruden – The Washington Times – Monday, November 23, 2015

Barack Obama has given an eloquent testimony to a Christian faith, but his sympathies are always with Islam. He insisted from Asia that “99.9 percent of Muslims worldwide reject terrorism,” and that’s good news, if true. But it clearly is not.
It is true that in the wake of the attacks on Paris an unusual number of Muslims have decried the terrorism that threatens us all. Even CAIR, the Muslim advocacy outfit that decries as a hate crime every hard look a Muslim gets anywhere, condemns the assault on Paris.

It’s right to put radical Islamic terror in perspective. Muslims have fought in every American war, and 3,500 Muslims serve in the nation’s military services today. Muslim soldiers are buried with medals and honors at Arlington National Cemetery.

But a president who says 99.9 percent of Muslims reject terrorism has clearly been listening too long to the evening call to Muslim prayer, which he famously called “the prettiest sound on earth.” (It’s better than rap, but not as pretty as Dvorak’s “New World Symphony,” reprising the folk music of America.)

Pew Research, which is no right-wing echo chamber and polls extensively on what Muslims believe about current events, found that only 57 percent of Muslims in nine predominantly Islamic countries hold an unfavorable opinion of al Qaeda. Mathematicians, even math majors, generally regard 57 as less than 99.9.

One in 4 Muslims have a favorable opinion of Hezbollah, from whom ISIS learned certain torture techniques used on American captives, such as William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut whom the CIA concluded was reduced to “close to a gibbering wretch.” Once months of torture finally killed him, his body was dumped on the side of a dirt road.

Pew finds that a third, or 33 percent of Muslims support Hamas, whose soldiers once went into a hotel in the Israeli city of Netanya and burst into a room where a group of elderly Jews, including several Holocaust survivors and some in wheelchairs, were having a Passover supper. One of the Hamas heroes detonated his suicide vest, killing 30 and wounding 140 others. The Palestinian Authority later named a soccer tournament to honor the suicide bomber. The math major could tell Mr. Obama that a third, or 33, is less than 99.9.

The president entertains President Francois Hollande of France at the White House on Tuesday to talk about how to strengthen the international coalition to fight ISIS, and he probably should not try out his 99.9 number on the French president. What Mr. Obama does (or doesn’t do) speaks so loud it’s hard to hear what he says.

“The American people are right to be concerned,” he said on Sunday in Malaysia. But there’s a difference, he said, between vigilance and surrendering to fears “that lead us abandon our values, to abandon how we live.” True enough, but neither should Mr. Obama’s nave sentiment persuade anyone to abandon common sense or his life in a foolish surrender to mawkish clichs.

Mr. Obama’s pleas not to let the terrorists win — obviously meant to needle those who want to improve the vetting of migrants from Syria — inevitably recall similar presidential appeals in the wake of the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center.

“Our nation was horrified, but it’s not going to be terrorized,” George W. Bush declared five days after those attacks. “We’re a nation that can’t be cowed by evildoers.” Mr. Obama reprised the words of the man he blames for his own manifold mistakes, observing that the United States had taken hard licks before and survived, and now Times Square in Manhattan is aswarm with people again, “rightly so.”

“I was very proud of the fact that the fundamental nature of America and how we treated each other did not change,” he said. So far, so good. But he couldn’t resist a poorly disguised cheap shot at his predecessor. “We’ve made some bad decisions subsequent to that attack in part based on fear, and that’s why we have to be cautious.”

That sympathizers and supporters of terrorism as a legitimate weapon of war make up a minority of Muslims is no doubt correct. The majority want what the majority of Christians, Jews and those of no faith want, a good life for themselves and their children. But the minority is large and consequential, comprising a number far larger than Barack Obama’s one tenth of one percent. The president serves no good purpose distorting the facts.

If Muslims shunned the terrorists by the percentages that Christians shun the Ku Klux Klan, observes Josh Gelernter in the National Review, “the president would have a point.” But they don’t, and he doesn’t.

Amazing arrogance

Amazing arrogance

The arrogance coming out of the White House is amazing. Killing the Keystone pipeline in the name of the environment is a joke. Remember the Alaska pipeline? Been there 40 years, working quite well and over much worse terrain and weather than the Midwest. It even made room for the caribou herds to migrate.

But President Obama says there is too much danger to the ecology. How about all those rail cars filled with crude oil lumbering through the Midwest now? Oh yeah — a great deal of them belong to Obama’s friend and benefactor Warren Buffett.

Michael Brantley


Obama’s bad judgment

When I read “Obama rejects Keystone XL project” (Nov. 2), I was so enraged I thought it best to wait and avoid the use of expletives in my writing. The “people’s president” has demonstrated bad judgment in the past as it relates to the environment. Readers might recall President Obama’s foray into solar energy in the form of lending the people’s money ($535 million) to Solyndra, which went bankrupt, laying off 1,100 workers. Obama’s bad judgment knows no bounds. He has shut down Yucca Mountain Repository after the government spent billions of dollars creating this safe nuclear waste storage facility 1,000 feet underground at a site where more than 800 nuclear weapons were tested during the Cold War — an area that also is in restricted air space. Today, because of the man’s lack of common sense, nuclear waste is stored at 131 temporary sites in 39 states, which includes 66 nuclear power plants. The lunacy exposes large concentrations of population to the possibility of a nuclear accident. As well, Obama has essentially waged war against one of the cleanest ways to produce electricity, nuclear power. But I digress.

Obama’s unilateral Keystone pipeline decision should outrage Americans for several reasons of which this president is seemingly ignorant. Americans will continue to drive oil burners until alternative technology displaces them in the distant future; they will not drive more or less because the Keystone pipeline does or does not exist. There are already about 2.3 million miles of pipeline carrying oil and natural gas. Obama’s supposed concern as it relates to the environment is a straw man on many levels. His statements, “America’s now a global leader in taking serious action to fight climate change,” as well as, “And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership,” fly in the face of reality and common sense with even the most perfunctory scrutiny.

What the Keystone XL pipeline would have done is allowed America to trade with our largest trading partner, Canada, buying more oil from them rather than from countries like Saudi Arabia. As I recall, Saudi Arabia is the breeding ground of the terrorists who brought down the World Trade Center, killing thousands of people and resulting in wars in the Middle East where the people’s president is now escalating our involvement. I wonder how President Obama, given his concern for the environment, can justify the many billions of gallons of oil that have been and are being consumed (wasted) by our military in our misplaced forays into the affairs of that area of the world? Only a fool would reject the idea that getting oil from our “bordering” friendly neighbor would not enhance our oil security or for that matter our national security. The Canadians are correct when they say rhetoric won out over reason.

Henry Pierson

Keystone’s easy symbolism


President Obama did little to combat climate change by killing the Keystone XL pipeline the other day.

State Department studies showed the pipeline would reduce CO2 emissions by eliminating the need for truck and rail transport.

An Environmental Protection Agency study later found the oil would increase emissions by opening the Canadian tar sands to development, but earlier studies had rightly acknowledged the tar sands would eventually be tapped, regardless of what happened to the pipeline project.

So Obama’s decision amounts only to paltry symbolism, as he essentially conceded. The president will attend an international climate conference in Paris in two weeks and clearly wants to come with some bragging rights. The president stressed the United States must lead by example.

“If we’re going to prevent large parts of this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky,” he said.

But his heated rhetoric doesn’t change the fact that killing the pipeline won’t do a thing to move the CO2 emissions needle.

What it will do is kill some 40,000 construction jobs, alienate the United States’ top trade partner and undermine the nation’s energy security.

We are not among those who dismiss the threat of climate change or the need to develop alternative fuel sources.

Although the science may not be as precise as some environmentalists claim, the evidence, including warming trends and sea level rises, suggests the prudent course of action would be to take reasonable steps to reduce carbon emissions and prepare for a changing climate, including rising seas.

But that doesn’t mean throwing the world’s economy into turmoil by abruptly abandoning cheap and reliable fuel sources.

Indeed, the United States’ greenhouse emissions have been falling because of the increased use of clean-burning natural gas — produced by fracking — and greater efficiency.

Further greenhouse reductions will occur as more enterprises turn to solar and wind power, which are becoming more efficient, economical and reliable.

But all this will take time, research and winning public support for policies that promote a transition to alternative fuel sources.

George P. Shultz, Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, suggests a revenue-neutral carbon tax. That would be a heavy lift in today’s political climate, but the president is not discussing such meaningful strategies.

Instead, Obama offers trite symbolism that does nothing to change the difficult reality that fossil fuels remain essential to meeting the world’s energy needs.

The Climate Agenda Behind the Bacon Scare

The widely publicized warning about meat isn’t about health. It’s about the progressives fighting global warming.

Headlines blaring that processed and red meat causes cancer have made this steak-and-bacon-loving nation collectively reach for the Rolaids. Vegans are in full party mode, and the media is in a feeding frenzy. But there is more to this story than meets the (rib)eye.

With United Nations climate talks beginning in a few weeks in Paris, the cancer warning seems particularly well timed. Environmental activists have long sought to tie food to the fight against global warming. Now the doomsayers who want to take on modern agriculture, a considerable source of greenhouse-gas emissions, can employ an additional scare tactic: Meat production sickens the planet; meat consumption sickens people.

Late last month, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—part of the World Health Organization, an arm of the U.N.—concluded that red meat, like beef and pork, is “probably carcinogenic” to humans, and that processed meat is an even greater cancer threat. The IARC placed foods like bacon, sausage and hot dogs in the same carcinogen category as cigarettes and plutonium.

The working group assessed “more than 800 epidemiological studies that investigated the association of cancer with consumption of red meat or processed meat in many countries.” But support for the IARC’s sweeping conclusion is flimsy at best.

First, the report largely addresses only one cancer—colorectal—while making passing mention of other cancers, like stomach and prostate. Yet the evidence linking red meat and colorectal cancer is unconvincing. The authors write that “positive associations were seen with high versus low consumption of red meat in half of those studies”—hardly enough conclusive evidence to justify a stern cancer warning.

The working group even admits in the same paper that “there is limited evidence for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat” and “no clear association was seen in several of the high quality studies.” Despite this, the agency placed red meat in its second-highest carcinogen category, alongside DDT and the human papillomavirus, HPV.

The case against processed meat is dubious, too. According to the IARC report, each 50-gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That might sound scary, but the absolute risk is what really matters. As an example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 2% of 40-year-olds will develop colorectal cancer over the next 30 years of their lives. What the IARC study suggests is a slightly higher rate—say, 2.4% over 30 years—for those 40-year-olds who tear through a 16-ounce package of bacon every week without fail.

A doctor with the IARC acknowledged in a news release announcing the findings that “for an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small.” But that statement—widely overlooked in most media coverage—didn’t stop the agency from putting processed meat in its highest category of carcinogens, alongside mustard gas and formaldehyde.

Sensationalist reporting makes processed meat sound more dangerous than even the IARC report claims. A headline at NBC News reads: “Ham, Sausages Cause Cancer; Red Meat Probably Does, Too, WHO Group Says.” Another by the national desk at Cox Media Group runs: “Bacon poses same cancer risk as cigarettes, world health group claims.” This is a case where many journalists and policy makers fail to give proper scrutiny to claims that advance the prevailing political narrative. When a report advises eating less meat, few bother to check the facts, because the conclusion is already popular among them and assumed true.

Now we get to the connection between climate alarmism and the meat-is-bad movement. In advance of the Paris climate talks, the World Health Organization released a lengthy report about climate pollutants and global health risks. The section on agriculture discusses the need to direct consumers away from foods whose production emits high levels of greenhouse gases: “A key action with large potential climate and health benefits is to facilitate a shift away from high-GHG foods—many of which are of animal origin—and towards healthy, low-GHG (often plant-based) alternatives.”

The report specifically mentions red and processed meat: “In affluent populations, shifting towards diets based on careful adherence to public health recommendations—including reduced consumption of red and processed meat and/or other animal-sourced foods in favor of healthier plant-based alternatives—has the potential to both reduce GHG emissions and improve population health.”

How would this shift in consumers’ tastes be produced? “Experimental and modeling studies demonstrate that food pricing interventions have the ability to influence food choice,” the report states, before favorably citing a study in the United Kingdom of “taxing all food and drinks with above-average GHG emissions.”

Much of this is aimed at the U.S., which is the world’s top producer of beef and its third-largest producer of pork. Americans, along with Australians and Argentines, are among the world’s biggest per capita meat-eaters. Now climate busybodies can shout that meat causes cancer and is as bad for the person eating it as it is for the planet.

In other words, meat is a double threat that governments should contain. Hang on to your T-bones and sausages, folks.

Ms. Kelly, a cooking instructor and food writer, lives in Orland Park, Ill. Mr. Stier leads the risk analysis division at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C.

Revealed: IRS plan to prosecute Obama's political enemies

by Bob Unruh
Documents show FBI, Lerner tried to ‘concoct some reason’ to jail opponents

Judicial Watch has released documents obtained from the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service that confirm a strategy to prosecute conservatives who publicly oppose President Obama’s policies.

“These new documents show that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama DOJ and FBI scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with [IRS official] Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his re-election.”

Fitton said the “abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information.”

“How can the Justice Department and the FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?” he asked.

The internal documents uncovered by Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act request confirm the transfer of millions of pages of confidential taxpayer records from the IRS to the DOJ.

The IRS scandal has been in the headlines for several years, since it was revealed the agency selectively impeded the applications for tax-exempt status of conservative, Christian and tea party organizations.

Among the ploys was a demand to reveal the content of prayers and to curb statements on moral issues.

The scandal has been the subject of multiple congressional hearings, including two appearances by Lerner, who ran the tax-exempt division and twice has refused to answer Congress’ questions.

At one point, Lerner’s political bias was exposed in an internal email in which she called conservatives “a–holes” and “crazies.”

“The case for personal freedom” is made in Judge Andrew Napolitano’s “It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong.”

When the House of Representatives voted to find her in contempt of Congress and referred her to the DOJ for prosecution, the DOJ, which now is revealed to have played a role, refused to prosecute.

Several lawsuits are pending over the IRS campaign against conservatives.

The new report from Judicial Watch details an October 2010 meeting with Lerner, the DOJ and the FBI.

They were planning for “the possible criminal prosecution of targeted nonprofit organizations,” Judicial Watch said.

Records also reveal the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks with 1.25 million pages of IRS returns that are supposed to be confidential. They were from 113,000 nonprofit social 501(c)(4) groups, or, as Judicial Watch reported, “nearly every 501(c)(4) in the United States.”

That move, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has said, “violated federal tax law.”

Judicial Watch said the documents were made public through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

The document from IRS Exempt Organizations Tax Law Specialist Siri Buller to Lerner referenced a meeting with the DOJ’s Criminal Division and the FBI about the “possible criminal prosecution of nonprofit organizations,” the Judicial Watch report said.

Discussed, the documents show, were ideas from “Lois” on how the IRS can revoke or modify “an organization’s exemption retroactively if it omitted or misstated a material fact or operated in a manner different from that originally presented.”

“We discussed the hypothetical situation of a section 501(c)(4) organization that declares itself exempt as a social welfare organization, but at the end of the taxable year has in fact functioned as a political organization,” the memos reveal.

The documents state: “Lois stated that although we do not believe that organizations which are subject to a civil audit subsequently receive any type of immunity from a criminal investigation, she will refer them to individuals from CI who can better answer that question. She explained that we are legally required to separate the civil and criminal aspects of any examination and that while we do not have EO law experts in CI, our FIU agents are experienced in coordinating with CI.”

They even discussed what could be changed in the law.

The email records also show there was a request from an undisclosed Justice Department official to an IRS lawyer asking that copies of employee statements to Congress be provided to the DOJ first.

“One last issue. If any of your clients have documents they are providing to Congress that you can (or would like to) provide to us before their testimony, we would be pleased to receive them. We are 6103 authorized and I can connect you with TIGTA to confirm; we would like the unredacted documents,” a note said.

An earlier document release from Judicial Watch showed that Lerner had communicated with an IRS official about plans “to prosecute nonprofit groups that ‘lied’ (Lerner’s quotation marks) about political activities.”

The investigations are a long way from over. WND reported only a few weeks ago that an inspector general for the U.S. Treasury had uncovered thousands of emails that may help reveal the extent of the IRS targeting of tea party-type groups during the 2004-2013 time frame.

The emails had former IRS chief Lois Lerner’s name all over them; the Hill reported the messages were either sent to her, or sent from her.

In all, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, or TIGTA, uncovered 6,400 new emails the IRS hadn’t turned over to lawmakers on Capitol Hill investigating the election-year scandal.


SEO Powered By SEOPressor