Abuse of Power

Submitted by Peggy in comments

Tina, Abuse of power exhibited by this administration has to be unprecedented in scope and depth. Here are the ones I could think of. Go ahead and add those I forgot.

1.) Gulf oil spill: Contempt of court for refusing to comply with judge’s order to lift drilling moratorium:

The Examiner

2.) Fast and Furious: Contempt of Congress for refusing to provide requested documents:

Fox News

3.) Extortion 17 Cover-up: Twenty-two SEALs Team Six members killed three months after Joe Biden identified the team for killing Bin Laden:

Insider – Fox News

Special Operations Speaks

4.) Benghazi Cover-up: Has refused to provide unclassified and classified requested documents to Congress for over 8 months. Politically driven before, during and after the attack to get Obama reelected.

5.) IRS act of tyranny against a select group/s; conservatives, religious and disabled veterans.

Freedom Outpost

6.) AP “slap-down” for not letting the WH be out front of the story:

“According to The Post’s timeline of the frantic back and forth between the CIA, the White House, and the AP, the AP had their big scoop about a thwarted terror attack ready to go on May 2 of last year. However, the organization sat on the story for five days, at the request of the CIA. The reporters and editors who were working on the story were told that there were serious “national security concerns” at stake. That happens a lot, particularly when the story is about an ongoing operation.

However, on Monday, May 7, those same CIA officials told the AP that those concerns were longer an issue. Presumably, that meant the operation had been completed, the agents involved were safe, and no one was in danger. Yet, the CIA still wanted to them to hold off for one more day, because the government was planning its own announcement, and offered the AP a one-hour long exclusive on the scoop. Then the White House shortened that exclusivity window to five minutes. The AP understandably balked, since the grounds for not publishing had switched from national security concerns to public relations timing, and ran their that afternoon.”

The Atlantic Wire

What do you say guys…any more you can recall that you’de like to add to the list?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Abuse of Power

  1. Tina says:

    That list is a good start Peggy. Here’s an accounting of lies told about the abuse of power in the IRS targeting of conservative organizations:

    Kevin Williamson, National Review ~ “The Nine Lies of Lois Lerner”

  2. J. Soden says:

    Gonna need an app to keep track of all of the Obumble scandals . . .

    Next up – Sibelius fundraising to implement Obumblecare from companies she will oversee

    EPA treating conservative businesses like the IRS did while giving friendly “green” business a pass.

    Obumble’s chickens are coming home to roost.

    • Post Scripts says:

      J. Soden, I admire your humor…going to need an app to keep up with Obama’s scandals…lol Thanks for the morning laugh!

  3. Peggy says:

    Good memory jars guys. I’d forgotten about Obama picking winners/losers and all of our millions that went to Solyndra and other “green” type businesses that have gone bankrupt.

    Also the Obama administration involvement in the GM bankruptcy settlement giving unions and unsecured creditors a better deal over non-union workers and secured creditors should be high on the list. And the charges by Republican car dealers of being targeted for closure.

    Golub Says Obama Violated Bankruptcy Principle in GM Aid:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-12/golub-says-obama-violated-bankruptcy-principle-in-gm-aid.html

    What the GM bailout really cost American taxpayers: (Must Read!)
    “GM’s sweetheart tax deal has largely slipped under the radar screen, allowing Obama to both rail against tax loopholes and claim the auto bailout cost taxpayers far less than it actually has.”
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/18/what-gm-bailout-really-cost-american-taxpayers/#ixzz2TlOV4Iwg

    When Will GM Stop Being “Government Motors”?: (2013 update)
    “But unless the price of GM’s stock skyrockets, and soon, the government is going to come up well short of the $49.5 billion that it lent to GM. In fact, it could come up short by $10 billion or more.”
    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/05/11/when-will-gm-stop-being-government-motors.aspx

    Playing Favorites With Chrysler Dealers?:
    “Both Chrysler and the Obama administration say that investment banker Steven Rattner, who had been brought in as head of the White House’s Auto Task Force to make some tough decisions about the U.S. auto industry at a time when it was running on fumes, did not select which dealerships would live and which would die. The list was a Chrysler product and was based, according to the company, on such factors as sales volume, local market share and location.

    Rattner, who was nicknamed the “car czar,” is married to Maureen White, who is a former Democratic National Committee finance chair.”
    http://factcheck.org/2009/09/playing-favorites-with-chrysler-dealers/

    GM closes 500 dealerships tagged during bankruptcy:
    “The special inspector general for the U.S. Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), former federal prosecutor Neil Barofsky, is currently investigating more than 2,000 GM and Chrysler dealership closures. In July 2010, Barofsky found in an audit that the means through which many of the dealership terminations were handled was inappropriate. That includes the way the automakers proceeded and the way the Obama administration reacted.”
    http://www.cardealexpert.com/news-information/auto-news/gm-closes-500-dealerships/

  4. Peggy says:

    More on the auto bailout worth reading.

    What TARP Boss Neil Barofsky Told Me Yesterday Should Shock You

    Back to Neil Barofsky…
    Rewarding Mistakes
    So… where did the $700 billion go? Did that fix the magneto trouble?
    “I wondered the same thing,” he said (from memory). “It was amazing to me that no one knew. We gave it to the banks. But no one knew what they did with it. I proposed to Tim Geithner that we find out. He was outraged. He cursed me out, using the F-word. He said it would bring the whole banking system down, if I asked.

    “I went ahead and sent out a letter. I didn’t really have the authority or the staff to insist. But all of the big banks wrote back. And most of them gave me dodgy responses or gave me the brush-off.

    “What did they do with the money? They were supposed to increase lending to help bring about a recovery. None of them did that. Instead, they used it to repay each other’s loans. In other words, they used it to reduce the amount of credit available… not increase it. And they bought US agency bonds… just as you’d expect. And they paid out their bonuses.
    “In other words, they looked out for themselves… just as you’d expect. I didn’t know this information was going to bring down the banking system…

    “The whole thing was so perverse, I can barely believe it. In a normal financial system, if a bank made a bad bet, it would pay a penalty. Counterparties might lend more money to it, but they’d want higher rates of interest to protect themselves.

    “But here, in the bubble years, all the big banks made some of the worst bets in history… and what happened? The government stepped in… and lent them money… at lower rates of interest. They were rewarded for their mistakes. The good banks – that didn’t have the backing of the government – actually paid higher rates of interest to borrow money than the bad banks.

    “Another thing I wanted to know was exactly how much money was really at risk. We gave away $700 billion. But we also guaranteed loans… and gave lines of credit… and stood behind various financial transactions. I asked how much was at stake… how much was at risk. No one seemed to know. So we added it up. We found a total of $23 trillion. That’s ‘trillion’ with a capital ‘T.’

    “Again, I’m not saying that we would ever have to pay out that much. Some of this was guarantees on top of guarantees and cross-guarantees… very murky… very difficult to disentangle. But I thought it was worth knowing how much we had at risk. And again, the banks didn’t want to tell. And the people in the Treasury department didn’t want to know.

    “The more questions I asked, the more I found myself isolated… and at odds with the Treasury Department, as well as the banks. I was having shouting matches in the Treasury. The banks hated me. And then the undersecretary of the Treasury called me into his office.

    “He explained that if I eased up on the banks, I could have a very nice career after the TARP appointment expired. If I didn’t play ball with them, I would find it hard to find a job.

    “That’s how it works. You go along and you get along. If you don’t go along with the scams and the technical mumbo jumbo… you’re out.”

    That’s how a zombie economy works, dear reader. The zombies throttle the girls. You look the other way. Or else…

    Read more at http://www.stockhouse.com/bullboards/messagedetail.aspx?s=vit&t=list&m=32581465&l=0&pd=0&r=0#BqF9WuAYlAoGWZYo.99

  5. Peggy says:

    Another big Ooops to add to the growing list.

    “Now, the Obama administration has reportedly apologized to Israel for another leak of classified information to the media, one that occurred earlier this month and which Israeli officials are concerned could place Israeli lives at risk.”

    ‘US officials apologize for confirming IAF strike in Syria’:

    “American officials apologized to their Israeli counterparts for confirming that Israel was behind the airstrikes on the Damascus airport earlier this month, Israel Radio reported on Sunday.

    The confirmation reportedly came from the lower ranks at the Pentagon, and the reasons for the leak are being investigated.”

    http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/US-officials-apologize-for-confirming-IAF-strike-in-Syria-313598

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/19/report-obama-administration-apologizes-for-another-national-security-leak/

  6. Tina says:

    Peggy, Barofsky may be a straight shooter, a liar or he may be a dupe of the progressive left but he is definitely spouting the media supported Democrat line and that doesn’t explain what really happened.

    Others involved, or observing from personal experience, reveal a dirty under belly of former Democrats in leadership and Obama’s progressive scandal machine:

    Barofsky is a lifelong Democrat who was appointed by GWB as he was leaving office, presumably in deference to Obama’s winning the election; Barofsky donated to the Obama campaign.

    My research confirms that it wasn’t banks that benefited from TARP, in fact, as has been reported, TARP was forced on the banks and most of the money has been repaid with interest but it was a struggle to get the government to take the money back even with interest:

    Was the taxpayer really out $700 billion? No, since Congress only authorized $350 billion to be lent out in 2008. The other $350 billion was saved for the new President when he took office in 2009. Obama never used the TARP funds to further bail out banks. Instead, he launched the $787 billion Economic Stimulus package. Second, the government bought bank stocks when the prices were depressed and sold later, when prices were higher.

    By 2012, banks had repaid $292 billion of TARP funds, leaving only $120 billion still outstanding. These funds were used for the HARP program, to help homeowners facing foreclosure. Third, the bill required the President to develop a plan to recoup losses from the financial industry if needed.

    In the May 13, 2009 Business Insider the following was reported on Paulson forcing banks to take TARP money:

    Remember the infamous meeting when then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson had the heads of 9 major banks come down to Washington? It was then that he made them the offer they couldn’t refuse. Take TARP cash , or else!

    Now Judicial Watch — the conservative watchdog organization which was famous for giving the Clinton administration fits — has uncovered secret documents from that meeting via the Freedom of Information Act. A few of them are really quite stunning.

    The first 1-pager is Paulson’s talking points for the bank. It basically confirms that he put a gun to all their heads. It says they must agree to take their cash, and that if they protested, then each bank’s regulator would force them to take it anyway.

    The first document, “Treasury CEO Talking Points” appears to have been removed from the Business Insider site but the second, “Treasury Participation Commitment” is still there for viewing.

    On May 29, 2009 CNN reported that banks wanted to give the money back:

    NEW YORK (CNN) — There’s a growing sense among some bankers that Troubled Asset Relief Program known as “TARP” has become toxic. As a result, they want to bail out of the bank bailout program.

    “It should be called ‘TRAP,’ not TARP,” said Brian Garrett, chief executive of Bank of the Bay in San Francisco, who is trying to return bailout funding. “Giving it back is harder than getting it.” …

    … Iberiabank in Louisiana, California’s Bank of Marin, and TCF Financial in Minnesota confirm to CNN Money that they are asking Treasury to take back their TARP funds.

    “What these bank managers are saying is – listen, I want the Government out of my backyard, and I just want to give back the TARP, and I want to run my company by myself,” said Paul Miller, Financial Services Analyst at FBR Capital.
    Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Bank of New York/Mellon (BK, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), JP Morgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) – all ‘mega-banks’ that the government forced to take bailout money – say they want to return taxpayer funds “as soon as practical.”.

    On April 4, 2009 The Wall Street Journal reported:

    Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He’s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with “adverse” consequences if its chairman persists. That’s politics talking, not economics.

    Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can’t a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend?

    And since politics drives this administration, why can’t special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit — until now.

    Real Clear Markets weighs in on the government refusing to take the TARP money back:

    Bailouts: Didn’t Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner say that it was not the administration’s intent to control private companies? Then why is it reportedly reluctant to accept TARP repayments from some banks?

    If it has indeed declined to accept $340 million in payments from banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California, the administration is tacitly admitting that it wants to control those banks as well as others that will try to pay back the taxpayers’ money they took in the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

    By refusing repayment, the government can keep the leverage it bought with the bailouts. Banks that still “owe” would not be in position to reject the administration as a “partner.”

    This reminds us of mobsters making a small “investment” in a family-owned shop, which is not always wanted by the owners, and then using it to justify taking over the business. …

    Andrew Napolitano reported last week on Fox News that he had spoken to the head of a $250-billion bank the night before who said Washington forced him to take TARP funds last September.

    Napolitano said this bank “has no subprime loans, it has no bad debts, wasn’t involved in credit default swaps. It didn’t need any money. It didn’t ask for the money and didn’t want it. . . . officials from both the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Treasury said if you don’t take this money, we will conduct a multi-year public audit of you.”

    The Fox News analyst said the bank’s “board was forced to issue a class of stock just for the federal government. The federal government owns 2% of this huge bank.”

    That was done under the Bush administration. Enter the Obama White House. Last month, Napolitano said, Treasury told the bank “we own 2%, we’re going to tell you how to run the place.”

    “As a result of that minority ownership, they now want to control salaries. They want to see his books, and they want to tell him who he can do business with,” Napolitano reported.

    Reuters reports what CEO of Wells Fargo said about TARP:

    “Is this America, when you can do what your government asks you to do and then retroactively you also have additional conditions put on?” Kovacevich said. A video of his comments was posted online by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

    Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and several smaller lenders have said they want to get out of TARP when they can, although Bank of America Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis has said the program helped avert a financial meltdown.

    On March 6, Wells Fargo slashed its quarterly dividend 85 percent to 5 cents per share, saving $5 billion a year.

    The bank in the fourth quarter posted its first quarterly loss since 2001, and at the end of the year it completed its acquisition of troubled larger rival Wachovia Corp.

    Even with the $25 billion of TARP capital, Wells Fargo has less capital relative to its size than some analysts prefer.

    Kovacevich nevertheless said that had the bank not been forced to take TARP money last October, “we would have been able to raise private capital at that time, and with that private capital, given what is going on today, it is very unlikely that we would have had to reduce the dividend.” (emphasis mine)

    Wells Fargo and 18 other large companies are being subjected to stress tests to determine which can withstand a particularly severe recession. Those that cannot will need to raise more capital. Results are due by the end of April.

    “We do stress tests all the time on all of our portfolios,” Kovacevich said. “We (have) shared those stress tests with our regulators, forever. It is absolutely asinine that somebody would announce we’re going to do stress tests of banks and we’ll give you the answer in 12 weeks.”

    Kovacevich said press reports that Wells Fargo acted purely out of self-interest in resisting regulators’ demand that it accept TARP money were misleading.

    “They felt that if they gave it to everybody, whether they needed it or not, that the consequence would be that everyone would be raised up equally, and people would not know who was swimming naked and who wasn’t swimming naked,” he said.

    The Bush administration should never have opened this door. When the Obama “syndicate” administration took over it immediately began to strong-arm the banks telling them what they could and could not do and threatening them with audit and other repercussions.

    On November 9, 2011 John Hinderocker at Powerline posted the following by someone with a lot of experience in finance who had posted in comments:

    The “Wall Street banks” weren’t “bailed out.” Depositors, lenders and the entire financial system–one could say, the 99%–were bailed out. This includes, of course, those 99%-ers who successfully flipped houses with sub-prime financing (one third of sub-prime loans in California in ’06 – ’08) and those 99%-ers who sold at the top of the bubble at inflated prices and had enormous windfalls of capital gains.

    So in what sense were “banks” “bailed out?” They weren’t “given” anything–and certainly not by the 47% paying no income taxes! Large banks were forced to take liquidity loans by the lender of last resort (government) to prevent a bank run, protecting the 99%…while their equity holders got mercilessly hammered in the market, essentially wiped out.
    Most “bankers” had huge amounts of their bonuses and net worth in options or in equity in the bank, respectively, which also became nearly worthless. Hundreds of thousands of “bankers” lost their jobs and will never work in finance again, most likely. This is a “bailout?” (emphasis mine)

    Look closely at who REALLY got bailed out, defined as having government grants or equity infusions or long term unremitted TARP or government guarantees funded, together with anticipated permanent losses.

    The largest single holders of government funds remaining are: (see chart) FNMA and FHLMC (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) and GM and ALLY Bank (GM’s finance arm).

    It’s all a convenient distraction from the government sponsored and engineered housing bubble, which was aided and abetted by a huge and pervasive real estate industrial complex in every Congressional district lavishly maintained by lobbying and funding from FNMA and FHLMC to keep the game going. After all, where did the loan proceeds GO? ANSWER: to developers, brokers, construction unions, contractors, landowners, lawyers, appraisers, servicers, local governments and boosters, real estate agents…AND homeowners. And house flippers, getting windfall gains.

    That’s where the wealth transfers from the bubble overwhelmingly ended up. The fees “Wall Street bankers” made (2% – 3%) and the net interest spread and returns expected by investors–but subject to losses–pale in comparison to the application of proceeds to the other beneficiaries. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. You might call them the 99%. Sure, the banks got fees but the 99% got the aggregate net principal from the loans. In the end there was, indeed, a wealth transfer, ultimately from taxpayers (and to a lesser extent from investor losses) paying for FNMA/FHLMC and other government agencies. But the wealth transfer was primarily TO the 99%, not to the “Wall Street banks”.

    The real story here, as the numbers show, is the disastrous role and huge bailout of FNMA/FHLMC–Friends of Bill (Clinton) and Friends of Barry O and Barney (Frank) and Chris (Dodd). FNMA/FHLMC is government directed industrial policy for the housing and real estate sectors. Banking and finance is always a derivative or “following” activity, led by the “real” economic sectors. Banks certainly accommodated the housing bubble and in the process kept it going, but they didn’t create it. The government did, responding to and developing further long-standing New Deal/Great Society housing initiatives.

    Of course, the banks large and small made as much money as they could from the process, as did everyone else, and did become reckless. They’re hardly innocents in this sad tale, but they weren’t “bailed out” in the commonly understood sense. And taxpayers will end up holding the bag for the government which directed allocation of capital to housing and to automobile worker unions, not to Wall Street. (emphasis mine)

    But we shouldn’t hold our collective breath for an Occupy FNMA/HUD, or Occupy GM, or Occupy Local Friendly Bank, or Occupy Barney any time soon. For the left and the MSM, the story line of the “Wall Street banks” is just too good to check.

    The bottom line once again is the underhanded, manipulative, progressive machine using every means possible to gain power and control no matter what happens to the private sector and the citizens of this country who work and pay taxes. And a lot of the big progressive elitists at the top made big money while the bubble was being built and in the aftermath of the so called rescue.

    The complete role Treasury played in this scandal never seems to see the light of day. But it looks to me like a money laundering type scheme where Treasury makes money while pretending to “help” Americans recover from an orchestrated crisis:

    NewBridge Bancorp said Thursday the U.S. Treasury Department has completed the sale of its $52 million in preferred shares previously issued in 2008 as part of the bank’s participation in the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

    The Company’s preferred shares were sold through a modified Dutch auction at a price of $980.50 per share of the $1,000 liquidation value. The shares are now owned by third-party investors. (Who I wonder?)

    By comparison, BNC Bancorp’s 31,260 preferred shares drew about 92 cents on the dollar from bidders in August, yielding $28.4 million in net proceeds to the Treasury.

    In September, Yadkin Valley Financial Corp.’s 49,312 preferred shares drew about 89 cents on the dollar from bidders. Treasury officials said the agency will get about $43.5 million in net proceeds.

    The lesson for me is that government should be as small as possible and be completely seperate from the Private sector.

  7. Peggy says:

    Geez Tina, how do you keep all of this information in that amazing brain of yours? It’s like trying to follow a three-dimensional holographic chess game.

    Not long ago someone on this blog laughed at me for reading “Atlas Shrugged” and attacked the author Ayn Rand. And here we are today living in the real world she created decades ago as fiction. Amazing and so very sad to see the greed of those in power destroy the lives of so many to fill their own pockets.

    Keep up the great work you and Jack are doing. We desperately need the information and appreciate the opportunity to speak up.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Peggy, you’re so right, Tina has this amazing ability to store factoids like a giant mental library, whereas I can barely remember what I had for breakfast.

      Thanks for your kind words. I like to think this column is important to people because everyone is invited to share the podium with us, to talk about what is important to them, and to bring up those important news events that deserve more than a 15 second sound byte. And to that end, we really appreciate your contributions! You’ve come up with some articles.

  8. Tina says:

    Thanks Peggy for the kind words but, like you, I’m just a curious researcher following the threads where they lead…the articles writers do the work and tell the story.

    I’m curious now about something from one of your articles:

    “The list was a Chrysler product and was based, according to the company, on such factors as sales volume, local market share and location.”

    This sounds like another story the media will buy and then disseminate. Some of the dealers that lost their businesses report being the most profitable in their regions and that other dealerships in the region were kept even though they were failing. A company that isn’t doing well would keep it’s profitable dealerships open wouldn’t they? Unless…this was part and parcel of the redistribution process that has been the hallmark of the Obama administration since the beginning. It would be interesting to know how many that were failing and were saved were Obama supporters and how many that were profitable and closed were McCain supporters.

    You keep up the support too Peggy. All Americans need to be on full alert and you certainly do your part.

  9. Peggy says:

    A couple of months ago I saw news coverage on TV about the GM auto dealers that were shut down during the stimulus down-sizing filing suit against GM.

    This article from 2010 is all I can find so far, but I’ll keep looking. They may be the same dealers that are working with their Congress reps. mentioned above.

    Dealers sue GM, law firm for $750M:
    http://www.wheels.ca/dealers-sue-gm-law-firm-for-750m/

  10. Peggy says:

    Are we up to 942 scandals yet for the Obama administration? No? Not yet?

    Well, if you haven’t heard the chatter going on there are more whistleblowers coming. Little birdie whistleblowers and even some big ones way up the chain of command are talking to lawyers and others. Wonder who they are and what they will say.

    I’ve wondered why those three top military commanders were reassigned right after Benghazi. Was it related or a mere coincident? Did one or more of them try to defy the “stand-down” order? And was it really a coincidence that the Petraeus affair came out just after too, taking out the head of the CIA? Was he the sacrificial lamb to cover-up the missile buy-back from al-Quada? Brings back memories of Oliver North and the Iran-Contra affair.

    Let’s see, the media has been silenced with bribes of favorable access to Obama, “leaked” information to additional favored media or the abusive, if not illegal wiretapping, of reporters and producers who dared to try and discover the news. I’ll bet every reporter is now wondering if they too were tapped or their phone records reviewed.

    Hope all whistleblowers are as brave as the ones who have already come forward and tell the truth.

    Was the Relief of a Navy Admiral Benghazi-Related?:
    http://blog.militaryauthority.com/blog-1/bid/237599/Was-the-Relief-of-a-Navy-Admiral-Benghazi-Related

    Admiral fired for trying to help in #Benghazi. General fired for same.:
    http://newsmilitary.com/pages/8031459-navy-replaces-admiral-leading-mideast-strike-group-navy

  11. Peggy says:

    Reporter Who Alleged Possible IRS Targeting After Tough Obama Interview Has Been Fired:

    Larry Conners, the St. Louis reporter who alleged the IRS may have unfairly targeted him after his tough interview with President Barack Obama, has been fired, KMOV-TV announced Wednesday.

    “We regret to announce that Larry Conners is no longer a KMOV news reporter. Larry was a valued member of KMOV for a long time, and we will miss him,” the news station’s President Mark Pimentel wrote.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/22/reporter-who-alleged-possible-irs-targeting-after-tough-obama-interview-has-been-fired/

  12. Peggy says:

    Here are three more “scandals” to add to the previous list. Have to be getting close to 942 by now. Just trying to keep track.

    1.) Sebelius fundraising ‘arguably an even bigger issue’ than Iran-Contra:

    “Sen. Lamar Alexander is ranking Republican on the Senate committee that oversees health policy. On Saturday, he compared Health and Human Services Sec. Kathleen Sebelius’ fundraising for non-profits that support the health care law to the Iran-Contra Scandal. Since then, Sen. Alexander has asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate her fundraising.

    Sen. Alexander and I spoke Monday about the Iran-Contra comparison, how HHS should be handling Obamacare and what happens next. What follows is a transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for clarity and length.

    Sarah Kliff: You’ve been one of the first Republican senators to raise concerns about the secretary’s fundraising for Obamacare. What would you like to see happen next?

    Lamar Alexander: I’d like for her to stop. One issue is if she’s raising money from the people she regulates. But I’m more concerned about her using private funding and private organizations to do what Congress has refused to do. I and other members of congress are going to ask GAO to look into the extent she’s coordinating with Enroll America or other organizations.

    The reason I used the analogy to Iran-Contra scandal is this administration’s persistent thumbing of its nose at Article 1 of the Constitution because that made it very clear that the purpose of creating Congress is to curb executive power.

    SK: I wanted to follow up on the Iran-Contra analogy. That seems like an awfully strong historical example to pick in this situation.

    LA: This is arguably an even bigger issue because, in Iran-Contra, you had $30 million that was spent by Oliver North through private organizations for a purpose congress refused to authorize, in support of the rebels. Here, you’re wanting to spend millions more in support of private organizations to do something that Congress has refused.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/14/lamar-alexander-sebelius-fundraising-arguably-an-even-bigger-issue-than-iran-contra/

    2.) Is Fed Raid on Gibson Guitar Company Enforcing Policy . . . or a Push to Target ‘Made in the USA’?: (Or another IRS-like political target?)

    “On August 24, armed agents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Homeland Security raided the corporate headquarters and two factories of the Gibson Guitar company. The agencies took away 24 pallets of Indian rosewood and ebony, as well as a number of guitars and computer files.

    The federal agents’ contention is that Gibson had illegally imported the exotic wood, which is used to make fretboards and bridges for their high-end instruments.

    Outside observers see a more sinister possibility in all of this. Henry Juszkiewicz, Gibson’s CEO, is a Republican, who has contributed to Republican candidates (as well as some Democratic candidates). Other guitar companies, which have not been targeted, are led by Democrats. Is there a political motivation to all of this? Neither Mitchell, nor Juszkiewicz will offer an opinion, but consider what Juszkiewicz told Neil Cavuto on “Your World.”

    “You know we’ve been pretty low key. We’re a guitar company. We’ve been manufacturing guitars. We’ve been involved in the environmental movement. We’ve been trying to do the right thing in terms of sourcing. We really don’t know why they are picking on us.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/07/does-white-house-want-to-ship-jobs-overseas/#ixzz2UdTcOc7c

    3.) Did Holder mislead Congress about targeting reporters like James Rosen?:

    “NBC News is reporting that Mr. Holder “signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a ‘possible co-conspirator’ in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private emails,” per NBC conversations with a law enforcement official.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/24/did-holder-mislead-congress-about-targeting-reporters-like-james-rosen/#ixzz2UdWVpJJr

Comments are closed.