Cover up continues: oozing Benghazi

Sometimes thinking out loud is a good form of clarifying one’s thoughts. And sometimes that just adds to more questions and suspicions.

The email lists the following two goals, among others:

“To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

“To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

The email goes on to state that the U.S. government rejected the message of the Internet video. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding to this movie with violence,” the email stated.
Article and video

Sadly, only now this comes out about Benghazi. It is filed with irony.

First is the direct intention of government — presumably from all levels — to assert the Internet video as the root cause. This of course is lying and rewriting the events, but who cared about that when they had a presidential campaign to save and defend? Then is their intent to put the UN ambassador’s stamp of approval on it. Of course, it was the opposite: the White House putting its stamp of approval on what Rice would say. (the reverse of their intentions) Throwing the WH voice from the mouth of the ambassador.

Plus their choreography of the events directly contradicted the campaign’s central theme of a president with steady leadership at the helm. In fact, he was AWOL and no where to be found even though the day it took place on the infamous date of the 9/11 attack. So the irony is as thick as pea soup. And the subtext of the campaign theme was a defeated al Qaeda and terrorism in general.

The campaign message was interjected, as a priority, into their depiction of the events. But Obama was no where around, almost intentionally absent. As was Hillary and her steady leadership at the State Department.

The video itself, which had nothing to do with the events was described as hate-filled. What was clear was the violent nature of the attack itself. To think that they nearly pulled it off, as far as media is concerned anyway, is an astonishing piece of history. That to this day they still give the president default plausible deniability for it is equally troubling.

So on one hand you have the event and circumstances themselves, and on the other you have the media disintegration around the major story of the year. But then we have the way each of them played out, Obama’s statements at the UN; and the media charade at the debate vouching for Obama. (Candy Crowley played right along)

There was the speed by which this story spread around the globe in criticizing and blaming a video, as much of the real criticism belonged to the White House and the State Department.(Not to mention all the operatives who did their part)

Then we had Hillary who had to be almost dragged to Congress to testify about the attack. (after blunt head injury) And her stunning absence in the actual events was shrouded in mystery. Then convey this to people at the time as steady leadership. That it took a year and a half to even get this information is another testimony against the duo.(doesn’t speak much for media either) It’s as if not only were they both asleep at the switch, but they took a sleeping pill at the onset.

It is obvious (and ironic) that White House’s biggest priorities were the president protecting himself, and blaming an Internet video. Neither of those fit the Constitutional definition for the president. (…protecting Americans or being honest with the people.)

And contrary to the posture of the two leaders in charge, were the intricate plans of the operation in Libya from the beginning: from Obama’s stealthy, unilateral action to Hillary’s priority to establish an outpost in Benghazi by a certain date. Then afterward to act as if it was not even on their radar, and that they were surprised at the events is beyond belief. And it all would, again ironically, “require the willing suspension of disbelief”. After all, why would so many subordinates go to such lengths to obfuscate the truth, covering for their superiors, all by their own initiative?

Now that we know what was going on in the White House on Benghazi, one can imagine what was going on in sycophant media conference rooms amidst the campaign. Oddly enough, by the time of that debate they had come full circle to try to claim that they said it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. Well, they could have saved themselves a whole lot of time and trouble then.

What this email trail makes clear is that it was not happenstance, that it was a wide-spread, coordinated, choreographed initiative driven by the White House with concerns about the campaign. Isn’t it funny what an email trail reveals? The campaign message drove the false narrative.

Obama does have a formal doctrine, its called the Denial Doctrine.

Ben Rhodes is the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting, overseeing President Obama’s national security communications, speechwriting, and global engagement. Previously, he served as Deputy Director of White House Speechwriting.

RightRing | Bullright

Lois Lerner, IRS and the Hatch Act

 

Hatch Act and Political Activities

The Hatch Act limits certain political activities of Federal employees both on and off duty. (Members of the Senior Executive Service, are subject to further restrictions and should contact the General Counsel’s office for additional guidance.) Violations of the Hatch Act may result in disciplinary action, up to and including removal.The term “political activity” means doing something in active support of or opposition to a political party, a candidate for partisan political office (e.g., President, senator, representative, state or local legislature or office), or a partisan political group (e.g., “Historians for Smith”). Examples of political activity that would violate the Hatch Act if done while on duty or using Government property include: circulating a candidate’s nominating petition within your office; using the PC in your office after work to produce a brochure in support of a candidate’s campaign; sending e-mail invitations to campaign events to friends within the agency; and using National Archives’ Internet connections to forward e-mail messages received from a partisan campaign or someone supporting a partisan candidate. Permissible political activity under the Hatch Act would include voting for the candidates of your choice; expressing opinions about candidates and issues; assisting in voter registration drives.

For a more comprehensive view of what the Hatch Act allows and disallows, please review the list of Hatch Act Do’s and Don’ts shown below. Questions concerning the Hatch Act may be directed to Christopher Runkel, Office of General Counsel.

Here is a list of don’ts :

· Engage in political activity while on duty
· Engage in political activity while wearing an official Government uniform or identifying National Archives insignia
· Engage in political activity while using a Government vehicle
· Engage in political activity in any Government office
· Engage in political activity while using Government property, including computers, printers, copiers, fax machines, and telephones
· Wear political buttons while on duty
· Display items (e.g., posters, signs, stickers) at work that indicate support of or opposition to a political party or a candidate in a partisan election
· Run as a candidate for public office in any partisan election, except in jurisdictions specified by OPM
· Solicit, accept, or receive political contributions (except in limited circumstances involving certain Federal labor or employee organizations)
· Solicit, accept, or receive political contributions from a subordinate employee
· Allow your official title to be used in connection with fund raising activities
· Host a fund raiser at your home
· Use your official authority or influence to interfere with an election
· Knowingly solicit or discourage the political activity of any person who has business before the National Archives

 

I haven’t heard anyone mention it. From the beginning, conservative groups were targeted — now we know systematically.
 

GOP says IRS’ Lois Lerner targeted Crossroads

By RACHAEL BADE | 4/9/14 | Politico

House Republicans on Wednesday accused former IRS official Lois Lerner of breaking agency rules by aggressively urging denial of tax-exempt status to Crossroads GPS, the giant political nonprofit founded by Karl Rove.

The House Ways and Means Committee released emails showing the former chief of the tax-exempt unit took a special interest in Crossroads GPS in early 2013 — inquiring with IRS officials why they hadn’t been audited. Around the same time an email suggested she might be applying for a job with a pro-President Barack Obama group, Organizing For Action, though it is unclear if she was joking.

Democrats decried the release, calling it an election year gimmick to win over the party’s political base. One campaign finance group came to the defense of Lerner, who has denied any wrongdoing, calling the probe a partisan witch hunt.

The Republican committee letter calls her actions an “aggressive and improper pursuit of Crossroads… but no evidence [that] she directed review of similarly situated left-leaning groups.”

The documents were released after a rare, closed-door Ways and Means markup, where the panel voted 23-14 along party lines to send a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, requesting he take the former head of the IRS tax-exempt division to court — though the department already has an ongoing investigation….

More http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/republicans-seek-criminal-probe-of-irs-official-105531.html

Here today gone tomorrow

That’s something Christie should have thought about, say about 2 months ago when he seemed to be riding high after his second gubernatorial win in NJ.

Yep, that euphoria then probably feels like a distant memory to him now, on the heels of not one but two investigations cranking up in a midterm year. Even the optimistic Christie has to say “wait a minute, it was only a few short months… I’m just being sworn in to my 2nd term.” Yep, and that’s the way it works.

He pulled no punches in criticizing conservatives and Libertarians even in his election year bid. He went out of his way to cast stones. He claimed to have friends all over. Now he has two mounting investigations strapped to his back and no one is rushing to his defense. He might ask “how did all this happen?” And he might also ask “why me?”

If it were others like Ted Cruz or Paul under fire, I doubt the well-rounded Jersey boy would have time to run to their aid. But since it is him, “oh pity me.” At least he can count on GOP central who helped prop him up among the establishment. Those others can’t!

PS, update: Karl Rove thinks Christie’s crisis will build “street-cred” with Tea Party folks.

RightRing | Bullright

Christie in Crisis

Has Christie crossed the line?

There are a couple problems with the Christie story. For now I’ll accept it as he has told it.

Here was another article on it: http://cfif.org/v/freedom_line_blog/19915/a-few-thoughts-on-the-christie-scandal/ It’s good basic information.

When Christie says he didn’t know anything about it, I will accept that premise. But when I do that a few things happen: first it says he was unaware of a major undertaking of his team. That hurts because it could indicate incompetence. See to believe all the “know nothing” claims from Obama, in scandal after scandal, you would have to conclude that he is incompetent.

And if Christie knows nothing, then it actually makes the case that an executive in government can excuse the actions of his subordinates by claiming he/she did not know anything about it. See Hillary and Obama’s records on how that works. Try that in business. Fairness to Christie, he did claim he was still responsible.

So I do have a problem that he did not know what was going on. Remember even Axelrod came to Obama’s defense claiming government is so big and vast that he could not possibly know what was going on. Interestingly, David Axelrod was one of the first to claim Christie did the best he could in this situation. (was that a compliment or an insult…which is it?)

If we were out to make the case for “ignorance is an excuse” in office, Christie’s apology-presser goes a long way in doing that. If we are to buy it, then we also grant that Obama and Hillary could be ignorant to what was going on, say, in Benghazi. Or even in the IRS.

I now have a problem. Is it now a legitimate excuse to just say you didn’t know, even though you should have and you are being paid to know? I don’t think that is a good enough excuse. I don’t think it was for Obama, nor for Hillary, nor for Holder, nor should it be for Christie. Ignorance is not a good enough excuse. We know how politicians rely on plausible deniability (i.e. Being such that plausible disavowal or disclaimer is possible).

Just what we need, another excuse for Obama’s conduct and abuse of power. No thanks.

RightRing | Bullright

Lois Lerner’s been….busy busy

Illinois Review

Monday, June 03, 2013

Lois Lerner to 1996 U.S. Senate Candidate Al Salvi: “We’ll get you!”

FEC’s Lerner tells conservative Al Salvi: “We never lose!”

CHICAGO – Former GOP U.S. Senate candidate Al Salvi’s (photo right) revelation this week that IRS official Lois Lerner offered to drop the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) 1996 case against him if he promised to never run for office again was the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

“Before Lois Lerner (photo right) took us before the federal judge, her last offer was for me to promise to never run for office again. That was always part of their demands,” Salvi said. “Before that last offer, another FEC representative that reported to Lerner wanted $200,000 and a promise not to run.”

More at http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/06/lerner-asked-salvi-for-200000-plus-never-run-again-promise.html

Obama the handyman — not

I’m going to forget what other incompatible explanations and BS on IRS Obama spewed this week, one thing he said loud and clear.

The good news is we can fix this,” Obama said.

I can’t think of any problem he ever fixed. Oh really, “fix it”? That should scare the hell out of anyone. Oh, “We can fix it?” How do you “fix” a problem like this? You can’t.

How can you fix all the problems it caused to all those people? Or the vast amounts of money it cost them? Fix it, Obama???

We the people need to “fix” the real problem before it gets even worse. But Obama fix anything? You’re kidding aren’t you, Barry?

‘Go ahead, Fix Me! I double dare you.’

 
Reference: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/16/obama-to-meet-with-treasury-officials-over-irs-scandal/#ixzz2ThJ6kjGi

IRS scandal wider problem

Caution: Government at Work.
 

National Organization for Marriage Renews Demand That IRS Come Clean On Stolen and Leaked Tax Return; Seeks Investigation Into Possible White House or Obama Campaign Role

May 13, 2013
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law.” — Brian Brown, NOM president —
National Organization for Marriage
Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today renewed its demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the employee or employees responsible for stealing the organization’s confidential Form 990 tax return and leaking it to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). At the time of the theft, the HRC had long-sought to know the identity of NOM’s major donors and its chief executive was a co-chair of President Obama’s reelection campaign. The Form 990 that was leaked to the HRC contained the identity of numerous major donors to the organization.
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
In March 2012 the Human Rights Campaign and the Huffington Post published NOM’s Form 990 Schedule B from 2008 containing the identity of dozens of donors. The HRC claimed the tax return was provided by a ‘whistleblower.’ For months previous to the publication, the HRC had been demanding that NOM publicly release this confidential information even though federal law protects the identity of contributors to nonprofit groups. The publication of NOM’s tax return occurred just a few months after Joseph Solmonese, then president of the HRC, was appointed a national co-chair of the Obama reelection campaign. An analysis of the published documents shows that they could only have originated with the IRS.
“We’ve seen in recent days an admission that the IRS intentionally targeted conservative groups for harassment and scrutiny,” Brown said, “but what NOM has experienced suggests that problems at the IRS are potentially far more serious than even these latest revelations reveal.”
http://www.nomblog.com/35132

 

Background [summary]: On March 30, 2012, the Huffington Post published NOM’s confidential 2008 tax return filed with the IRS, which it said came from the Human Rights Campaign. The HRC has said on its own site the documents came from a “whistleblower.” However, NOM has determined that the documents came directly from the Internal Revenue Service.

 

Obama’s statements on it add more insult to injury.  Meanwhile Obama’s campaign gone wild turned Organizing for Action, his self-lobbying advocacy network, proudly enjoys its tax exempt status. There must be quite a market for this information.

Need anyone remind people this is to be the enforcer, watchdog agent for ObamaCare.  Let’s see how he tries to cover this one up.

The Scandal That Will Bring Obama Down

Western Journalism

January 11, 2013 By
 

It’s even worse than we previously thought. A retired four-star admiral is now claiming that Barack Obama intentionally conspired with America’s enemies to stage a bogus attack and the kidnapping of an American ambassador so he could “negotiate” the release of a “hostage” and bolster his mediocre approval ratings just prior to the election!

The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: “the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi… was the result of a bungled abduction attempt…. the first stage of an international prisoner exchange… that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the ‘Blind Sheik’…”

But something went horribly wrong with Obama’s “October Surprise.” Although the Obama Administration intentionally gutted security at the consulate prior to the staged kidnapping, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down, saved American lives, single-handedly killed scores of attackers…and the attackers, believing that Obama had betrayed them, tortured Ambassador Chris Stevens and dragged his body through the streets.

Continue reading: http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-scandal-that-will-bring-obama-down/

 

There is a lot of food for thought to this, which is not all that new. Strange how this is the one issue Barry – or whatever his name is — does not talk about (just like fast and furious), when it sure seems he is very vulnerable on it. On everything else, they roll out the lies and excuses. He glosses over it just like fast and furious. He finally said “sloppiness” was a problem. Yuh think?

HotAir 12/31/12

Obama: What I’ve– my message to the State Department has been very simple. And that is we’re going to solve this. We’re not going to be defensive about it. We’re not going to pretend that this was not a problem. This was a huge problem. And we’re going to implement every single recommendation that’s been put forward.

Some individuals have been held accountable inside of the State Department and what I’ve said is that we are going to fix this to make sure that this does not happen again, because these are folks that I send into the field. We understand that there are dangers involved but, you know, when you read the report and it confirms what we had already seen, you know, based on some of our internal reviews; there was just some sloppiness, not intentional, in terms of how we secure embassies in areas where you essentially don’t have governments that have a lot of capacity to protect those embassies. So we’re doing a thorough-going review. Not only will we implement all the recommendations that were made, but we’ll try to do more than that. You know, with respect to who carried it out, that’s an ongoing investigation. The FBI has sent individuals to Libya repeatedly. We have some very good leads, but this is not something that, you know, I’m going to be at liberty to talk about right now.

Four Americans are dead, we were “sloppy”, but “we have a few leads” — 3 1/2 months after the fact. This is equivalent to “now move along, nothing to see here”.

How do you “fix” four dead Americans?

A few “very good leads”….yea, that’s the answer. “We’ll try to do more than that…This is not something I’m going to be at liberty to talk about right now.” Oh really? The accountability he talked about is ZERO.

Now his number one proirity seems to be gun control.(cover one scandal with another one) “Sloppiness?” Anything you say, No-Drama Obama. But we don’t need to talk about it. It makes me sick.

The Tingly Legs of the Press

Why is it press can see media corruption just fine overseas while straining their eyes to ignore it here?

Remember for a minute how Dems have attacked Rupert Murdoch and News Corp for months over tactics one of Murdoch’s newspapers used in Britain. And if you continue to follow their criticism, they even tie it to British prime minister David Cameron — or attempt to. So everyone loves to make something of the so-called cozy relationship between Cameron and Murdoch into an item, especially the left here. I don’t want to get into that whole scandal. But its funny how it plays out.

Now look at this POTUS and the relationship between Media Matters and its entire liberal press establishment here, and their many tentacles. Let the hobnobbing continue. How dare anyone interupt the love fest.  Funny how that relationship is the furthest thing from concern to liberals. Even as this prez gives a chilling reaction to the first amendment rights of others, the liberals and their fawning press continue to ignore and dismiss this intimate relationship. Its far beyond flirting. It isn”t even an “on and off fling” or a trist; its all on all the time. Like Obama’s  campaign asks, “are you in?”

Yet they will follow every juicy tid bit they can find that might tie Murdoch or Fox to political power. They’ll even cover hearings on the “scandal” in Britain. On the uber left, politics is in bed with the media and it is celebrated. They have their dreamy Marxist in the WH and they cannot be deterred. Then add the celebrity connections and WH  fundraising to Hollyweird and you have a complete circus of a media. 

You can always count on the leftist media to hold up its end by asking just the right questions at just the right time. Ironic how they can attack any perception of of political power in media, or visa versa, in the UK while their choreographed dance is in full swing at home. Its not even hidden behind a curtain here; its right in your face and complimented —  and they reserve the right to fawn over any leftist, the worse they are the more they like them.  That will get you places here where it could put you on the witness stand in the UK. They say no one does a scandal like they do in the US; but no, it is no scandal if is right out in the open!  Clinton should have played Lewinsky that way, take a lesson Bill.

The heck with campaign advisors, Obama has lamestream licking his heels. Who needs Axelrod?

And this is the same liberal press taking  great pleasure in reminding  us of Nixon, how bad Watergate really was,  and about “the enemy list”. That scheming “Tricky Dick”.

Nixon move over

Funny Obama has an enemy list, Republican donors and such, but they don’t see any problem with that–even when he puts it out there in public and rubs it in their collective faces, to the whole world. It is just politics, they tell us. However, Obama has a bigger friends list, including media, no doubt trumping any suspicion about his enemy list. They, the friends of Obama, are even in it to the point of limiting the first amendment for others, and it does not appear to bother them in the least.

Yet give them some juicy “scandal” like Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper, however distant, with any tie to political powers in the UK and they’re all over it, foaming at the mouth. But they go to any length to ignore interconnections, co-mingling, and foreplay here right in front of their eyes. The left never fails to demonstrate its open hypocrisy.

They hitched their cart to Obama’s train, now see how far it drags them..

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Just for a flavour:.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/world/europe/cameron-to-testify-over-murdoch-links-at-british-press-inquiry.html 
At British Inquiry, Cameron Denies ‘Deals’ With Murdoch
6-14-12
LONDON — Testifying at Britain’s long-running inquiry into media standards, Prime Minister David Cameron rejected suggestions on Thursday that he traded favored treatment for electoral support by Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers, calling talk of a conspiracy “specious” and “unjustified.”

Ex-UK Prime Minister Brown: Murdoch lied under oath

6/11/12 USA Today (AP)
LONDON – Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown lambasted Rupert Murdoch before Britain’s media ethics inquiry on Monday, claiming the media mogul had lied under oath to the inquiry and saying that a Murdoch tabloid had undermined the British war effort in Afghanistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/business/media/news-corp-considers-splitting-publishing-and-entertainment-units.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=todayspaper