CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley Interview of Lois Lerner’s Attorney William Taylor III … He Actually Made it Worse, “I get that it’s convenient to create suspicion”.
So let’s understand this, Lois Lerner pleads the 5th, yet her attorney goes on the liberal media to speak for her?
William Taylor III, former IRS employee Lois Lerner’s attorney, went on CNN this Sunday in an interview on ‘State of the Union’ with Candy Crowley and actually made matters worse. His client has decided not to testify in front of Congress as she Plead her Fifth and applied her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. So then why do we need to hear anything from her attorney? If Lerner and her missing emails does not have the honor to tell what happened and her involvement in the IRS scandal of targeting conservative non-profit groups, then we really do not need to hear spin from an attorney. Hey Lois, Put up or shut up! Her mouth piece tried to divert the story by saying, “There’s 2,000 e-mail crashes – there’s 2,000 computer crashes in the IRS since January 1 of this year.” However, when asked by Crowley whether all of the computer crashes were irretrievable, he had no idea. And their lies the rub. Let’s look into those 2000 email crashes, other than the ones that are connected to IRS-gate and see how the IRS handled those. What a novel concept.
TAYLOR: There’s 2,000 e-mail crashes – there’s 2,000 computer crashes in the IRS since January 1 of this year. It’s no – it’s not…
CROWLEY: Are all of them irretrievable?
TAYLOR: I don’t know, but I…
Then Taylor stated that Lois Lerner was upset as anybody when she walked into the office and her screen was blue, having lost all her emails. They called the IT guys in but never bothered to contact the tape retrieval back up? Hmm, then why so silent Lois? If you were so upset and have nothing to hide and have done nothing wrong, why plead the 5th, not once … but twice?
Attorney William Taylor III then channeled his inner Hillary Clinton and blames a “vast Right Wing conspiracy” for Lois Lerner’s emails. He had the nerve to say that the GOP was politicizing IRS-gate when the reality is this IRS scandal took place to fix an election. Lerner and the IRS contributed in the swaying of an election in 2012 and now her lawyer says she will not be a political, election year scapegoat. Seriously? Taylor said his client did nothing wrong and did not violate the paperwork – federal paperwork law. Oops, then Taylor said, “She printed out some things, not others.” Hey dude, you don’t get to pick and choose with the federal law of backing up emails.
TAYLOR: He called me – he called me one, too. And I won’t respond to that, except that – except to say he’s wrong.
It’s convenient. This is an election-year politics. It’s convenient to have a demon that they can create and point to. Let me tell you something basic about this. People who want to give money to elections and do so in a tax-free way have to submit themselves to the scrutiny of the IRS to be sure that they’re complying with the rules that limit political activity.
If the IRS is not looking at political activity in the (c)(4) applications, which is what this is, they’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing. So, it’s like saying they’re examining us for political activity, when that’s exactly the criteria that they’re submitting for their applications.
CROWLEY: Did your client violate the paperwork – federal paperwork law?
TAYLOR: No. She did exactly what the IRS required that she do.
CROWLEY: But she didn’t back up her e-mails, which was IRS – you’re supposed to print out things.
TAYLOR: She printed out some things, not others. You can’t print out hundreds of thousands of e-mails. We will be back – we will be back to the days…
TAYLOR: Well, it’s not just what she said. The record that was created at the time in terms of e-mails is undisputed.
She walked into the office one day, and her screen went blue. She asked for help in restoring it. And the I.T. people came and attempted to restore it. They even went so far as to send it to another expert to try to restore the e-mails.
There’s 2,000 e-mail crashes – there’s 2,000 computer crashes in the IRS since January 1 of this year. It’s no – it’s not…
CROWLEY: Are all of them irretrievable?
TAYLOR: I don’t know, but I…
CROWLEY: I think that’s what is sort of blowing people’s minds, is, we get it that computers crash. But to then say, you know what, we couldn’t get it, and so then we shredded the hard drive, you know, as an attorney, that that’s one of the things you would pounce on and go whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.
TAYLOR: But, you know, you do the best you can under the circumstances. Nobody was thinking about trying to keep anything from being discovered.
She was as upset as anybody else was about the loss of the e-mails and the other documents which were on there, which were quite important to her. But the truth is, this – this was one of those things that happened. At the time, she did everything she could to retrieve it. She reported it right away, and that’s the story. That’s all there is to it.
SCOTUS Decision Day on Hobby Lobby Challenging ObamaCare’s Contraception Mandate … Major Decision Just Hours Away (Update: Hobby Lobby Wins 5-4 Over Obamacare)
1st Amendment and Freedom of Religion at stake this morning at the SCOTUS …
It is decision day for The Supreme Court of the United States on the issue before them of Holly Lobby challenging the Obamacare contraception mandate. Holly Lobby, the for-profit businesses is challenging the requirement in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans. As the National Journal reports, SCOTUS won’t strike down Obamacare’s contraception mandate completely because that is not what the two companies, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, have asked of the Court. They haven’t asked the justices to ax the entire policy; however, a ruling for the law’s challengers could still render the policy toothless for millions of women.
The court meets for a final time Monday to release decisions in its two remaining cases before the justices take off for the summer.
The most contentious is that brought by Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania. The for-profit businesses have challenged the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans. It is the first major challenge to ObamaCare to come before the court since the justices upheld the law’s individual requirement to buy health insurance two years ago.
Supporters of Hobby Lobby cite a few factors potentially leaning in their favor, including the tone of oral arguments in March and a unanimous decision last week finding President Obama overreached in making recess appointments to a labor board.
“Absolutely, we win — we are very confident after oral argument in March that we will prevail in this case,” Hannah Smith, senior counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Hobby Lobby, told Fox News. She suggested this, too, is a case of government “overreach.”
CNN – Jonathan Turley, Professor of Law at George Washington University discusses the ramification of today’s SCOTUS decision.
I predict 6-3 in favor of Hobby Lobby. Then again, this SCOTUS has disappointed me before.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the major opinion and said, it was difficult to distinguish between closely held corporations and the people who own them. The religious liberty law was not intended to discriminate “against men and women who wish to run their businesses as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs.”
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that owners of private companies can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law that requires employers to provide insurance covering birth control for women.
The decision, which applies only to a small number of family or other closely-held companies, means an estimated several thousand women whose health insurance comes via such companies may have to obtain certain forms of birth control coverage elsewhere.
In a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the justices said the companies can seek an exemption from the so-called birth control mandate of the law known as Obamacare. The companies in the case said they did not object to all birth control but certain methods they said were tantamount to abortion, which they oppose for religious reasons.
In their last decision of the nine-month term, the justices ruled for the first time that for-profit companies can make claims under a 1993 federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was enacted to protect religious liberty.
Democrats go mental over the decision and threaten to respond to SCOTUS decision. But wait, isn’t it now law of the land? Isn’t that what Democrats, including Obama, say when the GOP tries to end Obamacare?
Daily Commentary – Monday, June 30, 2014 – Saturday Night Was a Bad Night in the Boroughs of New York … 13, Make that 21 Shot
- Violent night as 13 are shot Saturday night in NY
New York is considered #4 on the list of most strict state gun laws. So how many of the guns used in the commission of these crimes were actually legally attained? One would probably suspect few to none. The NRO brings up an interesting coincidence ... “Weird. It’s almost as if some said this would happen if NYC ended its effective stop-question-and frisk policing. . . – Greg Pollowitz.”
It was a violent night in New York City after at least 21 people were shot in incidents spanning each of the five boroughs.
As CBS 2?s Janelle Burrell reported, one of the shootings happened on Staten Island, where a man is fighting for his life after being shot in the face.
The incident happened at around 3:30 a.m. on Amboy Road in the New Dorp section of Staten Island.
Police were still on the scene Sunday morning collecting and processing evidence, including a backpack that belonged to the 42-year-old victim.
Two Time Deserter Marine Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun who Disappeared in Iraq in 2004 Return to the U.S. to Face Charges
Two time deserter Marine Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun who disappeared in Iraq in 2004 is finally turning himself in to face charges. What are the odds that Cpl. Hassoun saw the favorable treatment provided to Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl by the Obama administration and figured that this was his best chance to face the music of double desertion?
What, you mean Barack Obama did not empty GITMO to get Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun to return to the United States?
A Marine who was declared a deserter nearly 10 years ago after disappearing in Iraq and then returning to the U.S. claiming he had been kidnapped, only to disappear again, is back in U.S. custody, officials said Sunday.
Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun, 34, turned himself in and was being flown Sunday from an undisclosed location in the Middle East to Norfolk, Va. He is to be moved Monday to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, according to a spokesman, Capt. Eric Flanagan.
Maj. Gen. Raymond Fox, commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force at Lejeune, will determine whether to court martial Hassoun.
In a written statement from its headquarters at the Pentagon, the Marine Corps said the Naval Criminal Investigative Service “worked with” Hassoun to turn himself in and return to the U.S. to face charges.
Hassoun disappeared from his unit in Iraq’s western desert in June 2004. The following month he turned up unharmed in Beirut, Lebanon and blamed his disappearance on Islamic extremist kidnappers. He was returned to Lejeune and was about to face the military equivalent of a grand jury hearing when he disappeared again.
Ten years ago, in June 2004, Marine Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun disappeared from his base in Fallujah, Iraq.
Within days he appeared in a poorly-staged hostage video, and within a month he mysteriously showed up unharmed at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
After a five month investigation back in the United States, military prosecutors accused Hassoun of faking his kidnapping and charged him with desertion and theft of a Humvee, which he allegedly used to drive off his base in Fallujah.
In Jan. 2005, Hassoun fled the U.S. through Canada, returned to Lebanon where he was born, and the Marines charged him with a second count of desertion.
More Liberal White Guilt … PC Police Look to Change US Military Helicopter’s Racist Names like Apache, Comanche, Chinook, Lakota, Cheyenne & Kiowa
When will this PC nonsense end … Now PC police going after the Apache helicopter.
How can it possibly be deemed racist to name a protector of America freedom an Apache helicopter? Or is it just more liberal white guilt on behalf of Native Americans? One would think that any group would be honored to be named after something that protects freedom.
Veterans aren’t happy with a recent op-ed by the Washington Post, which charged that the Apache, Comanche, Chinook, Lakota, Cheyenne and Kiowa military vehicles were a “greater symbolic injustice” than the NFL’s Washington Redskins’ name.
“Even if the NFL and Redskins brass come to their senses and rename the team, a greater symbolic injustice would continue to afflict Indians — an injustice perpetuated not by a football club but by our federal government,” Simon Waxman of the Boston Review wrote for the Post on Thursday.
He added that the helicopter names were “propaganda” that needed to end, because Native American life expectancy statistics indicate the “violence is ongoing, even if the guns are silent.”
Readers at the popular military news gathering website Doctrine Man reacted Friday.
“I suspect that the author is less unhappy that our choppers have Indian names, and more unhappy that there is a U.S. military,” wrote Alex Kuhns.
Oh yeah, add in the Black Hawk, named for a leader of the Sauk tribe. Don’t forget there is the Tomahawk, a low-altitude missile, and a drone named for an Indian chief, Gray Eagle and Operation Geronimo was the end of Osama bin Laden. So my first question is Black Hawk, eh? Dies that mean the PC police is going after the NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks next? Second, Exactly how is a name like Apache, Comanche, etc racist? I guess these fools will soon be going after Winnebago RV ‘Braves”.