IRS Finds 6,400 New Lois Lerner Emails, But Have Not Released Them Because They Are Making Sure that None of the Emails are Duplicates
TRY TELLING THE IRS THAT YOU ARE NOT RESPONDING TO THEM BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING SURE YOU DON’T SEND THEM DUPLICATE DOCUMENTS …
The IRS has found 6,400 more Lois Lerner email, but they are not releasing as per court order because they are making sure none of the emails are duplicates and they don’t want to waste anyone’s time. LETS JUST CALL BULL$HIT RIGHT NOW. All the IRS has done with regards to the Lois Lerner emails and IRS scandal of targeting conservative non-profit organizations is stone wall and waste people’s time. WHO ARE YOU KIDDING! I am sure Judicial Watch does not care whether there are duplicate, they will weed them out. The IRS needs to produce the emails, and produce them NOW!
The Internal Revenue Service found 6,400 more Lois Lerner emails — but they’re not handing them over in court.
The IRS’ latest excuses are nothing short of infuriating.
Department of Justice lawyers Geoffrey J. Klimas and Stephanie Sasarak, acting as counsel for the IRS, submitted a U.S. District Court filing June 12 in the case Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Service. The court filing, provided to The Daily Caller, claims the IRS received new Lerner emails from the Treasury Department’s inspector general (TIGTA) but can’t fork over the emails to Judicial Watch, a nonprofit group suing to get the emails. Why? Because the IRS is busy making sure that none of the emails are duplicates – you know, so as not to waste anyone’s time.
However, the inspector general already made sure that none of the emails were duplicates, so the IRS’ latest excuse falls flat. Here are takeaways from the court filing.
This is just another example that this organization thinks they are above the law and answer to no one.
REMEMBER WHEN THE SECRET SERVICE AGENT’S MAIN CONCERN WAS TAKING A BULLET FOR A PRESIDENT?
What has happened to the Secret Service? The once referred agency is now nothing more than a joke with a sandal waiting around every corner. The latest sex scandal comes via the National Enquirer and confirmed by the WAPO. The shocking revelation that the married agent while on duty to protect the First Lady at a May 20th event, ignored his duty, because he was busy trying to hook up with a prominent female Washington D.C. staffer. Michelle Obama was speaking alongside former Republican senator Elizabeth Dole at an event honoring military caregivers. Reported by NBC News, the agent allegedly sent sexually suggestive texts while he was off duty and at least 8 hours after the event had wrapped. The Secret Service official confirms that a junior agent has been placed on administrative.
A Secret Service agent can’t even send an indecent text message to a prospective date these days without his actions going public.
Our colleague Carol Leonnig, the authority on all things Secret Service, confirmed a National Enquirer report Wednesday that a junior agent met a young woman while on detail at a Michelle Obama-attended event. He approached her and, whilst protecting the first lady, got her phone number.
His meet-cute (if this was a romantic comedy) with the young woman at the May 20 event ended with him later sending her sexual images and suggestive texts. His possible distraction at the event and the subsequent messaging has put the junior agent under the scrutiny of federal investigators.
The Secret Service learned about the communication after the National Enquirer contacted the agency.
“The U.S. Secret Service is aware of these allegations,” USSS spokesman Brian Leary told Leonnig. “As is our policy with any allegation of misconduct, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS-OIG) has been notified and this matter will be investigated jointly between the DHS-OIG and the Secret Service Office of Professional Responsibility. At this time, the individual has been placed on administrative leave pending further investigation.”
IMAGINE THAT, HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT HONEST OR TRUSTWORTHY …
According to USA Today, the people do not view Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee for 2016, as honest or trustworthy. Say it isn’t so. They point two two polls, a CNN/ORC and ABC News/WAPO, where both show that more and more people believe she cannot be trusted. For the first time since declaring her 2016 run her unfavorable rating is now higher than her favorable. And you wonder why she refuses to answer the media’s questions or meet with We the People, without first having them cheery-picked. Could this be problematic for Hillary going forward as her credibility rating continues to go down? The story also discusses Jeb Bush’s polling issues as well; however, he is not the far and away front-runner of the GOP.
Hillary Clinton and die hard Democrats would say, what difference does it make, but Independents in a general election might have another thing to say when deciding their vote for an individual who obviously has trust issues, see Benghazi-gate, private email-gate, private server-gate and Clinton Foundation-gate, just to name a few.
Scouts honor, I am truthful. Ok, I lie, but what difference does it make.
A CNN/ORC poll (pdf HERE) shows that Clinton — dogged by questions about missing emails and big-money contributions to Bill Clinton’s foundation — has seen her numbers drop on such issues as trustworthiness.
“A growing number of people say she is not honest and trustworthy (57%, up from 49% in March), less than half feel she cares about people like them (47%, down from 53% last July) and more now feel she does not inspire confidence (50%, up from 42% last March),” CNN reports.
An ABC News/Washington Post survey shows similar problems for the Democratic front-runner.
“She’s slipped underwater in personal favorability for the first time since her unsuccessful run for the presidency in 2008,” ABC reports. “She’s deeper in the hole for honesty and trustworthiness — down 5 points in just two months and 12 points in the last year.”
UNREAL … YOUR HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS HANDED OVER TO SO-CALLED GREEN ENERGY AND NO ACCOUNTABILITY.
The Daily Caller is reporting that the IRS has handed out billions of dollars to support Barack Obama’s green energy projects. You know, those one’s like those unsuccessful and bankrupt companies like Solyndra. And it gets worse, if possible. The IRS is not tracking the money to see how it was being spent. ARE YOU KIDDING, WHEN WILL THIS ALL STOP!!! The IRS, the organization who makes people’s lives miserable for not properly tracking their income, does not have to do the same with tax payer dollars? Talk about the ultimate in hypocrisy. Honestly, the IRS really does need to be abolished and converted into an entity that just counts the tax revenue sent in by Americans from a flat or fair tax and no longer allowed to harass or divvy out monies at the bequest of a president.
A new government watchdog report found that the Internal Revenue service has handed out billions of dollars to support green energy projects, and then failed to mention how the money was spent on building new power generation.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that IRS tax subsidies to green energy operators “accounted for an estimated $13.7 billion in forgone revenue to the federal government for renewable projects and $1.4 billion for traditional projects” between 2004 and 2013.
That’s a lot of money, but the IRS can’t (or won’t) tell government auditors how much green energy generating capacity their tax subsidies are supporting. The GAO says the IRS “is not required to collect project level data from all taxpayers” who claim an Investment Tax Credit (ITC) or Production Tax Credit (PTC).
“IRS officials stated that IRS is unlikely to collect additional data on these tax credits unless it is directed to do so,” the GAO reported. “Since 1994, GAO has encouraged greater scrutiny of tax expenditures, including data collection. Without project-level data on the ITC and PTC, Congress cannot evaluate their effectiveness as it considers whether to reauthorize or extend them.”
Dennis Hastert Allegedly Paid Hush Money to Conceal Past Sexual Misconduct Dating Back More Than 30 Years Ago
DRIP, DRIP, DRIP … HEAD-SHAKINGLY SAD AND SICK.
It is being reported by CBS News that the former Republican U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert allegedly agreed to pay millions of dollars in “hush money” to conceal accusations of sexual misconduct in his past. Most crimes are like an iceberg, what we see initially is only a small fraction of the actual crime. This appears to be the case as well with the accusations against former Speaker Dennis Hastert. Although Hastert is not being indicted for the alleged sexual misconduct, the misconduct mentioned in court documents refers to sexual misconduct dating back more than 30 years. Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach in Yorkville, Illinois from 1965 to 1981. The federal indictment is for tax evasion and lying to the IRS. Put 1 and 1 together and we get Dennis Hastert was paying a former student from Yorkville, IL to conceal his alleged sexual abuse of the youth that took place while Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach at a high school.
Former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert allegedly agreed to pay millions of dollars in “hush money” to conceal accusations of sexual misconduct in his past, two law enforcement officials told CBS News.
Law enforcement sources say the misconduct mentioned in court documents refers to sexual misconduct dating back more than 30 years. From 1965-1981, Hastert was a popular teacher and wrestling coach in Yorkville, Illinois.
Hastert was indicted and charged Thursday with violating federal banking laws and lying to FBI investigators. According to the indictment, Hastert agreed to pay $3.5 million in 2010 to a person identified only as “Individual A,” in an effort to “compensate and conceal” Hastert’s “prior misconduct.”
The indictment did not reveal details of the misconduct, but it did note that Hastert and Individual A have known each other for “most of Individual A’s life” and that the individual is from the same Illinois town where Hastert was a teacher and coach.
Hastert’s former employer, the Yorkville School District, said in a statement Friday that it was “first made aware of any concerns regarding Mr. Hastert when the federal indictment was released on May 28, 2015.”
“It goes back a long way, back to then,” the official said. “It has nothing to do with public corruption or a corruption scandal. Or to his time in office.” Thursday’s indictment described the misconduct “against Individual A” as having “occurred years earlier,” noting that Hastert had known the person “most of Individual A’s life.”
When asked about the nature of Hastert’s alleged misconduct, the law enforcement official said, “It was sex.’’
Hastert has not responded to requests for comment. A representative of the lobbying firm where he had worked, Dickstein Shapiro, declined to comment.
If all this is true, it is truly despicable. The crimes for which the former GOP speaker was indicted for would pale in comparison for the ones that he was trying to keep quiet. But most likely the statue of limitations ran out on those years ago. However, I will ask the following question, isn’t it telling that you don’t see the liberal MSM trying to investigate the Clinton Foundation Scandals and the role that Hillary Clinton took part in it? The media only circles like blood thirty sharks when it is a Republican that has done wrong.
State Department Begins Realease of Clinton Emails: Nearly 300 New Hillary Emails Released and It Confirm She Received Now-Classified Information on Private Email
Imagine that, a Hillary Clinton email document dump by the State Department on a Friday before a long Memorial Day holiday weekend.
HILLARY CLINTON, YOU GOT MAIL … The US State Department has released the first round of emails from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state on Friday. Spokeswoman Marie Harf said that the publication includes 296 emails given to a House committee investigating Benghazi. One thing that is now true, Hillary Clinton did received, what is now considered, classified information on her private email account that was stored on her unsecured private email server. Yet another reason why you don’t use a private email server as one never knows when unclassified info will become classified.
Scouts honor, I never received classified information in my private email account
The State Department released the first batch of emails from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state on Friday, offering additional insight into how she reacted to the deadly attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi.
Spokeswoman Marie Harf said publication includes 296 emails given to a House committee investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya.
The documents cover emails between 2011 and 2012 related to the Benghazi facility and its security, and to the broader issue of a U.S. diplomatic presence in Libya.
The State Department is still reviewing 55,000 further pages of emails from Clinton’s private email account. They’ll be published on a rolling basis.
The Associated Press also revealed on Friday that Clinton received information on her private email server that has now been classified about the deadly attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi.
The email in question, forwarded to Clinton by her deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan, relates to reports of arrests in Libya of possible suspects in the attack.
State Dept. Spox Claims Clinton Never Received Or Sent Classified Emails During Entire Tenure
Clinton Foundation Reveals $26 Million in Additional Payments of Previously Undisclosed Donations from Major Corporations, Universities & Foreign Sources
MORE CLINTON CORRUPTION …
If Hillary Clinton cannot run a foundation in an ethical manner, how the hell can anyone think or believe that she could run a country in kind? The Clinton Foundation is now revealing, ahead of the long Memorial Day holiday weekend, an undisclosed $24 million of additional payments from major corporations, universities and foreign sources. How Clintonian. There is no way that this woman should ever be elected President. Character has to matter, ethics have to matter, being able to remotely tell the truth has to matter … Hillary Clinton has none. The Clinton Foundation has been nothing more than a “slush fund” for the Clinton’s to become rich. We also recently learned that apart from the Foundation, the Clinton’s made $25 million in speaking fees since January 2014. Quite the Democrat populist candidate, ain’t she?
The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.
The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign.
The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.
According to the new information, the Clintons have delivered 97 speeches to benefit the charity since 2002. Colleges and universities sponsored more than two dozen of these speeches, along with U.S. and overseas corporations and at least one foreign government, Thailand.
The payments were disclosed late Thursday on the organization’s Web site, with speech payments listed in ranges rather than specific amounts. In total, the payments ranged between $12 million and $26.4 million.
This becomes a major issue when payola for influence peddling is received by an individual who is running for the President of the United States, especially when she tried to hide who was making the donations. So much for transparency.
There’s nothing wrong with people cashing in. But when that person is the likely Democratic nominee, it raises questions.
That Hillary would be the nominee has been presumed for several years, so these payoffs take on a different meaning than the fat fees paid to speakers routinely. By classifying the payments as “revenue” instead of “donations,” the Clinton Foundation shielded the identity of the donors.
Powerline discusses another reason why Hillary Clinton should never be president.
LIAR!!! Hillary Clinton & Her Attorney David Kendall Caught in a Lie to the Benghazi Committee Regarding Clinton Email Accounts … email@example.com
LIAR … HOW MANY LIES AND SCANDALS IS IT GOING TO TAKE TO DISCREDIT HILLARY CLINTON FROM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? HILLARY IS NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT
The New York Times, yes you read that correctly, the New York Times published Monday a story showing that while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used another private email address other than the one that she and her attorney claimed they did. The article shows that Hillary Clinton was using a second email account to conduct business, firstname.lastname@example.org. That is what Hillary Clinton and her attorney David Kendall told the Benghazi Committee headed by Trey Gowdy (R-SC).
But what difference does it make that I am incapable of telling the truth?
The messages shown here are among roughly 900 pages of emails related to Libya that Hillary Rodham Clinton said she kept on the personal email account she used exclusively as secretary of state. These emails are related to memos she was sent in 2011 and 2012 by Sidney Blumenthal, a confidant who worked for the administration of former President Bill Clinton and who at the time was employed by the Clinton Foundation.
WE WERE TOLD THERE WAS NO SECOND EMAIL ADDRESS … GUESS WHAT AMERICA, HILLARY CLINTON LIED AGAIN.
Needless to say the DNC and the Benghazi Committee are very interested in this turn of events. However, it is the American people who should be more concerned. The below multiple emails show Hillary Clinton used the following email account “email@example.com” while serving in the Obama administration as secretary of state.
Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, had previously told Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) that that particular address had not “existed (see letter HERE) during Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. I guess it all depends on what “One” is or “Address” is.
“NOTE: On April 8, 2011, Clinton Messaged Jake Sullivan Using The Account ” firstname.lastname@example.org. ”
(“Selected Libya-Related Messages From Hillary Clinton’s Personal Email Account,” The New York Times , 5/18/15)”
“NOTE: On January 5, 2012, Clinton Messaged Jake Sullivan Using The Account ” email@example.com. ”
(“Selected Libya-Related Messages From Hillary Clinton’s Personal Email Account,” The New York Times , 5/18/15)”
“NOTE: On August 28, 2012, Clinton Messaged Jake Sullivan Using The Account ” firstname.lastname@example.org. ”
(“Selected Libya-Related Messages From Hillary Clinton’s Personal Email Account,” The New York Times , 5/18/15)”
In A Letter To Rep. Trey Gowdy, Clinton’s Attorney, David Kendall, Stated That ” email@example.com ” Was “Not An Address That Existed During Secretary Clinton’s Tenure As Secretary Of State.”
(David E. Kendall, Letter To Rep. Trey Gowdy , 3/27/15)
Hillary Clinton forwarded unsubstantiated intelligence on Libya from a family ally to top officials at the State Department, according to documents obtained by The New York Times.
Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton family counselor and, according to the Times, an employee of the Clinton Foundation at the time, sent the intelligence reports based on information he had gathered while working as an adviser to Constellations Group, a private consultancy.
That relationship is now under scrutiny from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Committee sources confirmed to POLITICO that Gowdy plans to subpoena Blumenthal for a private transcribed interview to discuss the memos and his role as an adviser to Clinton while she led the State Department.
This is what happens when you have a liberal media that does not punish their own for liberal media bias …
In the wake of the media bias scandal where ABC’s George Stephanopoulos failed to make it known that he had donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation and at the same time running cover for the Clinton Foundation amidst its own scandal of taking foreign money as she was Secretary of State, Georgy Porgy decided to apologize for his actions. If you call it an apology. But it was not just that George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton White House political operative, donated money to the Clinton Foundation, Stephanopoulos acted as the Clinton defender when interviewing Peter Schweitzer on his book Clinton Cash and went after the author claiming that he was bias.
But check out the VIDEO below and the less than sincere apology. Listen to his snarky and elitist tone when he says, “Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.” In his effort to make an apology he basically says, but look at me, I am great, because even though I made these donations to save the word, no the planet … I should have gone the extra mile. PLEASE GEORGY, SPARE US THE DRAMA. You knew damn well, being a former Clinton operative and a political news correspondent that the Clinton Foundation was nothing more than a slush fund. Would it really have been that difficult to do some research and investigation to find what were the best charities for Aids, helping children or the environment, if you were actually being sincere? After all, you are supposed to be some kind of correspondent for the media, is it that difficult to do a Google search of best charities?
But when you have a news organization like ABC News defending such actions of bias and a lack of transparency to protect their own agenda of liberal bias in the media, what would one expect from an ex-Clintonista but a hollow apology.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, I want to address some news you may have seen about me. Over the last several years, I have made substantial donations to dozens of charities, including the Clinton Global Foundation. Those donations were a matter of public record. But I should have made additional disclosures on-air when we covered the foundation and I now believe directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake. Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. I apologize to all of you for failing to do that.
BUSTED … ABC News George Stephanopoulos Failed to Disclose $50K Donation to Clinton Foundation While Attacking Anti-Clinton Author Peter Schweitzer and Donations to the Clinton Foundations (Update: He Gave $75K)
CAN YOU SAY MEDIA BIAS … WHY SHOULD ANYONE THINK STEPHANOPOULOS HAS ANY INTEGRITY, HE CAME FROM THE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE.
As reported at the Washington Free Bacon, ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos donated $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation in recent years. The contribution is publicly available information, but the host had not previously disclosed it to ABC viewers, despite taking part in on-air discussions about the Clinton Foundation and its controversial relationship with foreign donors. Oops, no media bias here or conflict of interest. How on earth does some one not disclose that they have a conflict of interest when discussing a news story like the funny money that funneled through the Clinton Foundation when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State of the United States? Especially when Stephanopoulos recently tried to discredit author Peter Schweitzer on the air about his book Clinton Cash which discusses questionable political donations to the Clinton Foundation. Um, those very donations that ‘Stephelupagus’ had made himself. And not a word of, oh by the way, or in full disclosure, I am a Clinton hack.
Really, it was an honest mistake to knowingly not disclose this information when during the interview below Stephanopoulos references Peter Schweitzer disclosed in his book. Something George did not. Honest mistake my butt. Watch the VIDEO below of the contentious interview between Stephanopoulos and Peter Schweitzer and George’s defense of the Clinton’s, rather than a fair and balanced interview.
Correction, he gave them $75,000.
ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos on Thursday acknowledged donating $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, a contribution he did not disclose during recent broadcasts on the Clinton Cash controversy.
The ex-political adviser for former President Clinton gave $25,000 a year in 2012, 2013 and 2014, according to CNN Money.
ABC initially reported Stephanopoulos had donated $50,000, but the anchor forgot his $25,000 gift in 2012, bringing his total donations to $75,000 over three years.
“I made charitable donations to the foundation in support of the work they’re doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care about deeply,” Stephanopoulos said in a statement.
“I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record,” he said.
“However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation,” he added.
Stephanopoulos did not reveal his past donations despite discussing the foundation’s financial dealings in news broadcasts late last month.
George Stephanopoulos has ZERO credibility. The Clinton Foundation website lists Stephanopoulos as a 2014 grantee who gave between $50,001 and $100,000 total as of that year.
ABC News stands behind their darling George and says it was an honest mistake. Give me a break, WHEN IT COMES TO ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CLINTON’S THE WORD “HONEST” CAN NEVER BE USED!
I am so sorry if I do not believe your apology you made only after you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
The chief anchor of ABC News offered a brief mea culpa to viewers on the network’s top-ranked morning program over gifts he made to the non-profit Clinton Foundation but failed to disclose even as he covered topics on air related to Bill and Hillary Clinton.
“I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict” by noting the donations on air, Stephanopoulos said Friday morning, about 18 minutes into the broadcast of “Good Morning America.”
ABC News policy, according to a person familiar with the situation, allows its journalists to make donations to charities. Viewers, however, may not make that distinction, and the anchor’s actions have already invited criticism from political aficionados who wonder if he can interview Republican political candidates now that his contributions to a charitable organization run by leading Democrats is known.
ABC News has said it supports the anchor, calling his omission “an honest mistake.”