Lois Lerner, No Charges from DoJ

Posted on April 1, 2015April 1, 2015 by Denise Simon

DOJ: No contempt charges for former IRS official Lois Lerner

The Justice Department will not seek criminal contempt charges against former IRS official Lois Lerner, the central figure in a scandal that erupted over whether the tax agency improperly targeted conservative political groups.

Ronald Machen, the former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a seven-page letter this week that he would not bring a criminal case to a grand jury over Lerner’s refusal to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March 2014. The House approved a criminal contempt resolution against Lerner in May 2014, and Machen’s office has been reviewing the issue since then.

Lerner and other IRS officials, however, are still under investigation by the FBI for the tea party targeting matter — which is a separate probe entirely.

Lerner cited her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself during congressional testimony on March 5, 2014, although then-Oversight Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said she had waived that right by giving an opening statement at a hearing 10 months earlier when she asserted her innocence. Issa wanted her charged by the Justice Department with criminal contempt of Congress for failing to answer questions about her role in the scandal.

Machen said the Oversight Committee “followed proper procedures” in telling Lerner that it had “rejected her claim of privilege and gave her an adequate opportunity to answer the committee’s questions.”

However, Machen said DOJ lawyers determined that Lerner “did not waive her Fifth Amendment right by making an opening statement on May 22, 2013, because she made only general claims of innocence.”

Machen added: “Given that assessment, we have further concluded that it is not appropriate for a United States attorney to present the matter to the grand jury for action where, as here, the Constitution prevents the witness from being prosecuted for contempt.”

Lerner, unsurprisingly, was pleased by the announcement. “Anyone who takes a serious and impartial look at this issue would conclude that Ms. Lerner did not waive her Fifth Amendment rights,” said Lerner’s attorney, William Taylor III, in a statement. “It is unfortunate that the majority party in the House put politics before a citizen’s constitutional rights.”

“Ms. Lerner is pleased to have this matter resolved and looks forward to moving on with her life,” Taylor added.

Republicans were disappointed by the decision not to move ahead.

“Once again, the Obama administration has tried to sweep IRS targeting of taxpayers for their political beliefs under the rug,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel, urging the White House to “do the right thing and appoint a special counsel to examine the IRS’ actions.”

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), one of several House Oversight Committee members who says Justice has failed to take the IRS matter seriously, said the decision “offers little assurance to the American taxpayer that the department is actually investigating this abuse of power.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who led the IRS probe in the House, knocked Machen in a statement for “us[ing] his power as a political weapon to undermine the rule of law.”

“Mr. Machen … unilaterally decided to ignore the will of the House of Representatives,” Jordan said. “He and the Justice Department have given Lois Lerner cover for her failure to account for her actions at the IRS.”

Lerner, who led the IRS unit that subjected conservative nonprofits to additional scrutiny, quickly became the face of the scandal when she revealed the practice during an obscure tax conference on May 9, 2013. At the time, Lerner and the IRS blamed “frontline” employees in the agency’s Cincinnati office for any violations, though later it became clear that IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C., was holding up approval of the nonprofit groups’ tax status for years at time.

When initially summoned to Capitol Hill to answer for the scandal in May 2013, Lerner took the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions. Lawmakers would eventually hold her in contempt of Congress when she, again, asserted her Fifth Amendment privilege at the second hearing in March 2014.

GOP investigators on both the House Oversight and the Ways and Means committees have released numerous emails showing Lerner’s liberal political leanings. They’ve accused her of bias in the workplace, including using her position to try to persuade IRS auditors to probe and reject the nonprofit application for Karl Rove’s influential Crossroads GPS.

Republicans also noted Lerner’s private skepticism of political nonprofits, which are governed by complex rules originally designed to limit their direct role in elections. Republicans assert that Lerner tried to use her division to crack down on conservative political groups, something Democrats had been urging the IRS to consider.

Last June, more than a year into the investigation, the IRS announced it lost two years’ worth of Lerner’s emails in a 2011 computer crash. The agency said the emails were not recoverable because it had recycled her hard drive and written over relevant backup tapes.

The IRS inspector general later proved the agency wrong, unearthing backup tapes that investigators believe include the correspondence.

Lerner maintains her innocence and argues she was only doing her job — ensuring nonprofits follow the rules. Though Lerner refused to talk to lawmakers during the probe, her lawyer said Lerner cooperated with the FBI, answering its questions as needed. The results of the fuller FBI investigation are expected soon.

Lerner has given only one interview with the press, an exclusive with POLITICO, in which she talked about how the scandal has changed her life dramatically, including making her the object of public scorn. Even then, Lerner, at the behest of her attorneys, refused to answer specific questions about her role in the whole practice.

Obama Used Bergdahl as a Pawn

Posted on April 1, 2015April 1, 2015 by Denise Simon

Consider this timeline:

January 2009: Obama signs executive order calling for Gitmo to be shuttered within a year, while his national security team considers if the five Taliban leaders are safe for release.

2011: White House and State Department officials open secret talks with the Taliban in Germany and the Persian Gulf to discuss their release from Gitmo as part of “peace talks.”

Jan. 3, 2012: The Taliban announce they are prepared to open a political office in Qatar to conduct peace negotiations in exchange for the release of the Taliban commanders. (“The releases would be to reciprocate for Tuesday’s announcement,” according to “The Guardian.”)

April 2012: Working with the White House, Karzai sends delegation of Afghan government officials to Gitmo to interview the Taliban prisoners and secure their oath to cut ties with al-Qaida.

Many more details here.

The matter of Qatar, the Taliban and bin Ladin has a long history that continues to be exploited by the U.S. government. It is no wonder that the Taliban created a satellite office in Doha.

April, 7, 2011 Ambassador Elizabeth McKune sent a classified cable:

S E C R E T DOHA 001093

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/07/11
TAGS: PREL [External Political Relations], PTER [Terrorists and Terrorism], AF [Afghanistan], PA [Paraguay], QA [Qatar]
SUBJECT: TALIBAN PROPOSAL FOR BIN LADEN ISLAMIC
TRIBUNAL

REF: A) STATE 61624 B) DOHA 888 C) DOHA 1036

CLASSIFIED BY AMBASSADOR ELIZABETH MCKUNE FOR
REASONS 1.5 (B) AND (D)

¶1. (S) AMBASSADOR PRESENTED REF A DEMARCHE TO
FOREIGN MINISTER HAMAD BIN JASIM AL THANI (HBJ) ON
APRIL 7. SHORTLY AFTER AMBASSADOR BEGAN TALKING
POINTS, HBJ INTERRUPTED AND SAID “WE DON’T WANT A
TRIAL HERE OF BIN LADEN. THERE WILL BE NO TRIAL
HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE, UNLESS ALL COUNTRIES ARE IN
AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THE U.S.” HE ADDED THAT WERE
THE TALIBAN TO APPROACH THE GOQ WITH SUCH A
PROPOSAL, THE GOQ WOULD AGREE TO STUDY IT BUT
PROMISE NOTHING.

¶2. (C) HBJ CONFIRMED THAT A TALIBAN DELEGATION
WAS ARRIVING IN QATAR TODAY (APRIL 7). THE
AMBASSADOR REMINDED HIM THAT THE US IS THE SINGLE
LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR OF HUMANITARIAN AID TO
AFGHANISTAN. SHE ASKED WHETHER MINISTER OF STATE
AL MAHMOUD HAD BRIEFED HIM ON HER PREVIOUS
DEMARCHES ON THE TALIBAN (REFS B AND D). HBJ
RESPONDED, “YES.”

¶3. (C) COMMENT: HBJ GRANTED THE MEETING WITH THE
AMBASSADOR WITHIN AN HOUR OF THE REQUEST. HE WAS
CLEARLY PLEASED THAT A/S WALKER HAD CALLED. WE
WILL GET A READ OUT ON THE TALIBAN’S VISIT WHEN IT
IS CONCLUDED.

The Taliban chose the 5 commanders they wanted back from Gitmo, Barack Obama did not choose them but did approve the request. Congress would never have approved, then it got twisted to throw in Bergdahl for the win by the White House.

The Taliban’s conditions:

Demands

The Taliban will enter discussions with an eye on winning a few confidence-building concessions, including the release of Taliban detainees held in prisons under the control of the Afghan government. The release of the “Taliban five” held by the United States at its Guantanamo facility will also come up.

The Taliban is also expected to ask for sanctions against its members to be eased. The United Nations’ Al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctions committee has blacklisted more than 100 people linked to the Taliban, subjecting them to travel bans and asset freezes. At the request of the Afghan government, the UN Security Council has delisted several dozen names as part of a move to encourage the group to hold peace talks with Kabul.

The Taliban will seek to get formal recognition from Washington as a legitimate political entity.

The Taliban is also expected to float more contentious and ambitious demands, such as changes to the Afghan Constitution and other concessions that would give them considerable influence over the country’s social and judicial affairs.

“The Taliban are likely to want significant influence in justice, anticorruption, education, and social affairs,” says Matt Waldman, an Afghanistan analyst based in London. “These are the most notable areas where the Taliban will seek influence, in particular justice [and rule of law.] Taliban leaders feel they are best equipped to deliver justice and administer justice in Afghanistan.”

Obama Advisor Pro Iran Lobby, Not Valerie

Posted on March 31, 2015March 31, 2015 by Denise Simon

Obama Adviser on Iran Worked for Pro-Regime Lobby

The White House released a list of its high-ranking officials who took part in a video conference with President Obama late Tuesday. Among them appears Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, who has formerly worked for the National Iranian-American Council.

The White House brief, which was disclosed by The Daily Beast, listed Sahar Nowrouzzadeh as the National Security Council Director for Iran. Nowrouzzadeh appears to be a former employee of the alleged pro-Tehran regime lobbying group, NIAC (National Iranian-American Council).

Screen Shot 2015-03-31 at 8.48.17 PM.png

Breitbart News has found that a person with the same name has previously written several publications on behalf of NIAC. According to what appears to be her LinkedIn account, Nowrouzzadeh became an analyst for the Department of Defense in 2005 before moving her way up to the National Security Council in 2014.

A NIAC profile from 2007 reveals that Sahar Nowrouzzadeh appears to be the same person as the one who is currently the NSC Director for Iran. The profiles indicate that she had the same double major and attended the same university (George Washington).

Critics have alleged that NIAC is a lobby for the current Iranian dictatorship under Ayatollah Khamenei. A dissident journalist revealed recently that NIAC’s president and founder, Trita Parsi, has maintained a years-long relationship with Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif.

NIAC was established in 1999, when founder Trita Parsi attended a conference in Cyprus that was held under the auspices of the Iranian regime. During the conference, Parsi reportedly laid out his plan to introduce a pro-regime lobbying group to allegedly counteract the influence of America’s pro-Israel and anti-Tehran regime advocacy groups.

NIAC has been investing heavily in attempts to influence the talks in favor of an agreement with the state sponsor of terror. In recent days, its director, Trita Parsi, has been spotted having amiable conversation with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s brother.

Screen Shot 2015-03-31 at 2.22.52 PM.png

The possible revelations about the NSC Director’s apparent past with the alleged pro-regime group come as the U.S. has reportedly struck an agreement with Iran and the rest of the P5+1 world powers on Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.

***

So what else is not being addressed in the negotiations?

Experts: Iran Housing Nuke Materials in North Korea, Syria

LAUSANNE, Switzerland — A top State Department official on Monday dismissed reports that Iran may be hiding key nuclear-related assets in North Korea and implied that she was unaware of the possibility, despite the publication this weekend of several articles by top analysts expressing alarm at the extent of nuclear cooperation between Tehran and Pyongyang.

Marie Harf, a spokeswoman for the State Department, dismissed as “bizarre” the reports, which described the transfer of enriched uranium and ballistic missile technology back and forth between the two rogue regimes.

The existence of an illicit Iranian nuclear infrastructure outside of the Islamic Republic’s borders would gut a nuclear deal that the administration has vowed to advance by Tuesday, according to these experts and others.

If Iran is not forced to disclose the full extent and nature of its outside nuclear work to the United States, there is virtually no avenue to guarantee that it is living up to its promises made in the negotiating room, according to multiple experts and sources in Europe apprised of the ongoing talks.

Gordon Chang, a North Korea expert who has written in recent days about Iran’s possible “secret program” there, described the State Department’s dismissal of these reports as naïve.

“Let me see if I get this straight: The country with the world’s most highly developed technical intelligence capabilities does not know what has been in open sources for years?” Chang said. “No wonder North Korea transfers nuclear weapons technology to Iran and others with impunity.”

“The North Koreans could go on CNN and say, ‘Hey, Secretary Kerry, we’re selling the bomb to Iran,’ and the State Department would still say they know nothing about it,” Chang said. “No wonder we’re in such trouble.”

Other Iranian experts specializing in the country’s military workings also have raised recent questions about Tehran’s collaboration with North Korea.

Ali Alfoneh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, both senior fellows at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), have revealed that a nuclear reactor destroyed in Syria in 2007 by Israel was likely a North Korean-backed Iranian project.

Gerecht told the Free Beacon in a follow-up interview that key issues regarding Iran’s past military work and outside collaboration are being ignored in the negotiating room as diplomats rush to secure a tentative deal by Tuesday night.

“It certainly appears that the administration has backed away from [previous military dimensions] questions,” Gerecht said. “The plan appears to be to let the [International Atomic Energy Agency] continue its so far fruitless effort to gain access to sensitive sites, personnel, and paperwork, but to keep these questions out of the talks.”

“The administration is doing this because it fears the Iranians would walk out,” he added. “Any military work revealed by the Iranians would prove the Supreme Leader and [President] Rouhani liars.

Despite concerns from countries such a France over the issue, the United States has attempted to accommodate Iran, Gerecht said.

“The White House wants to believe that monitoring of known sites will be sufficient. It’s a bit mystifying given the Iranian track record and the CIA’s longstanding inability to penetrate the nuclear-weapons program (it’s just too hard of a target to do this reliably),” he explained. “But since they fear a breakdown, they bend their credulity in Iran’s favor. This has been the story of the negotiations from the beginning.”

Alfoneh also told the Free Beacon that Iran should be pressed by the United States to disclose the full extent of its nuclear relationship with North Korea.

“I certainly think the Islamic Republic should come clean concerning its past record of nuclear activities: Did the Islamic Republic ever try to build a nuclear weapon? If not, how are we to understand the opaque references to Tehran-Pyongyang nuclear cooperation in the 1990s?” Alfoneh said.

“As long as the Islamic Republic does not provide a clear record of its nuclear activities in the 1980s and 1990s, and as long as we do not know the full scope of Tehran-Pyongyang nuclear cooperation, there is always the risk of the two states renewing that cooperation, which in turn would jeopardize any agreement the Islamic Republic and the P5+1 Group may reach,” he said.

Another potential complication includes the ability of international inspectors to discern the extent of Iran’s nuclear work in Syria.

“Syria’s current chaos makes it virtually impossible for inspectors to do their job even if the Syrians were compliant,” according to Emanuele Ottolenghi, a onetime advisor to foreign ministries in Europe.

There is no way to determine whether Syria is housing any other nuclear sites on behalf of the Iranian, according to Ottolenghi, another senior fellow at FDD.

“Syria has covered up its nuclear activities after the 2007 [Israeli Air Force] raid on Deir al-Azour,” he said. “After four years of inconclusive efforts, the [International Atomic Energy Agency] ended up deferring the issue to the [United Nations Security Council] after declaring Syria in non-compliance.”

Hillary’s Server, a Rod Serling Drama

Posted on March 31, 2015March 31, 2015 by Denise Simon

A hacker source employed a tool called “The Harvester” to search a number of data sources to look for references to the domain name Clintonemail.com. The source says it appears Clinton established multiple email addresses, including [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected].

Other email addresses include [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected].

It’s not clear whether Clinton used any or all of these email addresses. It’s also unclear whether her aides used them.

The Benghazi Panel: A House panel Tuesday formally requested Hillary Clinton to testify about the private server and email account she used while serving as secretary of state.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, sent a request to Clinton’s personal attorney, David E. Kendall, requesting that Clinton appear before the committee no later than May 1 for a transcribed interview about the server and email.

The request comes after Kendall told Gowdy that the server had been wiped clean and that it would be impossible to recover the 30,000 emails Clinton deleted last year.

Gowdy, in his request to Kendall, also asked Clinton to “reconsider” her refusal to turn over the server to a neutral third party, which he called “highly unusual, if not unprecedented.” Gowdy’s letter to Hillary’s lawyer is here:

There is more breaking today:

The Associated Press reported today that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also used an iPad to send emails from her private account. This appears to undermine Clinton’s initial explanation that her decision to use a private email server was motivated by her desire to carry a single device (a BlackBerry).

Emails obtained by the AP show that Clinton occasionally mixed up personal correspondence with work-related matters. For example, Clinton once responded to an email about drone strikes in Pakistan from senior aide Huma Abedin with a series of questions about interior decorating.

So, now new questions need to be asked.

1. How many at State knew about the alias server?

2. Did the Accountability Review Board led by Pickering know about the offsite server and non-governmental email accounts?

3. Who decided where to apply the countless FOIA requests for Benghazi documents and why was the private server not included?

4. Patrick Kennedy, the Deputy Secretary of State, clearly omitted the procedures and government document laws with regard to Hillary, question is did she demand he look the other way and or why did he not report this or admit the condition during his congressional testimony?

5. With each unique email account on that server, were they assigned to different users at State, or in Hillary’s private spy-network or all of the above?

6. Is the White House about to give executive privilege to Hillary’s server and emails?

7. Is the Department of Justice taking over cases to represent some of the complicit government employees in the Hillary caper?

There is also something called the Executive Secretariat at the State Department, at it appears by description, it was used excessively by Hillary and her team. Where are those emails? Did the Secretariat Office get some kind of exemption from subpoenas and FOIA requests?

The Executive Secretariat (S/ES), comprised of the Executive Secretary and four Deputy Executive Secretaries, is responsible for coordination of the work of the Department internally, serving as the liaison between the Department’s bureaus and the offices of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Under Secretaries. It also handles the Department’s relations with the White House, National Security Council, and other Cabinet agencies.

The Secretariat Staff (S/ES-S) works with the various offices of the Department in drafting and clearing written materials for the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Under Secretary for Political Affairs. This staff also is responsible for taking care of advance preparations for the Secretary’s official trips — domestic and international — and staffing the “mobile office” and keeping the Secretary’s schedule on track during the trip.
The Operations Center (S/ES-O) is the Secretary’s and the Department’s communications and crisis management center. Working 24 hours a day, the Operations Center monitors world events, prepares briefings for the Secretary and other Department principals, and facilitates communication between the Department and the rest of the world. The Operations Center also coordinates the Department’s response to crises and supports task forces, monitoring groups, and other crisis-related activities.

Meanwhile, More Land to the BLM

Posted on March 31, 2015March 31, 2015 by Denise Simon

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Obama today requested $1.2 billion in appropriations for the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management for Fiscal Year 2016. The request for BLM’s operating accounts represents an increase of $91.4 million above the 2015 enacted level. The proposal includes strategic investments that underscore the Administration’s continuing strong support for facilitating and improving management of increased energy production, conserving sage-grouse habitat in the West, strengthening BLM’s National Conservation Lands, and establishing a BLM Foundation to foster public partnerships that support BLM’s missions.

“The Bureau of Land Management is proud to play a central role in our Nation’s economy through energy development, recreation, grazing, timber, and conservation activities,” said BLM Director Neil Kornze. “We greatly appreciate the support of the President and Congress in helping us take important steps forward in responsible and robust energy development, and in properly managing some of America’s wildest places.”

The BLM delivers significant economic benefits for communities across the Nation. Each year, lands under the Bureau’s management contribute over $100 billion in local economic activity and support more than 440,000 jobs. In the last fiscal year, the BLM generated over $5 billion in receipts from public lands, benefiting State governments and the U.S. Treasury.

The BLM is concerned about managing energy production, restoring the habitats for grouse, conservation and wants to create a BLM foundation. Don’t be fooled America.

Federal Land Management Not a Good Deal for Americans

“By nearly all accounts, our federal lands are in trouble, both in terms of fiscal performance and environmental stewardship.” That was an assertion made earlier this month in a study released by the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC). The study focused on the difference between state-managed public lands and federally managed public lands. The federal government is ill-suited to manage vast amounts of land in the West. Short of private ownership, state and local governments are best suited for the task.

Federal Land Ownership. The federal government is the largest land owner in the United States, owning roughly 640 million acres, about 28 percent of the country. The federal government owns nearly half of the land west of the Rockies, and roughly 81 percent of Nevada alone. However, east of the Rockies, the federal government owns an average of only 5 percent of the land in each state. Such a high level of federal ownership of land in Western states has led to controversy over ownership and management of public lands.

Western states have considered resolutions requesting that the federal government transfer title of much of the public land held within their borders. Utah, for example has passed legislation that “requires the United States to extinguish title to public lands and transfer title to those public lands to the state.” Several other states such as New Mexico, Montana, and Wyoming have passed legislation to study the transfer of certain public lands from federal to state agencies. These transfers generally exclude public land such as national parks, national monuments, and tribal lands.

PERC’s Findings. PERC conducted its study by comparing revenues and expenditures for the management of federal land and state trust land in New Mexico, Arizona, Idaho, and Montana. State trust lands are the most common form of state-owned lands in the West. State trust lands were created by land grants made to the states by the federal government and are used for the benefit of public institutions, like schools. The lands generate revenue through uses ranging from timber and grazing to mineral extraction. The study looked at two federal agencies that manage public land: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS). According to the study,

“The federal government loses money managing valuable natural resources on federal lands, while states generate significant financial returns from state trust lands.”
“The states examined in this study earn an average of $14.51 for every dollar spent on state trust land management. The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management generate only 73 cents in return for every dollar spent on federal land management.”
“On average, states generate more revenue per dollar spent than the federal government on a variety of land management activities, including timber, grazing, minerals, and recreation.” For example, New Mexico receives $12.78 of revenue per dollar spent on administering grazing fees, whereas the USFS and BLM receive $0.10 and $0.14, respectively.
“These outcomes are the result of the different statutory, regulatory, and administrative frameworks that govern state and federal lands. States have a fiduciary responsibility to generate revenues from state trust lands, while federal land agencies face overlapping and conflicting regulations and often lack a clear mandate.”

The PERC study calls into question the ability of federal government agencies to manage public lands in the west and supports states’ ability to manage those lands. As The Heritage Foundation’s Nick Loris and Katie Tubb note, “States are already well positioned to help make a transition to better management of these resources.” States are best suited to manage these public lands due to their vested interest in seeing the lands produce revenue and are also held responsible for achieving that objective.