Posted on 05/14/2014 7:23:43 PM PDT by blueyon
This video seems to show Lois Lerner discussing the pressure she is under to target conservative groups Lois Lerner speaks at the Sanford School of Public Policy on October 19, 2010. This video was released in 2013; but as the cover-up continues, it’s important that people understand the pressure surrounding Lois Lerner in the lead-up to the 2012 election to target conservative non-profit groups. The most important question to ask is, “Where was this pressure coming from?”
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournalism.com ...
Yup.
“Vote for Joe blow” -Lois Lerner
I guess Joe Blow is untouchable unless joe Blow is a democrat.
When will someone file a formal complaint with the U.N. to invalidate the 2012 U.S. elections as not being full, free and fair?
NOTHING is going to happen here.
Dem and pubbie leadership want the Tea Party to go away.
Both are doing all they can to make that a reality.
Neither want their gravy train ended.
Worthless hacks
The whole democrat party is corrupted to the core...time for the GOP to start campaigning on impeachment of Eric Holder and Barack Obama.
The GOP won't because they're just as corrupted. It's like the old joke about why sharks won't eat lawyers...it's professional courtesy.
5.56mm
In liberal world, the IRS has the power to negate a SCOTUS ruling.
When I marched in that first Tea Party rally in DC, and saw Marine One fly over us, I knew at that moment Obama had made us his enemy. He knew he had to destroy us.
(no link)
Interview With FEC Vice Chairman Don McGahn
FOX News Channel - Monday, August 5, 2013
Show: FOX ON THE RECORD WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN
Author: Greta Van Susteren
(snip)
New evidence tonight that the IRS political targeting goes beyond the IRS . The new evidence raises suspicions about the president’s lawyer, Bob Bauer . Why did Bauer e-mail the FEC about a conservative group and the FEC then e-mailed Lois Lerner at the IRS ?
FEC vice chairman Don McGahn joins us. Nice to see you.
DON MCGAHN, FEC VICE CHAIRMAN: Nice to see you.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK, so why is the FEC in this?
MCGAHN: The FEC is in this because there were some FEC staff that had reached out to the IRS in 2008 regarding a few conservative groups. And as you know, the IRS has already under fire for targeting conservative groups. This was made public somewhat recently by folks in the House of Representatives.
VAN SUSTEREN: What business does the FEC have going to the IRS for information? And was this private, or was this public or private information?
MCGAHN: Well, originally, the FEC — it was an FEC investigator reached out to the — to the IRS , directly to Lois Lerner, the person who has come under the most fire at the IRS , asking for information regarding a group called the American Future Fund. And the request was for information generally, and the IRS cannot provide general information. Eventually, the IRS did provide some public information.
What is interesting is, first of all, why would an FEC investigator be reaching out to the IRS without commission approval? The way the FEC works, under the statute...
VAN SUSTEREN: And you’re on the commission.
MCGAHN: I’m the vice chairman of the commission currently. The commission needs to improve any sort of investigation. So first, you have an investigator reaching out to the IRS . Second, if they’re only asking for non-public — or sorry, for public information, why reach out directly to Lois Lerner? Why wouldn’t you go in the way that the public would look, maybe a Web site or go directly to the IRS and pull the file, make a photocopy, the sort of thing you might do.
Third, what’s interesting is after this initial contact which happened in July of 2008, a mere two business days later, the IRS sent a questionnaire to the American Future Fund. Now, perhaps this has benign. Perhaps it was already in the pipeline. These are very real questions that the IRS needs to answer.
The Congress has asked both the FEC and the IRS to produce any communications between the two agencies. I’m glad they’ve done that to get to the bottom of what could be a new development in the IRS debacle.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, before it even gets to the FEC, what’s so peculiar is that Bob Bauer , who is a long-time lawyer in town for Democratic politics — I think he was on the president’s — he’s now at the White House, but before that, I think he was on the president’s team for re-election.
He, incidentally, as sort of an odd note, is married to Anita Dunn, who can’t stand FOX News and was on a total campaign against us, full disclosure. But Bob Bauer is the one who — who contacted the FEC first about this conservative group. The FEC then sort of takes that water and carries it over to the IRS to Lois Lerner.
MCGAHN: Sort of. There’s two groups at issue. One’s the American Future Fund, which I mentioned. There’s another one, the American Issues Project...
VAN SUSTEREN: That’s the one Bob Bauer was asking about.
MCGAHN: That’s the one that the presidential campaign filed a complaint against them, as did a reform group from Washington, D.C. They were pretty hot and heavy about an ad that ran around the time of the Democratic convention, and they claimed that the ad was illegal because it was banned political speech. And as we know, since the Citizens United decision struck that ban, much of that complaint went away.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there anything Bob Bauer did, though, that was — I mean, I’m going to back to the (INAUDIBLE) anything Bob Bauer did that was peculiar as he’s making this request to the FEC?
MCGAHN: I don’t think there was anything peculiar at the time that he filed a complaint. Campaigns file complaints all the time against people that they don’t like and messages that they would rather not have people focus on.
What was a little bit different was the Obama campaign also raised the specter of criminal prosecution and claimed that the activity was criminal. It’s kind of a stretch when you deal with 1st Amendment speech to claim that it could be criminal.
In hindsight, when you combine this with what’s happened since, whether it is the president criticizing the Citizens United speech in the State of the Union address, the massive call that there’s been for additional disclosure requirements, the Disclose Act, and pushed by the Senate Democratic leadership calls on other agencies to do things about these so-called shadowy groups, these 501(c)4s, it starts to look pretty bad when one was — when one tried to raise the criminal specter on what’s otherwise protected political speech.
VAN SUSTEREN: And actually, as sort of an aside is that prior to 2001, I think it was, is that Lois Lerner was actually at the FEC and then moved over...
MCGAHN: Lois Lerner used to work...
VAN SUSTEREN: ... to the IRS .
MCGAHN: ... at the FEC. She was the head of the enforcement division for a little bit at the FEC. And that had somewhat of mixed reviews. The Christian Coalition had some issues with some enforcement cases that the commission tried to bring. Commission went to court against the Christian Coalition and lost the case rather decisively, for the most part.
VAN SUSTEREN: Think it’s safe to say that there’s enough there to investigate, to warrant further investigation, right?
MCGAHN: Well, I think Congress needs to continue doing oversight of both the FEC and the IRS . And I think we need to see where the facts take us. At this point, we do have communication between the FEC and the IRS , which is not in the ordinary course of the FEC’s business. It seems odd. It seems odd that an investigator would be reaching out to Lois Lerner directly, and I think Congress correctly is asking for documents, and hopefully...
VAN SUSTEREN: We’ll see where it goes.
MCGAHN: ... they will do their job, and we’ll see where this takes us.
(snip)
Published: August 8, 2013
It is not the Republicans on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) who seek to “ram through policies” that would “change” commission-approved practices. Rather, it is FEC staff members who seek radical change, in which they alone would be empowered to make decisions that the law says are to be made by the commissioners.
Congress decided long ago that the commissioners, not the staff, make the decisions at the FEC. The reason is clear: to prevent partisan targeting. On whether the FEC should have a publicly available enforcement manual, this is not a partisan issue. My proposal tracks the statute and mirrors one suggested by the Democratic powerhouse lawyers of Perkins Coie. Staff members have other ideas and want to centralize decision-making in their hands, bypassing the commission.
Such proposals require the commission to decide what is permissible under the statute, and this requires the affirmative vote of at least four commissioners. Thus, despite the 3-2 Republican majority, things cannot simply be rammed through by majority rule. The statute must be interpreted, and rules and policies adopted in a bipartisan manner, and such issues cannot be left to staff to decide. FEC Republicans have consistently sought transparency and wish to deliberate such issues in full view of the public; it is the Democratic chair who is opposed.
Donald F. McGahn II, Washington
The writer is vice chairman of the Federal Election Commission.
Former FEC chairman Donald McGahn resigns from panel
September 17, 2013
EXCERPT
McGahn served on the FEC at a time of rapid change in campaign-finance law. The past several years have given rise to an explosion of outside spending, from 501(c)(4) organizations to super PACs. The Supreme Court also struck down several provisions of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, better known as McCain-Feingold, forcing the FEC to rewrite some of its rules.
McGahn led a bloc of three Republicans who almost always voted together. Campaign-finance reform advocates and editorial boards were often critical of what they characterized as McGahn’s efforts to chip away at election rules and regulations.
McGahn also pushed unsuccessfully this year for rules that would have barred FEC lawyers from sharing information with federal prosecutors without commission approval. The FEC’s top lawyer abruptly resigned amid feuding over the proposal.
+++++++++++++
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_L._Weintraub
Ellen L. Weintraub is a Commissioner on the United States Federal Election Commission.
She received a recess appointment to the Commission on December 6, 2002, and took office on December 9, 2002.[2] She was renominated on January 9, 2003, and confirmed by unanimous consent of the United States Senate on March 18, 2003. Shortly after her arrival at the FEC, Weintraub was elected Chair of the Commission for 2003. She is the third woman[3] to serve on the Commission. In June 2008, two more women, Cynthia L. Bauerly and Caroline C. Hunter, joined Weintraub on the Commission.[4] Although Weintraub’s term ended April 30, 2007, by statute she continues in office until her successor takes office.[5]
Prior to her appointment, Weintraub was Of Counsel to Perkins Coie LLP and a member of its Political Law Group.
(snip)
++++++++++++
President Obama announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to the Presidential Commission on Election Administration:
Robert F. Bauer, Appointee for Co-Chair, Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Robert F. Bauer is currently a partner at Perkins Coie LLP and General Counsel to the Democratic National Committee.
(snip)
+++++++++++++
FEC offices:
http://www.fec.gov/about/offices/offices.shtml
Any felonies committed yet?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/politics/irs-fec-issa/
Issa’s letter identifies the FEC attorney as William Powers, an official in the commission’s Office of the General Counsel.
The e-mails between Powers and Lerner were initially uncovered by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Michigan, who sent a letter last week to acting IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel requesting additional details about the controversial contact.
While the prospect of potential FEC involvement with the IRS raises the prospect of a broader federal targeting effort, Democrats continue to insist there is no conspiracy, and stress that the publicly released contact between the two agencies was nothing more than requests for information already in the public domain.
McGahn told CNN, however, that additional e-mails he has seen do not clearly state whether the FEC was only seeking public data. Requesting private data would likely violate federal law.
Thanks for the ping.
It’s changing...
Why would you say that? Tell me how we’re ‘equally’ corrupt... you been drinkin’ kool aid?
Looks like the line has been crossed ..hang Em!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgdXFc6IaSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLR-MzrlEXw
E-mail Links Lois Lerner to IRS Targeting Scandal
Looks like some of the same tactics were used against Hillary. Surprised the Clinton Machine stood for it.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/03/obama-lawyer-crashes-clinton-c.html
In an extraordinarily aggressive bit of pushback, Bob Bauer, general counsel to the Barack Obama campaign, jumped onto a Hillary Clinton campaign phone call with reporters on Tuesday night to dispute the premise of the call.
Barack Obama’ campaign accused a newly formed group of engaging in “runaway illegal” activities to put up ads benefiting Hillary Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign.
Obama lawyer Bob Bauer claimed the American Leadership Project, which plans to run ads supporting Clinton in Ohio and Texas, is “completely” violating Federal Election Commission rules and that its sole purpose is to influence the presidential election.
The group’s officers, employees and donors could face criminal and civil penalties, Bauer insisted in a conference call with reporters.
“This is not a case where there’s shades of gray. This is not a case where there’s room for argument. This is not a case where they will be spared by some .version of Philadelphia lawyering,” Bauer said.
“This is absolutely a cold, calculated move to violate the law for the benefit of the candidate.”
Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the group, bluntly replied, “Is that guy for real?”
February 21, 2008
Categories: Barack Obama
Obama lawyer warns of ‘reckoning’ for Clinton 527 donors and staff
Obama lawyer Bob Bauer reiterated the charges made in a memo yesterday (after the jump) that the new pro-Clinton 527, the American Leadership Project, is breaking the law and warned that donors and aides to the group could face criminal liability — an apparent effort to stop the group before it starts, and to scare off other, similar efforts.
Bauer argued on a conference call with reporters that the group’s “major purpose” is supporting Clinton and that it’s “a very clear runaway case of lawbreaking” because it hasn’t filed papers with the Federal Election Commission or reported the money it spent producing its ad and posting it to YouTube.
“There’s going to be a reckoning here,” he warned. “It’s going to be rough — it’s going to be rough on the officers, it’s going to be rough on the employees, it’s going to be rough on the donors.”
“Whether it’s at the FEC or in a broader criminal inquiry, those donors will be asked questions,” Bauer said.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.