Obama Admin FINALLY Announces Decision On IRS Lois Lerner Charges- Some Are Enraged

An inspector general’s audit more than two years ago discovered that the IRS had singled out Tea Party groups for scrutiny of their tax exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections.

In turn, multiple congressional committees and the Justice Department embarked on an investigation of the scandal.

Now, the Justice Department has announced its decision: there will be no criminal charges brought by the department against Lois Lerner or other IRS officials.

The Justice Department’s letter was addressed to the leaders of the House Judiciary Committee and stated that, while “mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia” were discovered, the department found “no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution.”

Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik wrote: “What occurred is disquieting and may necessitate corrective action — but it does not warrant criminal prosecution.”

The Department of Justice letter stated that there was no evidence that Lerner exercised her authority in a “partisan manner generally,” or that her political views impacted the way she addressed the tax-exempt applications.

It noted that she did, however, exercise “poor judgement” in using her IRS email account to send personal messages that voiced “political views.”

Lerner has since retired.

The letter found “no one person” responsible, and blamed “discrete mistakes by line-level revenue agents.”

Lerner was voted to be in contempt of Congress last year by the House after she refused to answer questions at two House Oversight hearings.

What do you think of the decision by the Justice Department to not criminally prosecute Lerner or other IRS officials?

One Of Hillary’s Emails Shows Her Asking For Something That Raises MAJOR Red Flags

Hillary Clinton sought to borrow a book that included tips on how to permanently delete emails, according to a report by ABC News.

The last batch of the Democratic presidential candidate’s emails released by the State Department included one from Clinton asking to borrow a book called “Send: Why People Email So Badly and How to Do It Better,” by David Shipley and Will Schwalbe. Chapter Six, titled, “The Email That Can Land You In Jail,” includes a section entitled, “How to Delete Something So It Stays Deleted.”

Since news broke in March of her use of a personal email address on a server kept in her New York home, Clinton has insisted that she’s turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department and deleted 30,000 other so-called personal emails. On Tuesday, she turned the server over to the Justice Department after refusing to do so since March.

Experts say the server may not hold many revelations.

“Being the fact that this is Hillary Clinton with significant resources and a reputation to uphold, I would say that those who are seeking out additional information on the servers … would have a very difficult time finding something,” said Robert Siciliano, an online-security expert.

Former FBI Assistant Director Ronald Hosko said Clinton wouldn’t be able to shift blame if any sensitive material at all is discovered on her home server.

“Presumably, whatever she did with the server, it was done at her direction. Did she do it deliberately? You have to assume she did. It’s her server. Then you have to ask yourself why,” he said.

The FBI plans to sift through the server for possible security violations during her four-year tenure as secretary of state.

Clinton has been dogged by poll numbers showing that more Americans, by a margin of about 20 percentage points, say she’s not trustworthy rather than trustworthy. A late July CNN/ORC poll found that 58% of all registered voters say it is extremely important that the next president be honest and trustworthy.

“The revelation that Secretary Clinton exclusively used private email for official public business, and the multitude of issues that emanated from her decision, including this most recent one, demonstrates what can happen when Congress and those equally committed to exposing the truth, doggedly pursue facts and follow them,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

h/t: Breitbart

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The NY Times Just Did Something Stunning At Hillary’s Request, Immediately Paid A Big Price

Feedback from fellow reporters has been less than stellar after it was revealed that the New York Times made significant edits (including changing the headline) to a story it wrote about two inspector generals’ requests that the Justice Department open a criminal investigation regarding the use of a private email server by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Politico reports that the original headline ran by the Times Thursday was “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email.” However, that headline was changed sometime after midnight to the less damning “Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account.”

Likewise, the lead sentence was changed from saying that the probe would be “into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state,” to “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.”

One of the writers of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained to Politico early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.

“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Schmidt said.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, released a statement on Twitter on Friday: “Contrary to the initial story, which has already been significantly revised, she followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials. As has been reported on multiple occasions, any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.”

Mediaite’s Alex Griswold points out: “What [Merrill] left off was that the story had been “significantly revised” because of pressure from the Clinton camp.”

In March at a press conference at the U.N., Clinton insisted that she was careful in her handling of sensitive information with her private account. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email,” she said. “There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”

A former senior State Department official found Clinton’s claim lacked credibility. He told the New York Times in March: “’I would assume that more than 50 percent of what the secretary of state dealt with was classified…Was every single email of the secretary of state completely unclassified? Maybe, but it’s hard to imagine.’”

On Friday, the Times finally decided to inform its readers of the change to its Thursday story.

An earlier version of this article and an earlier headline, using information from senior government officials, misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state. The referral addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that personal email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.

Mediaite chronicled the critical responses of some in the media–from both Left and Right–to the Times’ “stealth edit.”

NY Times changes Hillary Story III - Tweet 1

Perhaps the hardest hitting rebuke came from Ricochet’s Stephen Miller:

NY Times changes Hillary Story - Tweet 1As reported by Western Journalism, one of Clinton’s claims from her U.N. press conference about her emails has been shown to be false. The State Department confirmed last month that she did not turn over all her work-related emails. Select Committee on Benghazi chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said in a statement regarding the revelation: “This has implications far beyond Libya, Benghazi and our committee’s work. This conclusively shows her email arrangement with herself, which was then vetted by her own lawyers, has resulted in an incomplete public record.”

According to the Times, the Justice Department has not decided whether to open a criminal investigation into the transmission of classified material through Clinton’s private email accounts.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Finding Common Ground In The Fight For Privacy

Sen. Rand Paul’s recent effort to force reforms on the National Security Agency’s data collection practices to protect the privacy of the American people has set off a firestorm of anger among the establishment of the Republican Party. From Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), there is a large parcel of the GOP that would eagerly sacrifice liberty for security. There is, however, one major push designed to limit the power of government that has a large base of support within the Republican establishment — the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad (LEADS) Act.

A bipartisan group of Senators are working diligently to pass the LEADS Act to overturn an extraordinary abuse of power by Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Led by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nevada), and Chris Coons (D-Delaware), these members are trying to establish rules balancing the needs of law enforcement to obtain the contents of electronic communications with privacy protections for citizens in the digital age. Unfortunately, the clock is ticking; and unless Congress acts quickly, only the Supreme Court will be left to restore rights that were taken by the government — if they even take the pending case.

The issue stems from an investigation by the Justice Department against an Irish citizen who stored information on a cloud computing system owned by an Irish company on servers stored on the island nation. If the information requested were a piece of paper instead of a byte of data, the DOJ would be forced, by treaty obligation, to request that the Irish government obtain a warrant on their behalf to obtain the information. Such requests among allies are commonplace and are not much of a hurdle for the government to jump over.

Rather than make such a request, the DOJ subpoenaed Microsoft and demanded they turn over the information because the Irish company is a subsidiary of Microsoft. Microsoft, in an effort to protect the privacy rights of their users, has rightfully refused to comply and filed a lawsuit against the government.

A federal district court in New York ruled for the government, suggesting that as an American company that wholly owns the Irish subsidiary, a simple domestic warrant is enough. Last July, the 2nd Circuit Appeals Court agreed; and in September, Microsoft asked to be held in contempt of the court so it could progress to the Supreme Court.

The ramifications of these decisions are critical for privacy rights, jurisdictional limitations of government power, and the ability of American companies to compete abroad.

Unless overturned by the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice’s argument that most anything stored on the cloud-based computer systems–even by foreign nationals on servers stored outside the United States–falls under their power will stand. Hence, the LEADS Act was introduced.

Support for the LEADs Act provides a perfect opportunity for members of the GOP to demonstrate support for privacy rights while limiting the power of the federal government.

From threatening to indict reporters who refuse to release their sources to Holder’s Department of Justice seizing two months worth of phone records from Associated Press reporters, the Obama administration will go down in history with one of the worst records for domestic civil liberties. The effort to grab control of the cloud computing systems is just the latest chapter in a sad era of the widespread violation of American constitutional liberties.

This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue with profound implications for the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. No matter who is in power, this legislation is a great way to clarify how the United States government wants Americans’ phone records to be treated by foreign nations. The natural right of privacy, and the right to police against law-breaking, are two interests that can be balanced in a way that makes sense and protects all Americans.

Privacy from government intrusion should be a conservative principle. Too many members of the GOP are willing to trust their privacy rights to bureaucrats in the NSA, the CIA, and the FBI. The LEADs Act is a small step in the right direction and creates a unique opportunity for the Republican Party to help restore some of the rights that have been trampled on by big government.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Exposed: Obama Is Bypassing Congress To Deliver A Major Blow To The Constitution

The Obama administration is once again planning to do by executive action what it could not accomplish legislatively through Congress.

The Hill reports that the Justice Department will move forward with more than a dozen gun-related regulations. The first round is expected to be finalized by November, with the rest implemented by the end of Obama’s term in office.

“It’s clear President Obama is beginning his final assault on our Second Amendment rights by forcing his anti-gun agenda on honest law-abiding citizens through executive force,” said Luke O’Dell, vice president of political affairs at the National Association for Gun Rights.

Many of the changes were called for following the Sandy Hook shooting three years ago. Gun control advocates made a major push in Congress to place new restrictions on the sale and ownership of guns, including the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. The measures were defeated in the Senate and never had a vote in the House.

Following the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama issued 23 executive actions intended to keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people.

One of the changes the administration now seeks to enact is denying gun ownership to those who have been guilty of any type of domestic abuse.

“That could be a person who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife, or slapped her husband,” Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for the Gun Owners of America, warned in a statement.

The ATF is also looking to prohibit the mentally ill from owning firearms, which gun rights’ groups oppose.

“The Obama administration is trying very hard to disqualify people from owning a gun on the basis that they are seeing a psychologist,” Hammond argued.

The NRA in statement earlier this spring noted: “A person who experienced a temporary reaction to a traumatic event or who has trouble handling household finances may well be treated the same as a violent psychopath. Not only is this unjust and stigmatizing, it creates disincentives for those who need mental health treatment to seek it, increasing whatever risks are associated with untreated mental illness.”

Other proposed regulations include the ownership of high-powered handguns and gun storage requirements.

“The Obama administration hates the Second Amendment, and it’s clear that every place where it can push, it will,” said Hammond.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth