Another IRS Official Pleads the Fifth

Earlier this month, IRS Official Lois Lerner invoked her fifth amendment right in front of the House Oversight Committee. Today, at another Oversight Committee hearing, the second IRS Official did so. His name is Gregory Roseman and he is the Deputy Director, Enterprise Networks and Tier Systems Support.

Roseman appears to have had a 'cozy' relationship with the president of a company called Strong Castle, which allegedly received preferential treatment from the IRS, via Roseman. Here is Chairman Darrell Issa's exchange with Roseman, during with the latter initially started to say he chose to 'waive' his fifth amendment right before his counsel caught him.

Via Oversight:





Now let's go to  Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who never fails to disappoint. In this video, he starts out by pressing Beth Tucker, Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support, about why Roseman was not fired after texting allegedly despicable 'homophobic slurs' in his official capacity with the IRS. Tucker had more than just a little trouble answering Gowdy's questions.

The congressman from South Carolina then turned his attention to Strong Castle President and CEO, Braulio Castillo.



Trey Gowdy is in the wrong job; he should be Attorney General.

NSA Whistleblower comes forward; presents more evidence of Petraeus Effect

Last week, I began a post with the following:

In the film, "The DeadZone" an aspiring, yet wicked politician named Greg Stillson (played by Martin Sheen) is running for a seat in the US Senate when he learns of an editorial that is going to appear in the local paper and will do great damage to his chances of winning. Stillson's goons enlist the help of a harlot to seduce the married writer, which she does successfully when photographs are taken of their encounter and shown to the editorial's author. After Stillson tells the writer to "stay out of the campaign business" in return for him staying "out of the publishing business", the writer wrestles with his conscience and asks, "What if I don't make a deal, Stillson?" As Sheen's character prepares to leave the writer's office, he says, "Oh, you'll make a deal. Otherwise, I'll have Sonny here take your (expletive) head off." - The Case FOR Islamophobia, p. 390

In that film, the writer chose to pull his editorial in the interest of self-preservation. Had he done the right thing - after doing the wrong thing - Stillson would not have been able to take his heinous plan for the world (nuclear war) all the way to the Oval Office. The writer chose to commit two wrongs to make things right - for himself. Any inkling he may have had to do what he knew should have been done was extinguished with a threat of bodily harm.

An NSA whistleblower named Russ Tice has come forward with explosive charges that the NSA has been targeting top officials in the U.S. Government and Military with warrantless wiretapping. While talking with Peter B. Collins, Tice spoke adamantly about how he held the paperwork that ordered such tapping of then Senator Barack Obama in 2004 and "One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court..."

Perhaps one of the most compelling moments in the exchange between Tice and Collins at the 2:20 mark:

Collins: This creates the basis, and the potential for massive blackmail.

Tice: Absolutely!

Here is the audio of Tice revealing what he knows to Collins, via WashingtonsBlog:



Conspiracy theories about blackmail get much closer to becoming conspiracy realities when you have corroborating evidence that demonstrates blackmail being done in the past. In this case, we don't just have a whistleblower. We also have the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus, who was forced to resign over an extra-marital affair that the Department of Justice had known about for months prior to the election, and General John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan, who was implicated in the scandal as well but was neither disgraced or forced out. Both men had previously made public statements decrying desecration of the Qur'an.

Indications are that Petraeus was punished for not playing ball on the Benghazi talking points. We now know that he said the following about the revised talking points in an email one day before Susan Rice lied to Americans five times on the Sunday shows:

"Frankly, I'd just as soon not use this."

On his birthday - November 7th -  one day after the 2012 election, Petraeus was summoned to the White House by his boss - James Clapper - and forced to resign. Two days later - on Friday, November 9th, he publicly did so and the reason for that resignation was made public; it was his extra-marital affair.

It's easy to forget how blatantly obvious the blackmail was in the case of Petraeus. Here is Charles Krauthammer on 9/13/12. The only thing Krauthammer may have gotten wrong here is the part about Petraeus' September 13th testimony. In hindsight, it's more likely that the aforementioned email from Petraeus in which he wanted out of the talking points sandbox, served as the impetus for the affair being revealed:



Such rock solid evidence that the CIA Director was blackmailed by the Obama administration cannot and should not be dismissed. It is stronger than anecdotal evidence. It is proof of criminal behavior that is being reported by a whistleblower.

Immigration Reform
Many - including Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol and others - are not just comparing the 'Gang of 8' Immigration bill to Obamacare but some are comparing the actual sausage-making as being similar. Remember Obamacare? Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) accepted the 'Cornhusker kickback' for his vote; Mary Landrieu took the 'Louisiana Purchase'; and Rep. Bart Stupak - the final hurdle - accepted a worthless Executive Order in exchange for selling out on abortion.

Were those congressmen blackmailed? Hard to say and there's no direct evidence. Besides, they're Democrats and Democrats always unite in the end. In the case of Obamacare, the Democrats had the votes to overcome a filibuster - until Ted Kennedy died. They got around the subsequent lack of a filibuster-proof majority by using reconciliation and had a Democratic majority in the House; the administration didn't need to target Republicans; the arm-twisting was all internecine.

In 2013, Obama wants Immigration Reform just as badly - if not more so. The problem for him is that Republicans hold the House and the filibuster-proof majority is long gone in the Senate (only 54 Senators caucus with the Democrats). What the administration did to the aforementioned Democrats during the 2010 Obamacare votes must somehow be done to Republicans in the 2013 Immigration debate.

Arm-twisting to get behind the Party of the President is anathema to the opposition Party. For Obama to get done with immigration now, what he got done with Obamacare then, would almost necessarily require blackmail.

When you couple what happened to Petraeus with what NSA whistleblower Tice is alleging, can you think of a better explanation for why Republicans are so aggressively pushing a suicidal agenda for their own Party?

Can you think of a better explanation for why they're doing it for a scandal-ridden administration?

Shouldn't Republicans in both the House and the Senate be focusing on something like, gee, I don't know... The IRS Scandal, perhaps?

The IRS was attempting to do what immigration reform will do - create one-Party rule in America.

Why on earth would leaders of the opposing Party go along with that?

Petraeus Effect?

Video: Rep. Jim Jordan Eviscerates FBI Director over lack of knowledge on IRS Scandal

The IRS Scandal broke one month ago. The FBI allegedly launched an investigation immediately. Yet, today, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Director Robert Mueller knew nothing about the investigation; he couldn't even name the lead case agent.

Unbelievable.

Videos: Rep. Trey Gowdy shreds former IRS Commissioner after catching a big mistake made by Lois Lerner

Once again, a man first elected to Congress in 2010, on a wave of Tea Party support (ironic in that IRS treatment of Tea Party groups is at the heart of this scandal), is once again setting the standard for his Congressional colleagues. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) didn't just walk away from today's House Oversight Committee Hearing into the IRS Scandal having best represented the anger of the American people when it comes to the scandal.

He also may have been instrumental in changing the course of future events when it comes to the testimony of IRS official Lois Lerner who, today asserted her fifth amendment rights only after issuing an opening statement that included her proclamations of innocence. Committee Chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) dismissed Lerner when it became apparent that she would not testify. Gowdy spoke up and was quite angry with Issa's decision.

Gowdy was applauded by those in attendance but Lerner was still dismissed:



Now, it appears that Issa will be recalling Lerner, based on her giving an opening statement. If Lerner is recalled, Gowdy will have been instrumental in pushing for it.

Some time after Lerner was dismissed, Gowdy, who was one of the last committee members to get his chance to talk to witnesses, set his sights on former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who had already taken a beating from both Democrats and Republicans.

Gowdy gave no quarter to Shulman.

Videos: Most notable exchanges with Outgoing IRS Commissioner at House Ways and Means

When IRS Commissioner Steven Miller testified in front of the House Ways and Means Committee about the scandal that has befallen the Obama administration, there were multiple exchanges worth noting. Rather than doing several separate posts, I decided to put them into one.

First up (no particular order), Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA). In this exchange, Kelly truly represented not only his own constituents but those belonging to most in Congress. The evidence is in the standing ovation he received when he was done grilling Miller.



Next, Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) revealed during his questioning of Miller that the congressman had been a cop for 30 years. At this point, those watching realized why his questioning was so effective. When Miller was asked a "yes" or "no" question and continued to repeat the same lawyered up response, it became obvious Reichert busted him. He then successfully got Miller to give up a name. The clip ends with Reichert shaking his head in disgust.



Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) dressed down the Commissioner by quoting from testimony given by Miller at a previous hearing that directly contradicts what has been learned since, via the scandal itself.



Next up, Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) elicits an amazing statement from Miller early on in this clip that shows just how out of touch the Commissioner is. As Reed is pointing out that Miller is suffering no real consequences for a scandal that would mean serious consequences for private citizens, Miller rhetorically asks, "nothing bad is happening to me, Congressman?" as if to disagree with the assertion.



Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) provided a real-life example of IRS harassment and then asks, "Is this still America?"



Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) highlighted the harassment of pro-life groups. Miller could not answer a question about why IRS agents asked one pro-life group to explain the content of its 'prayers'. In light of the revelations brought to light in the Kermit Gosnell trial, this is a particularly chilling reality. Schock asked the IG (seated next to Miller) about letters sent by Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Max Bauchus (D-MT), and Al Franken (D-MN) to the IRS in which they asked for heavier scrutiny of Tea Party groups.



Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) began by playing a video of a response from the previous IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman at a hearing in 2012, in which Shulman's testimony contradicts what the scandal has revealed is accurate.

Rep. Jim Gerlach (R-PA) hones in on the issue of sharing confidential taxpayer information. Again, Miller had trouble answering questions and attempted to re-phrase the ones asked so he could answer it the way he wanted to. That didn't work.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) pressed Miller on conversations the Commissioner had with Lois Lerner, the woman in charge of Tax-exempt filings, after which Miller referred to needing to look at his "notes". Roskam seized on the revelation that notes were in existence by asking Miller about these "notes", to which Miller suddenly couldn't remember if he had any. This is a short-term memory problem that rivals Tom Hanks during a Saturday Night Live skit. Roskam also followed-up on Reichert's previous questioning of Miller. It's a good one.

Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH) referred to a real-life example of IRS harassment of an Ohio Tea Party group, the Liberty Township Tea Party (LTTP). Tiberi pointed to a list of questions that LTTP which were utterly ridiculous.

Miller: We provided horrible customer service.

Tiberi: You targeted an individual!

Video: More fireworks between Darrell Issa and Eric Holder

Over the past couple of years, there have quite a few epic exchanges between Rep. Darrell Issa and Attorney General Eric Holder, mostly over Operation Fast and Furious. Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee, which is where he often appears a bit more unfettered with respect to challenging Holder. As such, the Judiciary Committee is where the most compelling exchanges between the two men usually takes place.

Yesterday was no exception and it didn't even involve questions about any of the three major scandals that have befallen the White House in recent days.

Some might remember Barack Obama's controversial appointment of Thomas Perez as Secretary of Labor a couple of months ago. Over the past several years, Perez had been the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights division. Aside from his extremely suspect testimony in front of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) case or his involvement in targeting the state of Arizona back in 2010 over SB 1070, an immigration law signed by Governor Jan Brewer, Perez was also involved in shady quid pro quo deal with the state of Minnesota.

This is what Issa decided to hammer Holder over yesterday and it was, again, epic. As an added bonus, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (the registered Democratic socialist who asked where on the planet Mars astronauts planted the U.S. flag) butts in without having a case. If she was smart enough to understand how stupid she looked, she wouldn't have butted in at all.

For a fuller appreciation of what was going on here, PowerLine wrote about the case back in March and lays it out quite well.

This is a must-watch, even if it isn't about any of the three big scandals.

Audio: Today's Podcast

On today's show...

Analysis of the Oversight Committee hearing on Benghazi.

Videos: Benghazi Whistleblower names names at Oversight Hearing

Here are three videos from the House Oversight Committee hearing in which three whistleblowers testified. First up, committee member Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) questioned the senior most whistleblower and second in command in Libya behind Ambassador Christopher Stevens - Gregory Hicks. In this line of questioning, Gowdy begins by showing how absurd it was for Ambassador Susan Rice to go on five Sunday talk shows on 9/16/12 and point to a demonstration and a video.

Gowdy also introduces a new name into the Benghazi scandal - Beth Jones. Jones is the Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs. He reads an excerpt from an email sent by Jones to several high ranking members of the State Department on September 12th in which Jones relayed a conversation she had with the Libyan Ambassador. That conversation included an urging by Jones to the ambassador to 'continue to make strong statements'. Jones also said on September 12th that 'Islamic extremists' and 'Ansar al-Sharia' was behind the attacks.

The Libyan president flew to Benghazi and appear on Face the Nation on 9/16/12 right before Rice did. Unfortunately for Libya's president, while he did make a strong statement on the CBS Sunday show, Rice's appearance followed and she totally contradicted him with the 'protest' / 'video' narrative. It is this appearance by Rice that chilled relations with Libya and is largely looked to as the reason the FBI was not permitted into Libya.



A related video comes from Rep. Jim Jordan's exchange with Hicks. An increasingly common occurrence these days seems to be bureaucrats who express dissent often end up being targets. In this exchange, the topic of Beth Jones came up again. After Rice's appearance on the Sunday talk shows, Hicks had received a call from Jones. During that conversation, he asked her why Rice said what she did on those shows (why did she lie). According to Hicks, ever since having the gall to ask that question, he has been a target.

Another individual's name is introduced in this exchange. Her name is Cheryl Mills and she was Hillary Clinton's Chief of Staff. According to Hicks, he received a phone call from a very angry Mills during a visit to Libya by Oversight Committee member, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT).

Listen to him explain during this exchange with Jordan:



Here is Gowdy at the end of the hearing:

Video: Darrell Issa previews Benghazi hearings on Face the Nation

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) appeared on Face the Nation to preview the May 8th Benghazi hearings. Gregory Hicks will be one of those witnesses and the quotes attributed to him that were read by host Bob Schieffer were indeed shocking. Without question, UN Ambassador Susan Rice's five Sunday show appearances on 9/16/12 - five days after the attacks - will come under renewed and even more intense scrutiny.

May 8th is likely going to be very significant.



During an appearance on Fox News one day earlier, former UN Ambassador John Bolton expressed shock at how high up the chain of command the whistleblowers go. Hicks - next in line after Stevens - is certainly an example of what Bolton was talking about.

Via Freedom's Lighthouse:

Video: Rep. Trey Gowdy promises 'explosive' hearings on Benghazi

During an appearance on Fox News, House Oversight Committee member, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) promised that there will be 'explosive' hearings into the Benghazi attacks and that they will be coming quickly. Unfortunately for the American people, the House of Representatives is led by people like John Boehner and not by people like Gowdy.

Perhaps the best line during this interview:

"...there's a reason we don't let kids grade their own papers in school and there's a reason we don't let defendants sentence themselves in court and the State Department should not be the ones investigating whether or not the State Department did a good job; it should be Congress, and it's going to be Congress very shortly."

Giddy up.

House Republicans on Benghazi Attacks: Hillary's signature on document calling for reduced Security, conflicts with her testimony

Folks, this may just be bigger than previously thought. Yesterday, the news was that a conference of House Republicans found Hillary Clinton accountable for the lack of security in Benghazi prior to the attacks on 9/11/12 but the evidence presented in its report backs up the charge because it includes a document with her signature; that document conflicts with her January testimony.

The report released by a House Republican Conference, made up of five separate Chairmen from five separate Committees is definitely a positive step in that direction.

Those five are:

• Buck McKeon - Armed Services
• Ed Royce - Foreign Affairs
• Bob Goodlatte - Judiciary
• Darrell Issa - Oversight
• Mike Rogers - Intelligence

The conference has just released its report on Benghazi and rests accountability right at the feet of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The report is available through Speaker Boehner's office.

One doesn't have to read past the second paragraph in the Executive Summary to find where the conference has found culpability:

Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.

On the same day that Clinton testified in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, she also testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. During that testimony, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said that if he'd have been president when the Benghazi attacks happened, he would have fired Hillary. It would seem that the report backs up that position.

There are two more bullet points in the Executive Summary, one having to do with the administration altering the talking points in order to blame the anti-Muhammad video for the attacks, the other regarding claims that this one done to protect classified information.

On page two (referenced again on page seven), the conference points to a document with Clinton's signature on it:

Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department. For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

It was also good to see the report include reference to a 'quick reaction force' that was relied upon to help defend the Consulate (Special Mission Compound) actually had sympathies with terrorists:

...the Benghazi Mission used local, unarmed guards, who were responsible for activating the alarm in the event of an attack, as well as four armed members of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, who were to serve as a quick reaction force. The February 17 Martyrs Brigade was one of the militias that fought for Gadhafi’s overthrow. Numerous reports have indicated that the Brigade had extremist connections, and it had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets.

Let's take a look at what very well could be perjury on the part of Clinton during her testimony this past January. On page 10 of the report, the conference cites the April 19, 2012 document that Clinton signed, which discusses pulling back on security despite acknowledgment that a request for more security had been made, and juxtaposes it with her January 23, 2013 testimony:

“I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant secretary level where the ARB [Accountability Review Board] placed responsibility. Where, as I think Ambassador Pickering said, ‘the rubber hit the road.’”

And...

"...I was not aware of that going on, it was not brought to my attention…"

When it comes to the issue of perjury, the closest Hillary seemed to come was during her exchange with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), in which she claimed she had no idea - one way or the other - if there was any arms shipments to Turkey from American outposts in Benghazi. It would seem she should have at least known the answer to the question - yes or no.

These new revelations courtesy of the House Republican conference seem to not only point to perjury with respect to Clinton not knowing about the requests for additional security but also a smoking gun in the form of a document bearing her signature that put the lives of the four Americans who were murdered on 9/11/12 in more danger.

For some reason, this :35 second exchange Hillary had with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) is taking on increasingly added significance, very much in the spirit of 'thou doth protest too much':



There is a reason the Conference felt confident in resting accountability at Hillary's feet. That reason is far more newsworthy than the report that they did so.

Please read.

Video: Freshman Congressman explains 'no vote' on John Boehner for Speaker

If you've read the excellent op-ed by Angelo Codevilla from last month, in which he talks about the 'ruling class' vs. the 'country class', the sentiment expressed by Freshman Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) about why he didn't vote for John Boehner as Speaker this year, is a case in point. It has long been apparent to many conservatives that Boehner does not represent them; he represents the ruling class and always seems to be more interested in deal-making, compromise, and avoiding conflict than in fighting for what's right.

Increasingly, the 'country class' is getting tired of it. In this interview with Ginny Thomas, Bridenstine explains why he voted against another Boehner speakership earlier this year. The longer the Obama administration continues to get the better of Boehner, the more likely the mindset of Bridenstine will represent an effervescent and growing insistence that Boehner go.

Via Daily Caller:

Video: Rep. Frank Wolf still calling for Select Committee on Benghazi

In addition to Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) continuing to call for a House Select Committee to investigate what happened in Benghazi on 9/11/12 - calls which John Boehner continues to ignore - he revealed something else noteworthy in this clip. There are still survivors of the attacks at Walter Reed six months later and we still know nothing about them.

Via Free Beacon:

Is John Boehner stonewalling... on Benghazi?

Stonewall: to block, stall, or resist intentionally

In the game of cricket, the term stonewall means to:

play a defensive game, as by persistently blocking the ball instead of batting it for distance and runs.

When it comes to getting the truth about the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, the Obama administration has lied - for two weeks, the administration blamed the attacks on a video - and it has stonewalled in the face of countless unanswered questions. In fact, when it became apparent that there were so many breakdowns on so many levels, Republicans from both Houses of Congress requested that select committees be formed.

In the Senate, Republicans are in the minority and Harry Reid has predictably stonewalled these requests because select committees that are formed to investigate scandals that could reach the president's office are much more effective than existent committees. Select committees would be made up of A-listers from various committees that would leverage their own individual areas of expertise. Reid is not going to put that kind of heat on a Democratic president.

Neither is Boehner; the Speaker of the House - a Republican - is stonewalling as well.

Check out what Boehner said last November, via Kerry Picket at Breitbart:

Both Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), along with other Democrats, rebuffed the idea of a joint select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack.

“At this point, I think that the standing committees of the House, whether they be the (State Department) oversight committee or the intelligence committee, are working diligently on these issues,” Boehner said shortly after his Senate colleagues floated the idea in November.

Some may see a bicameral committee (one that consists of both Representatives and Senators) as the best option, the absence of Senators does not preclude a select House committee from being formed. In fact, Rep. Frank Wolf wrote to Boehner in November and asked for that very thing. Boehner stonewalled the request then and is doing so now.

Writes Picket:

Speaker Boehner did not heed Wolf’s call for a select committee in the last Congress. In late January, Wolf refiled the resolution to establish a House Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. Boehner has yet to comment or act upon the resolution.

Breitbart News sent an inquiry to Speaker Boehner's office on Thursday afternoon that has gone unanswered.

When it comes to the details about what happened or didn't happen in Benghazi, the administration is preventing the truth from coming out. That is stonewalling. In Boehner's case, he is preventing the assembly of the best team possible to help reveal the truth. That too is stonewalling.

Are these two forms of stonewalling apples and oranges or are they distinctions without differences?

The answer is the latter. As the Speaker of the House - regardless of Party affiliation - Boehner should be spearheading any attempt to get to the truth about what happened on 9/11/12 in Benghazi. He is doing the opposite; he is doing what Harry Reid is doing.

John Boehner is stonewalling an investigation into Benghazi and when it comes to Boehner, this type of behavior is very predictable; he did the best he could to minimize the impact of the Fast and Furious investigation as well. That it went as far as it did is a testament to the likes of House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They pushed in spite of Boehner, not with his assistance. That was very clear.

In fact, Boehner scheduled the House vote on whether to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for not relinquishing documents subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee, on the same day that the Supreme Court rendered its Obamacare decision. As if that wasn't bad enough, on the day of the contempt vote, Obama did what Nixon did in Watergate; he asserted Executive Privilege to prevent the release of those documents.

Boehner protected the President. Period.

Some have suggested that the reason for doing so had to do with not wanting to harm Romney's chances in the 2012 election. Yeah? How'd that work out? The answer should be obvious. Romney lost the election and Republicans, in general, had their clocks cleaned because they chose not to fight. Fast and Furious is the quintessential example of something that warranted a high profile fight, if for no other reason than justice for the victims and their families, regardless of the election. Nonetheless, Boehner chose not to fight and his party lost big.

Benghazi is not all that dissimilar from Fast and Furious. Both involve guns (it's looking increasingly like Benghazi even involved gun running); both involved dead Americans; both involve an administration that is stonewalling the truth; and both apparently involve a House Speaker that prefers to sweep the carnage under the rug.

Imagine a House Select Committee that included members from the following Committees:

• Appropriations
• Armed Services
• Budget
• Foreign Affairs
• Homeland Security
• Judiciary
• Oversight
• Intelligence

Such a Committee would be formed to investigate the truth about Benghazi from every angle. It would include members who've demonstrated incredible political courage in the Fast and Furious investigation, chaired by the man who was at the tip of that spear:

Chairman: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA)
Members:

• Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
• Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
• Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL)
• Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID)
• Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
• Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)
• Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
• Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
• Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
• Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA)
• Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
• Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
• Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)
• Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
• Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)
• Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

There may be other Republicans worthy of consideration but the aforementioned list consists of those who have proven their mettle. As for Democrats, who cares? They'll be Obama's pawns. They can have whomever they like.

The Benghazi attack / coverup along with Fast and Furious are the Obama administration's two biggest scandals. Both involve dead Americans; one also involves hundreds of dead Mexicans. House Speaker John Boehner fought House Republicans at every turn when they wanted to get to the bottom of Fast and Furious. It was obvious to even the casual observer that Boehner wanted that story to go away.

The main objective of the Democratic Party is to win back the House in 2014. Benghazi is playing out in this election cycle in much the same way that Fast and Furious did in the last one. It could be argued that Republicans lost in 2012 - in large part - because Boehner and other Republican leaders chose not to fight for the truth in the gun-walking scandal. If the Democrats win the House in 2014, it could very well be because Boehner and other Republican leaders chose not to fight for the truth about Benghazi.

Did Hillary Commit Perjury... Twice in the same day?

In two otherwise pathetic performances by Republican congressmen - save for a few exceptions - who laid down like subjects in front of Queen Hillary, there were two exchanges - one during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing and the other during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing - where the Secretary of State may have committed perjury.

First up, perhaps the best performance from any of the members of either committee. Rand Paul (R-KY) didn't just tell Clinton she should have been fired, and would have been had Paul been president during the Benghazi attacks. He also asked her a question she denied knowing the answer to. Her claim of ignorance strains credulity.

Moreover, when someone says she doesn't know something when she does, it's still a lie.

This entire exchange is worth watching, to include Hillary's body language when Paul says he would have fired her, but pay attention beginning at the 2:17 mark. Here is the portion of that excerpt transcribed:

Paul: …Is the United States involved with an procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

Clinton: To Turkey? I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody’s ever raised that with me.

Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons, and what I would like to know is, the annex that was close by – were they involved with procuring, buying, selling weapons, and are these weapons being transferred to other countries? Any countries, Turkey included?

Clinton: Well Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the Annex. I will see what information is available…

Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?

Clinton: I do not know. I have no information on that.

Did you catch her ultimate response? Her answer to the 'yes' or 'no' question about whether the CIA Annex was being used as a hub for weapons trafficking was, 'I don't know'. The Accountability Review Board (ARB) that Clinton herself commissioned to investigate the failures of Benghazi found the State Department most responsible, right?

Shouldn't the question about whether the Annex was being used to traffic weapons have been answered by the ARB? Wasn't it the group's job to investigate the attacks? Wouldn't it only demonstrate further incompetence for the ARB not to make that determination, one way or the other?

That aside, is the American public supposed to believe that more than four months after the attacks, Clinton had no interest in ascertaining the answer to such a question, despite news reports that made the claim? At no point, did she or one of her subordinates seek to find out if there was any validity to those reports? If she did not seek out that information, why didn't she do so?

Another possibility is that Clinton knows full well, the answer to the question. If the answer was 'no', what harm would there be in her answering it that way? If the answer was 'yes' and she knew that, one can conclude that the reason to portray ignorance would be to cover up wrongdoing. Otherwise, why commit perjury?

There is something else to take note of here and it's a common reaction by people who are confronted with uncomfortable truths. An attempt is made to diminish the credibility of the messenger. Hillary's initial reaction to Paul's question is to repeat the word 'Turkey' as if it was a question completely out of left field and foreign to her. By appearing surprised, Paul can be painted as a lone voice with an obscure theory.

Nonetheless, her ultimate answer means we are to believe that she has no idea whether the CIA Annex was involved in weapons trafficking.

If she does know, she committed perjury by saying she didn't.



Later in the day, Clinton appeared in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to testify on the same subject - the Benghazi attacks. Take note beginning at the 5:10 mark. Here is the relevant portion of her response to a series of questions from Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL):

Clinton: With respect to the video, I did not say that it was about the video for Libya. It certainly was for many of the other places where we were watching these disturbances.

Check out the statement about the Benghazi attacks - from Hillary herself - on 9/11 (h/t Terence P. Jeffrey at CNS News). It said, in part:

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any international effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.

Here is a screenshot of the statement (note it says 'Statement on the Attack in Benghazi' at the top):

Have a look at the exchange with Kinzinger. Again, pay attention beginning at the 5:10 mark:

Holder fighting off FOIA request for Fast & Furious documents by refusing to respond to it

After Attorney General Eric Holder was found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not releasing documents required by a lawfully issued subpoena by Congress, the U.S. Attorney responsible for prosecuting his boss on criminal grounds predictably decided not to do so for obvious reasons. That left the civil contempt charge, which served as the impetus for a lawsuit filed by the House Oversight Committee against Holder that is still pending.

These subpoenaed documents are the same ones over which Barack Obama asserted Executive Privilege to prevent from being released.

Concurrent with the civil lawsuit is an effort by a very effective Watchdog group to have the same documents released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and it's causing Holder to react on a second front.

Via Judicial Watch:

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a brief on January 15, 2013, in response to an Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) motion to indefinitely delay consideration of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking access to Operation Fast and Furious records withheld from Congress by President Obama under executive privilege on June 20, 2012 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:12-cv-01510)).

Rather than respond substantively to Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit, the DOJ argued in court that the lawsuit should be subject to a stay of proceedings because it is “ancillary” to a separate lawsuit filed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee against the DOJ. The Court “should let the process of negotiation and accommodation [between the House Committee and the DOJ] run its course, and then decide with the input of the parties whether and how this action may appropriately proceed at that time,” the DOJ argued, effectively abrogating the FOIA. The Obama DOJ even suggested that the Judicial Watch litigation might encourage the Congress to fight harder to get the same documents in separate litigation.

To Judicial Watch's argument, consider an exchange between Issa - in his role as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and Holder on December 8, 2011. In the exchange (audio only), Issa was pressing Holder to admit that if the documents relative to Fast & Furious after March of 2011 are not released, the Attorney General will be found in contempt.

There are two very key points (the second is particularly important) expressed by Issa relative to these documents.

1. Issa explains that Holder must cite a Constitutional exemption for refusing to produce the documents.
2. Even if Holder magically cites an exemption, he is still required to produce a log of the documents.

To this point, Holder has done neither, which leaves Obama's assertion of Executive Privilege the lone justification for the American people not knowing the truth about Fast and Furious.

Of all the exchanges between Issa and Holder, this one may just be the best.

h/t Breitbart

Video: Boehner's first act after being re-elected as Speaker - Crying

Is it me or is this way past being old?

Via The Right Newz:

Video: CNBC Hostess directs Santelli-style rant at Democratic Senator

Perhaps one of the biggest differences between Rick Santelli's 2009 Tea Party rant on CNBC and this rant by CNBC's Maria Bartiromo is that Bartiromo's was directed squarely at a Democratic Senator during a live interview. Other than that, very similar, even right down to the cheers from the floor behind her. The Senator that Bartiromo thoroughly shamed was Ben Cardin (D-MD) and what made it borderline epic is the fact that the typical spin coming out of the mouth of a politician was met with righteous indignation and batted away like a fly by Bartiromo.

Cardin's spin was like oxygen from a bellows directed at Bartiromo's fire.

Even Cardin couldn't refute what was at the heart of her anger, which was essentially, Congress has had more than a year to avoid the proverbial 'fiscal cliff' and it's still not close to a deal with less than a week to go. The only response Cardin could put forth was one that validated Bartiromo's indignation - it's the Republicans' fault.

It'd be nice to see this kind of fire from Republican leadership. It's what voters have been demanding for quite some time. Why Mitt Romney lost is a case in point.


Of course, this will never get old:



h/t The Blaze

Interesting take on Hillary's alleged fall

The American Thinker's Daren Jonescu has an interesting take on whether Hillary Clinton's reported fall and subsequent concussion is legitimate or not.

Hillary in Hiding:

For once, I am inclined to believe Hillary Clinton. The U.S. Secretary of State, suffering from a sick stomach, has reportedly fainted and bumped her head. As a result, her spokespeople have already announced that she will be unable to testify at the Benghazi hearings, although she was not due to appear until December 20, many days after the vaguely reported fainting spell.

Already, the internet is resounding with a chorus of "How convenient!" (See here and here, for example.) Many, upon hearing this news, are assuming that Clinton, who has been hedging for a month on whether to appear at the congressional hearings, has concocted yet another excuse to avoid facing the music on a scandal which, if pursued with integrity, would likely end her political career, to put it mildly.

Read it all. It's not entirely what you might think after those first two paragraphs.

Incidentally, and to Jonescu's point that Hillary should testify anyway, The New York Times reported that her fall occurred "early last week" (presumably Sunday the 9th, Monday the 10th, or Tuesday the 11th), it hadn't been diagnosed until Thursday the 13th and that it was "not severe". This report conflicted with what Foreign Policy reported, that the episode occurred on Saturday, the 15th.

If the concussion was indeed diagnosed on the 13th, that diagnosis took place on the same day that it was reported Hillary would testify on the 20th. Later in the day, on the 13th, reports began to surface that Hillary may not testify on the 20th because the Accountability Review Board (ARB) report may not be completed.

On the 15th, it is learned she will not testify.

On the 16th, it is learned that two other State Department officials will testify in her place and oh, by the way, the ARB report will be done by the 17th.

Hillary's fortuitous fall from her Benghazi Stonewall

The alleged fainting spell and subsequent concussion of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears a bit suspicious when factoring in all of her stonewalling and obfuscation to this point. It all started on September 16th, when U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice - instead of Hillary - appeared on five Sunday talk shows to give demonstrably false information about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Rice said in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams that the reason Hillary 'declined to do it' was because the Secretary of State was too tired after a 'grueling week'.

On November 30th, when Hillary was asked why Rice appeared on those shows instead of her, the Secretary of State responded that she wouldn't answer a "hypothetical" about what could have happened.

No, she really said that (at the :37 mark):



Even MSNBC's resident RINO, Joe Scarborough could see right through this one. Start watching at the 2:40 mark when the Morning Joe Crew airs a snippet of Rice's interview with Williams but pay more attention to Scarborough's reaction afterward. He is convinced that the reason Hillary didn't do those shows was because of a political calculation, not because of fatigue.



Before moving on, time for another illustration of what Scarborough was talking about, via Jim Carrey, who represents Susan Rice in this metaphor:



Back to Hillary...

On October 2nd, the House Oversight Committee sent Hillary a letter asking for answers about why requests for security at the Benghazi consulate were ignored. Her response?

Ignore the letter.

On November 1st, the House Oversight Committee sent Hillary another letter, asking about documents that had come into the possession of the Committee which showed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and officials at the consulate were very concerned about their security on the day of the attack. Her response?

Ignore the letter.

In early November, it was reported that Hillary declined to appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the 15th of that month because she would be in Australia.

Via PJM:

“She was asked to appear at House Foreign Affairs next week, and we have written back to the chairman to say that she’ll be on travel next week,” said department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. She did not answer a question about whether Clinton would be willing to fly back from Australia to address either the Foreign Affairs panel or the Senate and House closed-door intelligence committee hearings getting to the root of the Benghazi scandal.

On December 10th, it was reported that Hillary would be canceling her trip to the Middle East due to a stomach virus. Three days later, it was reported early in the day that she would be testifying in front of the Senate and House foreign relations committee on December 20th. Later in the day, it appeared that Clinton was backing away from testifying because the Accountability Review Board (ARB) had not completed its report and probably wouldn't by the 20th.

Via Foreign Policy:

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said today that the ARB is not complete, might not be complete by Dec. 20, and Clinton has not agreed to testify on Dec. 20.

“The Hill has talked about a planning date on the calendar. That presumes that the ARB is finished,” Nuland said. “That’s dependent on all of the work getting done between now and then… The ARB is continuing to do its work, to my knowledge it has not yet completed its work.”

Clinton has agreed to brief the House and Senate foreign relations committees on how she interprets the ARB report, whenever it surfaces.

In the wake of this equivocating, pressure was no doubt applied to the State Department by committee members. For one thing, they announced that Hillary would testify because the date was on the State Department's calendar. For another thing, committee members insisted that they have access to the ARB report despite Nuland's claims that all Hillary could agree to was to include Congress in her response to the ARB report. None of that includes how frustrated many committee members are by how long Clinton and the State Department have been stonewalling.

Then, on the morning of December 15th, Hillary faints as a consequence of her stomach virus and gets a concussion.

Via Foreign Policy:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won't testify to Congress next week on Benghazi, after fainting and suffering a concussion Saturday and due to her ongoing stomach ailment.

"While suffering from a stomach virus, Secretary Clinton became dehydrated and fainted, sustaining a concussion," Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines said in a statement. "She has been recovering at home and will continue to be monitored regularly by her doctors. At their recommendation, she will continue to work from home next week, staying in regular contact with Department and other officials. She is looking forward to being back in the office soon."

Deputy Secretaries of State Bill Burns and Tom Nides will both testify in Clinton's place, according to the office of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-MA).

Note how suddenly the readiness of the ARB report is no longer an issue. Bill Burns and Tom Nides are about to assume the same position that Susan Rice did on September 16th and isn't it interesting that they'll apparently be doing it whether the ARB report is completed or not.

One day before Clinton's fortuitous fall, Fox News' Chris Stirewalt wrote the following:

Clinton can hardly leave her post before a replacement is confirmed, so her goal is to keep the Benghazi business from damaging her valedictory weeks at Foggy Bottom.

It’s a tricky task, but as Rice learned and Obama has been taught again, Clinton is not someone to be underestimated.

Perhaps, but  a concussion caused by passing out from a stomach virus days before she was set to testify?!

If Scarborough was right about why Hillary didn't appear on those Sunday shows, this latest bit of news is at minimum, very suspicious.

Before sending Rice out to do the talking, Hillary was apparently too tired to do it herself. Now, before sending Burns and Nides out to do the talking, she has a virus that caused her to fall on her head.

One thing should be very, very obvious. Hillary Clinton does not want to talk about Benghazi.

Why?