Oversight Committee Concludes IRS' Lois Lerner Waived her Fifth Amendment Rights

Today, the House Oversight Committee passed a resolution affirming that when IRS Tax-Exempt official Lois Lerner made nine assertions of fact back on May 22nd, she necessarily waived her fifth amendment rights, which she subsequently attempted to invoke. Here is a copy of the resolution that was ultimately passed along party lines.

Via Oversight Committee:

On a vote of 22-17, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today approved a resolution determining that IRS official Lois Lerner waived her 5th amendment rights when at a May 22, 2013 hearing she offered testimony and answered questions.

“Today’s vote brings us closer to hearing Ms. Lerner’s important testimony about the targeting of conservatives,” said Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif. “The Committee remains focused on hearing Ms. Lerner’s full and truthful testimony.”

Now that we are a step closer to Lerner having to come back to testify in front of the Oversight Committee, perhaps she can be asked about her decision to sign off on the 501(c)(3) application of Barack Obama's half-brother, Malik. Not only did Lerner approve the application in record time but she also illegally back-dated it 38 months, which is a crime.

That's not all. Evidence suggests that in so doing, Lerner became an accessory to terror funding. 

Here is Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) today, making the case for passage of the aforementioned resolution. As usual, Gowdy shows the adolescents how it's done:



Here is the excerpt from Lerner's testimony on May 22nd, during which Gowdy first called her out for "telling her side of the story" and then invoking her fifth amendment rights. If not for Gowdy's alertness on May 22nd, the resolution that was passed today may never have been drafted:

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.

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: 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.

Must-see Videos: Rep. Trey Gowdy eviscerates ICE Director and DHS Under Secretary for releasing prisoners

When it was learned that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which reports to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), released thousands of illegal alien prisoners and blamed sequestration, it was a source of outrage. That outrage was not lost on Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) who, in his role as a member of the House Judiciary Committee absolutely spanked ICE Director John Morton and DHS Under Secretary for Management, Rafael Borras.

Gowdy is one of the few members of Congress who gives one hope that all is not lost. If only we had this kind of fire from Republican leaders in both Houses.

First up, John Morton...



Next, Rafael Borras...

Ben Affleck: Conflict of Interest at State Department?

It's been all but confirmed that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a premeditated attack by al-Qaeda, which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. As Frank Gaffney points out, the lack of security at the consulate, coupled with the false narrative of the Obama administration / State Department - that a video was the cause of the attack - both warrant further investigation into the extent of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government, which is what Rep. Michele Bachmann called for back in June.

'Argo', the new movie directed by Ben Affleck is getting quite a bit of attention and promotion. It's a film Affleck is extremely proud of making. At a premiere screening of the film in Washington, D.C. on October 10th, Affleck referred to the controversial Deputy Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton - Huma Abedin - as "a really close friend of mine" and went on to say:

“In fact, Huma — the reason why she’s here — is she was instrumental in helping us shoot the State Department. As you know, we shot at the real State Department. We never would have had any of that stuff in our research [otherwise]. ...Huma was enormously helpful, and obviously we invited her and she brought her husband. I look forward to seeing him.”

On October 12th, Affleck appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher and adamantly defended the Obama administration. By extension, he defended the State Department, which is home to his "really close friend" who was "enormously helpful" and "instrumental" in the production of his film. If not for Huma, according to Affleck, there wouldn't have been any access to the real State Department. That could potentially make Affleck biased in favor of the State Department. After all, it is taking great heat over its handling of the Benghazi attack.

It's called conflict of interest.

The Hollywood actor / director actually argued that Barack Obama cannot be expected to know about the security detail at every consulate all over the world.

That's not the point; it smacks of deflection and bias. The point is that Obama administration / State Department policies should have prevented it. When the Regional Security Officer (RSO) testifies that he felt like the State Department was his biggest obstacle after being denied security assets by his Regional Director (RD), we have a procedural problem that is a direct extension of the president's policies. Take a look at what RSO Eric Nordstrom said in sworn testimony when describing his failed attempts to get 12 additional security agents from that RD:

"His response to that was, 'you're asking for the sun, moon, and the stars.' My response to him was... 'Jim, you know what makes it most frustrating about this assignment? It's not the hardships, it's not the gunfire, it's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me.' I added to that by saying, 'for me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.'"

Affleck also accused Republicans of purposely politicizing the attack so soon before the presidential election. Uh, not only did the attack happen so close to the election but there are four dead Americans and testimony from State Department officials that security was either denied or taken away, which left the consulate incredibly vulnerable. That doesn't even take into account the false narrative that the anti-Muhammad video caused the attacks, a false narrative the administration had to withdraw.

Incidentally, that narrative exactly mirrors the one coming out of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group to which Abedin has irrefutable familial connections; her mother is a leader with the Muslim Sisterhood.

Senator John McCain, who has been on the wrong side of the Libya issue ever since it began, issued the most vehement defense of Huma Abedin from the Republican side of the aisle in either House of Congress. His defense of Abedin included this quote:

"…it has been alleged that Huma Abedin, a Muslim American, is part of a nefarious conspiracy to harm the United States by unduly influencing U.S. foreign policy at the Department of State in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes."

At minimum, there appears to be a bureaucratic conspiracy at the Department of State that has had the consequence of benefiting al-Qaeda in Benghazi. U.S. foreign policy was indeed unduly influenced by something or someone before the attack. It's what we call a self-evident truth.

At the October 10th Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) asked Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb (:30 mark) if it was her "sole discretion to deny extra manpower" in Libya. Lamb's response was, 'no'. Adams pressed Lamb for names of those who did... and she got them - Scott Bultrowicz and Eric Boswell.



The obvious question then becomes:

Did Bultrowicz and Boswell have sole discretion to deny extra manpower?

If yes, why did they do it? If no, what are the names of those who did? Darrell Issa and company should keep moving up the ladder. The fact remains that the administration's response to the Benghazi attack had the effect of benefiting all Muslim fundamentalists. Making the claim over and over again that the attacks were the result of the anti-Muhammad video were in sync with the claims of those fundamentalists. The Brotherhood's motives for doing so involved an agenda to criminalize any criticism of Islam. What was the motive of the Obama administration?

Egypt's president Mohamed Mursi, whose wife is also a Sisterhood member and close colleague of Huma Abedin's mother, made that very clear:



The Saudis are still pushing that line to this day. Incidentally, Huma Abedin is connected to a very influential Saudi herself - Abdullah Omar Naseef. For years (1996 - 2008), she served on the board of an institute Naseef founded. For many of those years, she served with Naseef.

Now then, why would U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, White House press secretary Jay Carney, and State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland all push the same narrative (riots caused by video) as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudis?

Also at the October 10th Oversight committee hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy called for the testimony of Ambassador Rice and Carney - under oath - so that they can reveal who told them to blame the attack on a video and because Gowdy "want(s) to know why we were lied to."



One of the reasons why Huma Abedin's familial associations matter is because she can be easily conflicted. National Review's Andrew McCarthy explained that perfectly last August. If Affleck is "a really close friend" of Huma, wouldn't he be easily conflicted as well, especially when it was Huma who gave him access to the State Department as well as protocol guidance that greatly enhanced his film?

How many other people are conflicted as a result of their relationship with Huma Abedin?