web analytics
December 28, 2014 / 6 Tevet, 5775
 
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Eric Holder’

One Chance to Hold the IRS Accountable?

Friday, June 27th, 2014

Though the IRS and its commissioner have been on the hot seat in recent congressional hearings, there is little doubt that the agency and the Obama administration believe they can ride out the storm by stonewalling Republicans asking questions about the scandal and the missing emails that are now at the center of the controversy. But an otherwise obscure legal challenge to the tax-collecting bureaucracy may hold the key to bringing some measure of accountability to the nation’s tax collectors.

As we’ve noted numerous times here, there are still a lot of unanswered questions about how and why the IRS singled out conservative groups for scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. But concern about this blatantly illegal political bias has been only compounded by the revelation that the emails of the woman at the center of the affair—department chief Lois Lerner—were lost in a mysterious computer crash.

It now turns out that not only was the damaged computer hard drive recycled but that the agency also erased its own email servers. As has been pointed out repeatedly by IRS critics, taxpayers and corporations are required by law to preserve all of their communications for seven years in case they might be audited. But the IRS, a government body with nearly unlimited powers to wreck the lives of individuals that come under its scrutiny, doesn’t live by the same laws that they rigorously enforce against ordinary citizens.

But despite the suspicious nature of the missing emails and the fact that the agency cancelled the contract of the IT service provider at the same time that it lost vital information at the heart of this scandal, there seems little that critics can do about it other than to hound IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in hearings. Though his story is merely a sophisticated version of the old “dog ate my homework” excuse, Koskinen hasn’t lost his cool or cracked under the pressure. That’s due to what appears to be a thick hide and his confidence that congressional Democrats will always cover for the administration no matter how outrageous its behavior.

Since Lerner has pled the Fifth Amendment in her attempt to avoid answering questions and Attorney General Eric Holder will never launch a genuine investigation of this affair or appoint a special prosecutor, it doesn’t seem like the angry Republicans can do much but to huff and puff at Koskinen or any other hapless IRS official that attempts to tell the same lame story he’s been trying to sell Congress.

But, as I noted last month, there appears to be one hope, albeit a slim one, for some measure of accountability about the IRS’s unconstitutional behavior: a lawsuit by a small pro-Israel group* that was told by agency employees that its application for non-profit status was being scrutinized because of its opposition to the Obama administration’s foreign policy.

After years of stonewalling the case, the IRS was dealt a staggering legal setback last month when a federal judge ordered that the agency must answer the lawsuit. That response is due today. But the events of the last few weeks in which we have learned of the disappearance of Lerner’s emails makes it all the more interesting since as the defendant in the case, the IRS had the obligation to preserve all records relating to the alleged discrimination against Z Street.

Since Lerner was the official supervising those who were dealing with Z Street during this period, that makes the missing evidence even more crucial. Moreover, as the plaintiffs pursue their case they will have the ability to compel IRS officials to testify as to their practices and produce all records. If they don’t, that will only strengthen Z Street’s case.

Obama Passes the Buck, Dumps Pollard Problem onto AG Eric Holder

Thursday, June 26th, 2014

U.S. President Barack Obama doesn’t want to disappoint an old friend, nor does he want to end his presidency on a sour note with Israel, and he certainly wants to sidestep a political minefield.

What’s a president to do?

Faced with the eternal American dilemma over how to deal with the Jonathan Pollard debacle, it could be that Obama believed he had finally figured out a win-win solution to evade responsibility for the endless nightmare.

Let Eric make the call.

If Attorney-General Eric Holder recommends to let him go for whatever reason, Obama will be hailed as a hero by the Jews, and by the now-countless political and community leaders who have said for years Pollard should be freed. Justice will prevail and Israel will be grateful. Israeli and Jewish gratitude is a precious gift, because neither tends to forget their friends. Or their enemies.

If Holder recommends to keep him in jail for whatever reason, Obama will have someone else to blame.

He’ll also join the list of presidents before him who rejected a request from the State of Israel and ignored the Jews again. Pollard will likely die in prison, and Obama will go down in history as having been the president on whose watch justice was not served – along with all the others. He will be vindicated by the anti-Semites within the U.S. State Department and justice system, and vilified by a host of others. And life will go on.

So that’s the answer he gave his good friend Israeli President Shimon Peres on Wednesday during a visit at the White House. Peres, who just turned 90 and who is ending his own term in office next month, is in Washington on a final state visit in that capacity.

By the way, it was Peres who was Israel’s prime minister when he handed over documents with Pollard’s fingerprints that were used to incriminate the Israeli agent and jail him for life, after being initially charged on a single count of passing classified information to America’s ally, Israel.

On Wednesday, he and Obama – the only two current heads of state to both have won the Nobel Peace Prize – met in the White House to discuss the matter. Peres had promised Pollard’s wife he would make one more try to convince Obama to grant her husband clemency – a presidential privilege used for humanitarian purposes.

Speaking with with uncharacteristic realism to Israeli media in Washington after his meeting with Obama, Peres briefed reporters on his attempt to secure freedom for Pollard, now entering his 29th year of incarceration in a U.S. prison.

But Obama ducked, apparently – and passed the buck to his attorney general.

Speaking with obvious reluctance, Peres told reporters in a briefing following the meeting, “I cannot say that he answered me on the spot. I don’t want to go with more than what he said,” Peres began. “He said the attorney general would [get involved.]

“His answer was, ‘The attorney general, it belongs to him. He will decide,’” Peres continued.

“There is a problem if I am optimistic, if I would say more than what he [actually] said,” Peres continued. “We have to cautious, and not to inflate or exaggerate … I asked specifically to be given the wording of what I could and could not say — and I have used precisely [the wording] that I was told I could say,” he concluded.

But it is very important to realize that the privilege of clemency — moderating the severity of a sentence in an act of mercy or leniency — is one unique to a president. Not an attorney general.

Obama Promises Peres A-G Will ‘Check Into’ Pollard

Thursday, June 26th, 2014

U.S. President Barack Obama assured Israel’s outgoing President Shimon Peres on Wednesday he would ask Attorney-General Eric Holder to “check into” an offer that Peres made regarding the case of former Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard.

Peres’s office submitted his request to the White House prior to arriving for what will be his last official state visit as Israel’s president.

“I made an offer but won’t go into details about it,” he told reporters on Wednesday. However, he did discuss the specifics with members of the Pollard family, he said, before presenting the plan to Obama.

“If I share too many details it will just ruin things,” he said at the briefing. “I cannot say that [the president] responded positively on the spot. I don’t want to add to what he said, which was that the U.S. Attorney-General would decide.”

Pollard is entering his 29th year of incarceration in a North Carolina prison after being convicted in 1985 on a single charge of passing classified information to an allied nation, Israel. The crime usually carries a maximum penalty of up to four years in jail. But although Pollard’s attorneys worked out a plea bargain with the prosecution, during the sentencing a note was passed to the judge. Suddenly Pollard was charged with and convicted of treason without recourse to a new trial. His attorney had no access to the evidence that had apparently led to the new charges, which was locked due to “national security” — and instead Pollard found himself sentenced to life in prison. All attempts at appeal have since failed.

Since Peres was serving as Israel’s prime minister at the time of Pollard’s arrest, and since it was he who submitted the documents to the U.S. with Pollard’s fingerprints that were used to incriminate him, it is Peres who is most likely to persuade Obama now to grant clemency for humanitarian reasons.

He and Obama also share a unique status as being the only two current heads of state in the world who are both Nobel Peace Prize winners.

Pollard’s health has deteriorated significantly over the past several years, and the request by Peres is reportedly to be based on the issues of Pollard’s extremely poor health, the impact on his wife, and the length of his time already served — in short, humanitarian reasons. At age 90, Peres this year retires from politics and made a promise to Pollard’s wife and the people of Israel prior to his departure that he would try to win her husband’s release during his visit to the U.S. He is scheduled to meet again with Obama Thursday.

The Obama Administration’s Attack on the US Financial System

Wednesday, February 5th, 2014

You might frown a little if you heard that the Inspector General of the U.S. Postal Service is worried about how much Americans are paying for check-cashing and payday-lending services.  What dog does he have in this fight?

Well, catch up, because the Obama administration and the leftosphere have the ball rolling on this.  They want Uncle Sam to take over the short-term financial services industry.  (Emphasis probably not needed, but added anyway.)

As luck would have it, yesterday a new government report detailed an innovation that would preserve one of the largest job creators in the country, save billions of dollars specifically for the poor, and develop the very ladders of opportunity that Obama has championed as of late. What’s more, this could apparently be accomplished without Congressional action, but merely through existing executive prerogatives.

What’s the policy? Letting the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) offer basic banking services to customers, like savings accounts, debit cards and even simple loans. The idea has been kicked around policy circles for years, but now it has a crucial new adherent: the USPS Inspector General, who endorsed the initiative in a comprehensive white paper.

“As luck would have it.”  Right.  The Obama administration has been preparing the groundwork for this for some time now.  How?  By knee-capping the private short-term financial services industry.  More on that below.

A maligned industry anyway; who cares?

Those who have been fortunate or disciplined or well-taught enough to do all their financial business, throughout their adult years, with solid, reputable banking institutions probably take a dim view of payday lenders.  I know I do.  I’ve never had occasion to borrow from one.  Once, nearly 30 years ago, I had to cash a check on an emergency basis at a retail check-cashing place.  This was back when one’s bank or credit union wasn’t networked with everyone else on the planet, and my credit union’s ATM system was down hard, on a Saturday afternoon.  It was horrible:  I had to write a check for $50 to walk out with $40.  Never again, I swore.

But not all short-term financial services are about offering high-priced options to people with bad credit or sob stories.  For a lot of people, there is little point in maintaining a bank account, on which they would have to pay maintenance and check-writing fees anyway, because they wouldn’t keep the minimum balances that eliminate those fees.  There are multiple reasons why people sometimes make use of short-term financial services, whether they are cashing checks, loading up Visa check-cards, buying money orders, paying utility bills, or borrowing for short periods of time.

In her op-ed on this matter (see link above), Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) of course describes such people as “underserved” by banks.  That is a misleading characterization; most of the people who use short-term financial services could use banks, if it made sense to them to handle their money the way people who use banks do.  Quite a few of them are young people, who in ten years will have bank accounts and credit histories.

But Warren’s narrative is how the case will be made that the U.S. federal government should become their banker.

The quiet attack by executive fiat: “Operation Choke Point”

The Obama administration hasn’t bothered to make a companion case that the private financial services industry has been performing badly, or that it needs reforming or reining in.  Such a case could undoubtedly be made concerning at least some companies.  New regulations could be proposed in Congress; the successful regulatory practices adopted by states could be studied.

But instead, starting about a year ago, the administration just began attacking the industry by cutting off its access to capital.  The method has been to threaten FDIC-regulated institutions – big banks – warning them to cut off certain customers or face regulatory reprisals.

The customers?  “Third-party payment processors” who handle the direct transactions with short-term financial services customers; i.e., owners of those store-front chains, or online lenders, that offer payday lending and other services.

The administration’s effort was dubbed Operation Choke Point, and unless you read the Breitbart article (link above) in early January, you’ve probably never heard of it.

Warren sounds in her op-ed for all the world as if she has just stumbled on the wonderful idea of making the Post Office a financial-services hub.  But she’s connected directly to Operation Choke Point through the FDIC, where the department involved is headed by a long-time Warren associate, Mark Pearce:

At the FDIC, the official in charge of ‘Operation Choke Point’ is Mark Pearce, a highly partisan operative with ties to Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the intellectual force behind the Dodd-Frank legislation whose nomination to head up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was withdrawn because Ms. Warren did not have enough political support in the Senate at the time to obtain confirmation.

Pearce was named director of the FDIC’s newly created Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection in 2010. According to the agency’s press release, “The FDIC Board of Directors approved the creation of the DCP last August to help carry out its responsibilities under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.”

The Justice Department is in on Choke Point as well.  Thirty-one members of Congress, alarmed to realize what was happening, wrote to Eric Holder and FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg in August 2013 demanding to be briefed on the operation, which, the congressmen pointed out, was being conducted “outside [the agencies’] congressional mandate.”  The administration was not forthcoming (emphasis added):

In response to that letter, a Department of Justice official met with Congressional staff members at the Capitol in late September, but refused to answer any questions about the project. Sources with knowledge of the meeting tell Breitbart News that the official also told Congressional staffers that the Department of Justice was under no obligation to tell Congress anything about the program. The official also refused to state her name, which was discovered only after she left her business card on the table as she left the event.

Breitbart’s Michael Patrick Leahy quotes industry experts (emphasis added):

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News on Monday, Richard Manning, Director of Communications for Americans for Limited Government, criticized the Obama administration’s efforts to destroy the payday loan industry. “Their intent,” Manning said, “is to create a government sanctioned means of driving private industry out of the business of providing payday loans. They’ve never shown a great willingness to be restrained by free market principles over the use of government sanctions.”

Peter Barden of the Online Lenders Association agrees that the Obama administration’s influence on bank regulators has overstepped its legal authority. ”It should also send a troubling message to banks that at any point regulators can force them to stop processing legal transactions simply because they don’t like a particular merchant or industry,” he said.

What’s clear is that this is a coordinated campaign to curtail short-term financial services – make them less available from private industry, thus putting hurt on younger, poorer people – and then arrange for Uncle Sam to step into the “breach” artificially created.

Weaponizing government

Thomas J. Basile, writing a must-read article for Forbes on 31 January, refers to this kind of coordinated campaign as the “weaponization of government.”

Basile makes the following point about the members of Congress watching Obama during the SOTU address:

Everyone in the House Chamber knew something that the American people have yet to fully grasp and Republicans have yet to demonstrate an ability to combat – that their government has grown so large, so complex, so involved in virtually every aspect of their lives, that it is now being used as a weapon by a small segment of the ruling political class.

He’s right.  Congress hasn’t figured out what to do about these under-the-radar executive excesses.  And to date, the Obama administration’s targets have been mainly the kinds of smaller, less-organized businesses that don’t make national news.  The victims are principally poorer people: the wage workers who lose jobs in the industries that come under attack, or their customers.  Who’s going to mount a big moral crusade to defend payday lenders, after all?  And how many middle-class householders, with checking accounts and credit cards, would man the barricades to make sure such services remain available to day laborers, job-hoppers, etc?

Spreading the cancer of risk through the whole financial system

The Obama administration has counted on most of us not noticing its campaign to monopolize financial services for the poor.  But we should be concerned: the Post Office plan will not only increase the federal government’s power over the finances of millions of Americans, but will increase everyone’s liability for bad credit risks.

Right now, there is a big buffer – interest rates, fees, intermediaries – between the universe of solvent account holders and borrowers, and the other people who, by contrast, handle their finances poorly (or at least, at a given moment, present a higher risk).  When J.P. Morgan, one of the big financial houses targeted by Operation Choke Point, makes capital available to the payday and online lending industry, the capital comes from the bank accounts and debt balances of the responsible.  But the risk is assumed by J.P. Morgan and the payday lenders and check-cashers.  That risk is what the fees and higher interest rates are about.

Everyone can thus participate in the same financial system, but the responsible account holders are protected.  Should Obama’s Post Office proposal be implemented directly, however, the U.S. taxpayer will be fully exposed to the higher-risk pool of financial customers.  If the Obama administration encases the Post Office proposal somehow in an intermediate financial arrangement, it will be the banks involved, and their account- and share-holders, who assume the risk.  Obama is likely to extort companies representing almost all of the financial assets in America into a scheme like this.

One way or another, it’s going to be you assuming the risk.  Obama’s Post Office plan is a proposal to remove the firewall that keeps the interests on both sides of it in balance.  Without the existence of the payday lending industry – the firewall – you wouldn’t voluntarily participate in a financial system that exposed you to the higher-risk customers.  So Obama is going to force you to participate.

It’s clear from Mark Pearce’s connections, described in a brief passage in the Breitbart piece, that this is, in fact, the underlying idea (emphasis added):

As the FDIC press release announcing his appointment acknowledges, “[Mark] Pearce spent more than ten years with the Center for Responsible Lending in Durham, North Carolina, one of the nation’s leading sources of expertise in consumer protection in financial services.”

The Center for Responsible Lending’s operations have been very controversial. Financial journalist Lawrence Meyers, for instance, wrote in 2009 that “The Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) has a history of distorting the truth concerning payday loans (PDLs), used by 6 million Americans to meet short-term credit needs. However, the CRL is merely a front for the Self-Help Foundation, a credit union in direct competition with payday lenders, whose founders were principal purveyors of destructive subprime mortgages.”

The architect of Operation Choke Point has his background in the activist movement that forced unsound lending on the mortgage industry.  This is the point at which to issue a reminder: it doesn’t matter what the purpose of this kind of campaign is.  It may seem well-meaning, if muddle-headed, but that doesn’t matter.  The result will inevitably be to corrupt the market integrity and safeguards of the industry involved.  The sheer moral hazard created is big enough to drive a truck through.

Thomas Basile at Forbes focuses largely on Operation Choke Point, but he highlights the fact that Obama is “weaponizing” government against other economic targets as well (emphasis added):

Documents inadvertently leaked by the Department of the Treasury from a briefing on Operation Choke Point clearly show that the Administration is looking to significantly impact legal businesses because it believes the public needs to be protected from industries and customers deemed more likely to engage in criminal activity.  According to the Administration, those industries interestingly include ammunition sales, gun sales, home-based charities, gambling, pharmaceutical sales, short-term loans, raffles, Amway and Mary Kay-style sales businesses, and credit repair services.

And so much of this, to the gratification of the Obama administration, can be “accomplished through existing executive prerogatives.”

The Republic’s emergency alarm has been sounding for some time now.  We can’t afford to keep ignoring it.

Justice Dept: Looking into Civil Rights Charges Against Zimmerman

Tuesday, July 16th, 2013

On Monday, July 15, the U.S. Justice Department issued a statement confirming that it and two other federal agencies were investigating whether or not to bring federal civil rights claims against George Zimmerman for the shooting death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin in Florida last year.

Zimmerman was found not guilty in a criminal trial which ended on Saturday, July 13.

In addition to the Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida, are evaluating evidence from the criminal state trial, as well as the evidence gathered in a federal investigation.

“Experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction, and whether federal prosecution is appropriate in accordance with the Department’s policy governing successive federal prosecution following a state trial.”

The criminal trial ended on Saturday, July 12, with a finding by the Sanford, Florida jury that George Zimmerman was not guilty of second degree murder when he shot Trayvon Martin with a 9 mm handgun on February 26, 2012.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has gathered more than 800,000 names on an online petition asking U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to file civil rights charges against Zimmerman.

Ben Crump, the lawyer who represented Martin’s divorced parents, called on the Justice department to bring civil rights charges against Zimmerman, whom Crump claimed killed Martin because of his race.

In order for the government to succeed on civil rights charges against Zimmerman, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman, who is white and Hispanic, shot Martin because he was black.

Martin’s family has already received a confidential settlement from the homeowners’ association in the gated community where the shooting took place, the Retreat at Twin Lakes.  The family is considering bringing a civil suit against Zimmerman.

 

Boston Bomber Blasé, Pleads Not Guilty, Blows Kiss to Ladies

Thursday, July 11th, 2013

Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving of the alleged Boston Bombing Brothers, was in federal district court in Boston on Wednesday, July 10.  Tsarnaev was there to respond to the 30-count indictment charging him, among other things, with use of weapons of mass destruction that resulted in death.

Three people died as the result of the April 15 bombings: 8 year old Martin Richard; 29 year old Krystle Marie Campbell; and 23 year old Lingzi Lu, and 280 were injured, many grievously.  In addition, a security officer from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sean Collier, was killed by a gunshot to the head, fired at close range, by one of the brothers at the beginning of their attempted escape.

The courtroom was packed with the legal teams, members of the press, and about 30 victims of the bombings.  Several dozen additional members of the public packed the courtroom and two overflow rooms.

In addition to a phalanx of MIT security officers lined up outside the courtroom in a show of support for their slain colleague, and the victims of the bombings, there were also those in the crowd who claimed Tsarnaev was innocent.

“I see zero evidence to say he actually did this,” Lacey Buckley, 23, of Washington state told the Boston Herald. “There is no DNA; there are no fingerprints. They got nothing.”

About a half dozen supporters, all young women, wore T-shirts that read “Free the Lion” and “Dzhokhar is innocent.”

The 19 year old defendant was dressed in an orange prison jumpsuit, with a black t-shirt underneath.  His hair was long and appeared unkempt, according to reports. One arm was either bandaged or in a cast, and there were visible wounds: some on his face and at least one on his throat, where it is believed he had been shot.

He sat between his two lawyers, Judy Clarke and Miriam Conrad.  Clarke rubbed his shoulder during the hearing.  Several former team members of his wrestling team from the Cambridge Rindge and Latin High School were present at the arraignment.

“Not guilty” was the plea Tsarnaev uttered in what was described as a thick Russian accent, in response to the 30 charges. The arraignment took less than ten minutes.

The trial, on the other hand, is expected to take at least four months.  William Weinreb, the prosecutor, said that between 80 – 100 witnesses will be called.

The “not guilty” pleas were not a big surprise to the legal teams, but what certainly seemed to be admissions, scrawled in his own blood on the inside of the boat in which Tsarnaev hid before he was captured will be addressed during the trial.  Those statements, according to the indictment, included: ”

  • The U.S. Government is killing our innocent civilians.
  • Can’t stand to see such evil go unpunished.
  • We Muslims are one body, you hurt one you hurt us all.
  • Now I don’t like killing innocent people it is forbidden in Islam but due to said [unintelligible] it is allowed.
  • Stop killing our innocent people and we will stop.

Most media accounts of the hearing report that Tsarnaev appeared either bored with or exhausted by the proceeding, but buried in a Boston Globe account was a surprise.  It said he only became fully alert when he saw

two women sitting in the courtroom, one of whom was weeping while the other held a small child, during the seven minute hearing. As he was being escorted out of the courtroom with cuffs on his hands and feet, Tsarnaev blew a kiss towards the women.

Some reporters with the Globe speculated that the women are Tsarnaev’s sisters.  The smiles and the blown kiss towards the two women were the only indications of emotion from Tsarnaev.  He never looked at any of the victims, nor have there been any reports that he has expressed remorse.

The most emotional statement of the day came from the MIT Police chief John DiFava, who called Tsarnaev a “punk” who “showed no remorse” and said he hopes the prosecution will seek the death penalty if Tsarnaev is found guilty.

Seventeen of the 30 counts with which Tsarnaev has been charged are crimes for which the death penalty is a possible punishment.  It is up to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to decide whether the death penalty will be sought.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/boston-bomber-blase-pleads-not-guilty-blows-kiss-to-ladies/2013/07/11/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: