Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Charles Grassley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles Grassley. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

The Truth About Collusion Is Starting To Come Out And It Looks Bad For The Democrats And Obama Specifically

Trump-Hater Lindsey Graham Makes Shock Admission About Dossier

 Print
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, are seeking an investigation into former FBI Director James Comey for the role he may have played in using the Russian dossier to set up President-elect Donald Trump.
In a letter to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, the senators specifically call for an investigation into a briefing Comey gave Trump in January 2017, days before he took office, during which the then-FBI director told the incoming president about the contents of the unverified dossier, The Washington Times reported.
The briefing was then leaked to the media and first reported by CNN. Buzzfeed quickly followed, posting the dossier in its entirety, which CNN linked to in its coverage.
“There is a question as to whether the FBI included the dossier in the briefing, and possibly leaked that it had done so, in order to provide the media a pretext to report on the dossier,” Graham and Grassley wrote in their letter to Horowitz.
The Graham-Grassley letter also raised the issue of testimony Comey offered in a private interview before the committee being contradicted by information the FBI provided to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the fall of 2016 to gain authority to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

The Western Journal Daily Email

Facebook
 
The testimony apparently involved the importance the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton campaign funded dossier played in the FISA court application.
“Did Director Comey intentionally mislead the committee?” the senators asked the inspector general.
“Did anyone express any concerns about the propriety of presenting unverified, uncorroborated claims from the Steele dossier as the basis for a FISA warrant on an American citizen?” Graham and Grassley also wondered.
The two lawmakers — along with Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., — in a separate letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein last week called for a second special counsel to be established to look into the FBI’s use of the dossier to obtain FISA warrants to surveil Page.

Do you think Comey was involved in a scheme to bring down Trump?

   
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out.
“The reason we want a special counsel is we believe crimes may have been committed,” Graham told Fox News late last week.
The letter also requested Horowitz’s office investigate the FBI’s relationship between the dossier’s author former British spy Christopher Steele and the high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr.
After the FBI discovered Steele was leaking information to the media, the Bureau officially cut ties with the informant; however, Ohr’s wife Nellie worked at Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired Steele. Bruce Ohr reportedly remained a conduit between Steele and the FBI.
RELATED: Developing: GOP Senator Lays Out Conditions to Impeach Trump
“Was anyone in the Justice Department, including senior leadership, aware that Mr. Ohr continued to pass information from Steele and Fusion GPS to the FBI even after Steele was suspended, and terminated, as a source?” the letter asked.
The four senators further noted in their letter to the DOJ the need for a second special counsel due to the inspector general’s office not being able to call key witnesses who do not work within the department.
In an Op-Ed earlier this year, Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York accused the Obama administration of using the levers of government to purposely “entangle the new (Trump) administration in a criminal investigation as soon as it walked in the door of the White House.”
He argued it did so by using the antiquated Logan Act of 1799 as a pretext for the DOJ to launch its investigation into the Trump incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn based on phone conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition.
The Logan Act prevents private citizens from functioning as representatives of the U.S. to foreign governments. It has rarely been invoked and never in relation to transition officials speaking to foreign officials, which is commonplace.
Portions of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations were leaked to media to build the Russia narrative, York argued.
The proof is in the pudding, according to the columnist.
“(W)hen it finally came time to charge Flynn with a crime, did prosecutors, armed with the transcripts of those Flynn-Kislyak conversations, choose to charge him with violating the Logan Act? Of course not,” York wrote. “But for the Obama team, the law had already served its purpose…to entangle the new administration in a criminal investigation as soon as it walked in the door of the White House.”
What do you think? 

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Another IRS Seizure Of Citizens Money Coming Soon!

IRS-Social Security seizure a ticking time bomb

By   /   April 16, 2014  /   27 Comments
ILLEGAL? Questions abound over the Social Security Administration's use of the IRS to withhold tax refunds from children of deceased recipients.
ILLEGAL? Questions abound over the Social Security Administration’s use of the IRS to withhold tax refunds from children of deceased recipients.

By Kenric Ward | Watchdog.org
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Washington Post declared victory Tuesday for exposing the seizure of income-tax refunds to claw back alleged Social Security overpayments.
But the legal issue of garnishing money from the children of deceased parents remains legally contentious, and a senior senator is demanding answers from the agencies involved.
As reported by Watchdog.org and the Post, backtracking Social Security officials announced they will now only pursue overpayment cases less than 10 years old. That timeframe was already set in Internal Revenue Service statutes, so the administration merely acknowledged the law.
Sen. Charles Grassley said the affair is far from over.
“Is it fair and reasonable to pursue debts from the surviving children for payments to the parents?” the Iowa Republican asked. “The statute of limitations language didn’t give permission to collect debts where the debtor is deceased.”
Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent letters to Acting Social Security Commissioner Carolyn Colvin and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lewrequesting answers to more than 30 questions.
Grassley said the Social Security Administration and the IRS, in their zeal to collect cash, acted in ways “possibly beyond what Congress intended.”
“It appears that SSA is not performing due diligence in notifying individuals or allowing them to inspect records of the debt they supposedly owe, which are violations of the law,” Grassley told Colvin.
Other critics of the heavy-handed tax collectors say Social Security benefits could be the first fruits of an inter-generational money grab.
“This opens the possibility for the federal government to attempt to collect federal student loan debts from the children of deceased parents,” said Pamela Mullin, an activist with Student Loan Justice.
Watchdog reported in February that more than $1 trillion in federally backed student loans are outstanding. With compounding interest, there is little to no likelihood of repayment in the recipients’ lifetimes.
“There’s no legal precedent for minor children inheriting the debts of their parents,” Mullin said.
Upholding the IRS-Social Security garnishments program could set a costly new precedent.
Grassley gave Colvin and Lew until April 29 to respond to his legal and procedural questions.
Kenric Ward is a national reporter for Watchdog.org and chief of the Virginia Bureau. Contact him at kenric@watchdogvirginia.org or at (571) 319-9824. @Kenricward

Monday, February 24, 2014

Senators Trying To Get To Bottom Of D'Souza Case--Will They Be Successful?



Tags: dinesh dsouza | indictment | fbi | obama

GOP Senators Press FBI Chief on D'Souza Indictment

Image: GOP Senators Press FBI Chief on D'Souza IndictmentFBI Director James Comey, left, and Dinesh D'Souza
Saturday, 22 Feb 2014 08:00 AM
By Todd Beamon
Share:
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
   Forward Article  |
Four Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have demanded that FBI Director James Comey answer specific questions regarding the "routine review" of campaign filings that led to last month's indictment of conservative commentator and best-selling author Dinesh D'Souza on campaign-finance charges.

The letter, dated Wednesday, was signed by the committee's ranking GOP member, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, along with Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Mike Lee of Utah.

The letter, which was reported by The Weekly Standard and other news organizations, quotes former Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz's recent column in The Wall Street Journal attacking D'Souza's indictment. "I can't help but think that [D'Souza's] politics have something to do with it. ... It smacks of selective prosecution," the letter states.

D'Souza, 52, directed the 2012 film critical of President Barack Obama, "2016: Obama's America." It is a top-grossing documentary, with a take of more than $33 million.

His second documentary film — "America" — is scheduled to be released July 4.

D'Souza was indicted on Jan. 23 on charges of using straw donors around August 2012. He is accused of reimbursing people whom he had directed to contribute $20,000 reportedly to the New York Senate campaign of Republican Wendy Long, a longtime friend.

Long was handily defeated by Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand in last November's election.

His lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, has contended that D'Souza's actions were "at worst" an act of misguided friendship toward the candidate.

D'Souza was charged with one count of making illegal contributions in the names of others, and one count of causing false statements to be made.

Federal law in 2012 limited primary and general election campaign contributions to $2,500 each, for a total of $5,000, from any individual to any one candidate.

D'Souza, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges and remains free on $500,000 bail, vowed earlier this month that he would not be intimidated by the charges.

"I’m going to proceed with my work and my ideas — and the film will be unimpeded by what's going on,” D’Souza told The Daily Caller. 

Dershowitz and other conservative commentators, including several interviewed by Newsmax, have charged that the indictment was a form of retribution for D'Souza's role in the anti-Obama film.

In their letter, the senators cited news reports saying that the D'Souza indictment "began as a result of a 'routine review by the FBI of campaign filings with the [Federal Election Commission] of various candidates after the 2012 election.

"To dispel this sort of public perception that Mr. D'Souza may have been targeted because of his outspoken criticisms of the president, it is important for the FBI to be transparent regarding the precise origin of this investigation," the letter continued.

The senators then pose 12 direct questions to Comey regarding the general scope of the reviews and specifically concerning the D'Souza indictment.

"During your confirmation hearing, you pledged that you would carry the values of transparency and try to spread them as far as you could within the FBI," the senators said before listing their questions. "To explain the details of these routine reviews and provide context to those who may be skeptical of the origins of this investigation, please provide answers to the following questions regarding FBI's regular review of campaign filings."

The questions are:

1. It appears from U.S. Attorney's Office comment that the FBI conducts regular, perhaps random reviews of campaign filings. Is this correct? If so, what methodology does the FBI use to conduct these reviews?

2. Please identify and describe all methods by which a review of campaign filings may be initiated.

3. Please identify all other government entities involved in the FBI's review of campaign filings and describe their involvement.

4. How and why was this particular review initiated?

5. What criteria involved in this particular review led to the suspicion that warranted further inquiry?

6. What are the guidelines under which the FBI conducts its review of campaign filings?

7. Please describe how the FBI's reviews of campaign filings are conducted.

8. How many campaign filings has the FBI reviewed in each year from 2008 to the present?

9. On average, how long does it take to complete a review of a campaign filing?

10. How many agents are assigned, per case, to review campaign filings?

11. On average, how many man hours are spent reviewing campaign filings?

12. When did the FBI begin routinely reviewing campaign filings?

Related Stories:

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.comhttp://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/dinesh-dsouza-indictment-fbi-obama/2014/02/21/id/554099#ixzz2u44NaIp1
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Friday, November 22, 2013

New Senate Rules Will Institute The Tyranny Of The Majority. Dems Will Regret This Move When They Become The Minority, If They Ever Do.

Majority in Senate will end filibusters

Democrats pass change in rules.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats quickly enjoyed the first fruits of a milestone Senate vote making it harder for the Republican minority to block President Barack Obama's nominations: They swiftly ended a GOP filibuster against one of his top judicial selections and prepared to do the same for two others.
Over the longer term, they might regret what they did and how they did it, Republicans and others are warning. When Democrats muscled the changes through yesterday over the opposition of every GOP senator, it helped heighten Congress' already high level of partisan animosity. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., used a process that let Democrats unilaterally weaken the filibuster by simple majority vote, rather than the two-thirds margin usually used for major changes in chamber rules, which would have required GOP support.
"If the majority can change the rules, then there are no rules," said veteran Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has resisted similar changes in the past. "It puts a chill on the entire U.S. Senate."
Such comments suggested a further erosion in the mutual trust the two parties would need to tackle sensitive, large-scale issues like still-massive budget deficits and a tax system overhaul. The tensions also won't help Congress' efforts early next year to avoid another government shutdown and prevent a federal default, twin disputes the two parties struggled to resolve this fall.
And even though yesterday's change left intact the 60 Senate votes needed to filibuster, or delay, legislation, it raised an obvious question: Might a future Senate majority, hitting obstacles advancing a president's agenda, ram through changes weakening filibusters against bills, too?
In control of both the White House and Congress someday, Senate Republicans might be tempted to force a filibuster change to cover legislation and use it, for example, to repeal Obama's health care law.
"I don't think this is a time to be talking about reprisals," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said after the vote. He said later, "The solution to this problem is at the ballot box. We look forward to having a great election in November 2014."
McConnell spoke after the Senate voted 52-48 to allow a simple majority vote to end filibusters, instead of the 60 votes required since 1975. The change affects nominees for top federal agency and judicial appointments but not Supreme Court justices.
Republicans had warned repeatedly that should they win Senate control, they will use the diluted filibuster to win Senate approval for future nominees by GOP presidents that under past standards Democrats might have blocked.
"The silver lining is that there will come a day when the roles are reversed," said Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He warned that when his party wins a Senate majority, they likely will apply the 51-vote filibuster threshold to a Republican president's Supreme Court nominees.
"The tyranny of the majority. That's what it's going to be" at some point in the future, predicted Steve Bell, a former top Senate Republican aide who is now a senior director at the Bipartisan Policy Center, which advocates partisan cooperation.
Democrats said GOP delays had gone too far, blocking nominees not for their qualifications or ideology but for political reasons such as preventing too many Democrats from serving on a court.
Republicans argued that Democrats have acted similarly to block appointments by GOP presidents.
"We understand all the considerations," Reid said of the risks. "But let's be realistic. What could they do more to slow down the country? What could they do more than what they've already done to stop the Senate from legislating?"
"We'd much prefer the risk of up-or-down votes and majority rule than the risk of continued total obstruction," said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democratic leader.
Immediately after the showdown roll call, senators voted to end GOP delays against attorney Patricia Millett, whom Obama wants to fill one of three vacancies at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court has jurisdiction over White House and federal agency actions.

Monday, August 5, 2013

ObamaCrapCare--Not Good Enough For Congress and Its Aids

Congress has become the most elitist body that has ever governed the US.  It routinely exempts itself from legislation, however the latest takes the cake.  They have allowed themselves to be exempt from ObamaCrapCare.  It seems that it was going to cost the staffers too much money and that they might leave government service.  That would be a tragedy, right?  Wrong!

By taking this action, it clearly shows the internal numbers that Congress has been receiving show that ObamaCrapCare is going to be very expensive and will not fulfill it intended goal of lowering costs. Isn't it time that we, the poor slobs who will be subjected to this piece of crap legislation, also get relief?

The unions who fought hard for ObamaCrapCare now want out. Companies, especially those politically connected, around the country have asked for exemptions and in many cases have received them. The only people who are going to be stuck with mess are the small business people who provide most of the jobs.

This latest effort by Congress to exempt themselves is hypocrisy gone wild. These people are supposed to be the "representatives" of those who elected them. It appears as if they do not view themselves in the same light.  They are the elite and the ruling class needs special benefits.  We say hogwash.

Revolutions start when the ruling class provides itself with special benefits that are unavailable for the rest of the country. Will the ObamaCrapCare waiver be the straw that turns our country upside down or are we so meek that we will accept another abuse by Congress?

Conservative Tom



Congress exempts itself from Obamacare, can keep subsidized plans



Members of Congress and their staffs won’t face potentially massive hikes in their health care premiums next year as many had feared because of a clause in President Obama’s health care overhaul — causing at least one Republican senator to ask, literally, “What the flip?”
The federal government plans to issue a ruling saying the government can keep contributing to health care premiums of Congressmen and their staffers, Politico reported.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, put a provision into the original law saying that Congressmen and their aides have to be covered by plans “created” by the law or “offered through an exchange.”
Under the old system, the federal government contributed to about 75 percent of premiums; members and staffers are covered through the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, but it was unclear if the program could subsidize premiums of plans on the exchanges.
Enrollment in the exchanges — marketplaces where consumers can shop for and buy for insurance — is scheduled to begin Oct. 1, and both Democrats and Republicans are planning significant public relations campaigns over the law during Congress’s August recess.


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said Friday that members of Congress and their staffs must enroll in the exchanges, as required by the law.
“It was important for us to get this information before we left for August because October 1 is right around the corner,” she said.
Mrs. Pelosi said staff did tell her it would be a problem.
“But I think the main target of that piece of the legislation was the members of Congress, and the collateral damage was to staff. Now that doubt has been removed,” she said. “Members of Congress, of course, would always been in the exchanges. And now there was a differentiation on staff, if you were leadership staff or if you were personal staff, and that’s what we’re waiting to see, the actual final language, because we haven’t seen that, but that’s what we’re working on now.
Meanwhile, Republicans attacked the announcement, with Sen. David Vitter blasting it as a “behind-closed-doors deal, announced right after Congress is safely away from the crime scene.”
“This is exactly why America rightly hates Washington,” said Mr. Vitter, Louisiana Republican. “Obamacare’s a train wreck, even for Congress. So it gets fixed … FOR CONGRESS ONLY. What the flip about fixing it for America?”