NSA, DEA, IRS, & Obama Administration lied- time for a Special Prosecutor?

[ONW]

You can cross the IRS "scandal" off the list.


"The documents add another complicated layer to the ongoing (albeit diminished) controversy surrounding the IRS screening of Tea Party groups in 2010 and 2011. They also take additional steam out of the Republican Party's insistence that the tax agency was politically motivated against conservative groups when it considered whether or not to grant tax-exempt, 501(c)(4) status.

Groups with the word "emerge" in the name tend to lean more Democratic. As The New York Times previously reported, three such organizations -- Emerge Nevada, Emerge Maine and Emerge Massachusetts -- all were denied tax-exempt status because the IRS determined that they existed strictly to benefit Democratic candidates.

"Once again it is clear that the Inspector General's report left out critical information that skewed the audit's findings and set the stage for Republicans to make completely baseless accusations in an effort to tarnish the White House," said House Ways and Means Committee ranking member Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) in a prepared statement. "These new documents make it clear the IRS scrutiny of the political activity of 501(c)(4) organizations covered a broad spectrum of political ideology and was not politically motivated.""

 

[WFU71]

When quoting other sources, it's nice to provide a link to the source.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

You can cross the IRS "scandal" off the list.

That "scandal" with the IRS is not the scandal involving them that is referred to in the original post.

 

[ONW]

My bad.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/20/us-usa-tax-liberals-idUSBRE97J0V820130820

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...8a3d52-09d1-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html

 

[ONW]

That "scandal" with the IRS is not the scandal involving them that is referred to in the original post.

I meant the Benghazi, NSA, IRS triangle of current Obama scandals, but I see your point.

 

[Sgt Hulka]

Again, I reiterate, there is nothing to see here and we certainly are not breaking the law...so long as you consider the "law" whatever the executive branch says it is....regardless of real law or the constitution.

Thanks for playing.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-23/nsa-analysts-intentionally-abused-spying-powers-multiple-times.html

NSA Analysts Intentionally Abused Spying Powers Multiple Times

and when you read the "excuses." it sounds like Ryan Braun...we did it, but not that much (that you know) and we feel really bad.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

Meet the ex-FBI official who's about to get a crucial federal judgeship

A representative of the defense company Northrop Grumman, where Caproni currently serves as an executive, said Caproni was not available for interviews...
"Caproni knew that the Bush administration could use or was using the Section 215 provision in the Patriot Act to obtain Americans' phone records on a broad scale, an issue that has recently been documented by the whistleblower material first printed in the Guardian," said Graves, a former deputy assistant attorney general who dealt with Caproni extensively while working on national security issues for the ACLU.

At one meeting in 2007, Graves recalled, "Caproni said she thought civil libertarians were wasting their time complaining about the NSL [national security letter] powers because the government could just obtain all that information and more through a 215 order by the Fisa court or through a grand jury subpoena issued by a single federal prosecutor and because those orders are secret we would never know. When pressed about that, she insisted that going around the limits on the NSL powers by using 215 or grand jury subpoenas was no big deal and a perfectly permissible use of those powers."

Graves said: "That may be technically true, but it also demonstrates her lack of regard for Americans' countervailing interest not to have records about their communications or business transactions swept up in secret by government agencies without any indication that they themselves have done anything wrong."

A 2008 Justice Department inspector general's report into surveillance under the Patriot Act found that Caproni clashed with the Fisa court, a secret court that oversees surveillance for the purposes of foreign intelligence, over the scope of the court's authority.

The heavily redacted report found that in 2006, the Fisa court indicated it would not sign off on an FBI request for business records under section 215 of the Patriot Act – the section used to justify the bulk phone-records database – "because of first amendment concerns." It is extremely rare for the Fisa court to deny the government a surveillance request.

Caproni, the FBI's general counsel at the time, "told the OIG [office of inspector general] that the Fisa court does not have the authority to close an FBI investigation," according to a footnote in the report.

Caproni "believed there was enough information to predicate the investigation", the Justice Department inspector general found. "She said she disagreed with the court and nothing in the court's ruling altered her belief that the investigation was appropriate."

Because of redactions, it is unclear if the FBI investigation in that case continued against the Fisa court's objection.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/fbi-lawyer-surveillance-judge-valerie-caproni

 

[dmcheatw]

you guys mean cops are breaking the law to catch other people who break the law? no way.

 

[Sgt Hulka]

Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011


By Ellen Nakashima, Published: September 7 E-mail the writer

The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.

In addition, the court extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years — and more under special circumstances, according to the documents, which include a recently released 2011 opinion by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, then chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What had not been previously acknowledged is that the court in 2008 imposed an explicit ban — at the government’s request — on those kinds of searches, that officials in 2011 got the court to lift the bar and that the search authority has been used.

Who would have guessed that the Bush Admin was more interested in civil liberties than Obama? Anyway, pay no attention to this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

 

[ONW]

Obama administration had restrictions on NSA reversed in 2011


By Ellen Nakashima, Published: September 7 E-mail the writer

The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases, according to interviews with government officials and recently declassified material.

In addition, the court extended the length of time that the NSA is allowed to retain intercepted U.S. communications from five years to six years — and more under special circumstances, according to the documents, which include a recently released 2011 opinion by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, then chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What had not been previously acknowledged is that the court in 2008 imposed an explicit ban — at the government’s request — on those kinds of searches, that officials in 2011 got the court to lift the bar and that the search authority has been used.

Who would have guessed that the Bush Admin was more interested in civil liberties than Obama? Anyway, pay no attention to this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-had-restrictions-on-nsa-reversed-in-2011/2013/09/07/c26ef658-0fe5-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

We are talking about the FISA court, right? The one John Roberts gets to appoint.

 

[Sgt Hulka]

We are talking about the FISA court, right? The one John Roberts gets to appoint.

I must have missed the part of the article where John Roberts asked that the 2008 ban be reversed and allow the govt to "search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases.."

Oh, that's right, because it is not there...it was the OBAMA administration.

moron

 

[WFFaithful]

I must have missed the part of the article where John Roberts asked that the 2008 ban be reversed and allow the govt to "search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases.."

Oh, that's right, because it is not there...it was the OBAMA administration.

moron

Why would the Roberts appointed court grant that reversal?

 

[Sgt Hulka]

Why would the Roberts appointed court grant that reversal?

Because that is what they do...they are a rubber stamp for what ever the executive branch wants. They have approved something like 98% of all requests.

 

[WFFaithful]

Because that is what they do...they are a rubber stamp for what ever the executive branch wants. They have approved something like 98% of all requests.

You know if they wants to be, if they really wants to be, they can be.

 

[ONW]

Because that is what they do...they are a rubber stamp for what ever the executive branch wants. They have approved something like 98% of all requests.

Who's the moron?

 

[Wrangor]

They are both morons. Admin for requesting it and the court for approving it. This isn't that difficult.

 

[dmcheatw]

Because that is what they do...they are a rubber stamp for what ever the executive branch wants. They have approved something like 98% of all requests.

regular judges (magistrates) do the same thing for warrants for normal people in normal contexts. it may not be 98% of the time, but it's very very high, and the executive official(s) don't have to present evidence to get a warrant, either, despite what you might have been told.

fact.