The IRS Is Not Off the Hook

wezel - Copy

Acting IRS commissioner Danny Werfel, whose surname, quite appropriately, means “whirl” in German (my first thought was that it meant weasel) has engaged in an awful lot of whirling for the Obama administration recently.  As much as Werfel and whiteAfrican-American-who-identifies-as-black Barack Obama would like the IRS scandal to disappear, it’s not going anywhere, thanks to our representatives in Congress.

On June 24, 2013, IRS representatives released to reporters documents that they implied were proof that the IRS targeted progressives as well as Tea Party and other conservative groups.  Werfel held a conference call with reliably complicit members of the media in order to whirl (spin) for the administration.

As would be expected, the mainstream media embraced the false implication and ran with it, eager to help the Obama administration get out from under a billowing cloud of scandal.  It was typical Journolist-style whirling, but the truth would inevitably come out: [emphasis added to quotes]

A November 2010 version of the list obtained by National Review Online, however, suggests that while the list did contain the word “progressive,” screeners were in fact instructed to treat “progressive” groups differently from “tea party” groups. Whereas screeners were merely alerted that a designation of 501(c)(3) status “may not be appropriate” for applications containing the word ”progressive” – 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from conducting any political activities – they were told to send those of tea-party groups off [to] IRS higher-ups for further scrutiny. 

That means the applications of progressive groups could be approved on the spot by line agents, while those of tea-party groups could not. Furthermore, the November 2010 list noted that tea-party cases were “currently being coordinated with EOT,” which stands for Exempt Organizations Technical, a group of tax lawyers in Washington, D.C. Those of progressive groups were not.

In other words, unlike the progressive groups, the conservative groups had to be cleared by a group of lawyers in Washington, D.C. 

The EOT is not to be confused with “Group 7822“, which was merely a group within the IRS itself, in  Cincinnati.  However, that IRS group was not the only one targeting conservatives–there were 12 groups, all across the country.  There was also the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division in Washington, D.C., which also targeted conservative applications.

In the meantime, however, a plethora of headlines falsely exonerating the IRS served well to leave a false impression in the minds of “low information” members of the public.  A sample of some of those headlines:

CNN: “IRS targeting included liberal groups

New York Times: “Documents Show Liberals in I.R.S. Dragnet

USA Today: “IRS: Other ‘inappropriate’ screening of groups done”

Yahoo!: “IRS chief: Inappropriate screening was broad

Salon: “How the media outrageously blew the IRS scandal: A full accounting. Almost everything ‘reported’ about the big Obama scandal was wrong, and no one has been held to account

Case closed!  Nothing to see here, folks.  Move on.

These Saul Alinsky acolytes well know that

perception is reality. 

Continued on next page:

77 responses to “The IRS Is Not Off the Hook

  1. This one is a doozy. It’s “comprehensive” to say the least. I kept saving and saving links, and this is the result. I’ll try to cover the hearing tomorrow, if it’s on CSPAN. Page four of my post contains a list of a dozen scandals/issues associated with this CORRUPT IRS. The IRS needs to be dissolved. Now. Defund it NOW. Just think how they continue to PRETEND that paying our taxes is “voluntary”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_taxation And just WAIT for Obamacare!

    • Will.i.am Wilkins:

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/william-wilkins-irs-chief-counsel-and-loyal-democrat_740006.html

      But who is William Wilkins? According to the 2009 announcement of his appointment to the IRS, Wilkins was a registered lobbyist with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr since 1988. At WilmerHale (the firm’s new name after 2003), he was a part of the Tax Practice Group, where he practiced a wide range of tax law services, including “counseling nonprofit organizations, business entities, and investment funds on tax compliance, business transactions, and government investigations.” Before his lobbying career, Wilkins was staff counsel for the Democratic side of the Senate Finance committee, from 1981 to 1988…

      link has a video of Issa

      • “… And in an interesting twist, Wilkins appears to have led the defense team of former Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright and the United Church of Christ in Chicago back in 2008. The UCC was under investigation by the IRS at the time for being violation of its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. The Wall Street Journal reports that Wilkins apparently did the legal work for Wright and UCC pro bono.

        There’s your direct link to Barry, who was involved in these allegations of political activity by Wright in favor of Barry, who was a senator at the time. How kind of Wilkins to allegedly do the work pro bono. Maybe he got paid in some other way. Ya think? It’s all in the “family”.

  2. We’ll see what happens in the hearing. I’ll try to cover some of it. Hearing starts in 10 minutes.

  3. I cannot find the hearing on CSPAN, even though it’s on their schedule to start at 11 ET. Currently, there’s STILL a program about Mandela that was supposed to be on at 10 ET. One wonders if they are playing games under orders from the WH. Oh, political correctness demands that they not cut away from a tribute to Mandela. How hard is it to keep the people talking on and on? I checked TV and can’t find the hearing, either. Does anyone know an alternative for how to find coverage? Radio or TV or Internet? I see on their schedule that Barry’s going to speak at 11:25 ET. Wanna bet that the Mandela thing will end for him?

    • This is really appalling. This is the hearing in which, according to FOX News, Issa will bring out evidence to support that the WH was involved in the conservative targeting. And I can’t find it covered live ANYWHERE. Ok. After a LOT of searching, I found the hearing here: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/hclive03

      The House .gov website had a WRONG time for the hearing and the link on their page wouldn’t work. What a surprise! Then, when I searched at the ustream site, it didn’t turn it up under “IRS” but did under House oversight. (I was correct about Barry. The Mandela thing ended just in time for CSPAN to begin covering BARRY!) So all this is OBVIOUSLY games to prevent citizens from seeing the IRS hearing.

      They’re giving their opening statements–the witnesses. Carter Hull is speaking now. I probably missed others. He’s naming names of people (lawyers) who were at meetings he attended in 2011. Issa begins questions:

      Hofacre couldn’t close Tea Party cases because she was waiting for guidance from Hull. He says he was waiting on the go ahead from “chief counsel”. Hull says he had recommendations to approve or deny some applications, but he was told all needed “additional info”, even when he recommended approving the applications. People in DC told him to get more info. He has 48 years of experience and he recommended that all applications should be treated as individuals and not as a big group (Tea Party, etc.).

      The “multi-tiered” process designed by Lois Lerner was “unusual” per Hull. Hofacre and Hull both asked if they know of anyone with “political motives” against the Tea Party groups? Both say no. Hull knows nothing about Lerner’s personal or political motives. Hofacre ONLY worked on “Tea Party groups” in 2010. 298 and over 400 now. In Hull’s 48 years of service, was there any single valid reason to lump these groups together and delay their applications? He can’t answer and has never seen it before.

  4. Cummings is questioning now. But not asking questions, only blathering and making a speech. He’s “protecting” Barry by stating there’s “no evidence” that the WH was involved. He asks Hofacre if she’s aware of any political bias by employees in Cincinnati–she said no. She was asked if she was aware of any political motives–she said no. Nobody from the WH gave her any instructions. Cummings says 16 employees, every single person interviewed, says the same thing. (Well, what a surprise! We know what happens to people who defy Barry.) Hofacre has no personal knowledge of the WH digging through people’s tax returns. (Big whoop! Who would expect them to let a lower-level employee know what they’re up to? As if. Imho, a lack of evidence doesn’t mean something did NOT happen.)

  5. Issa says that even though they’ve been told it didn’t lead to Washington, now we see that it leads to Washington and he never said to the POtuS. The FACTS undeniably lead to Lerner in Washington and the lawyers there.

    Turner is questioning now. He points out that asking Hofacre and Hull whether they have personal knowledge of whether or not Barry had lunch yesterday is equivalent to what Cummings is doing. Cummings already knew the answers to his questions and they have been brought out before.

    Rep. Turner, of Ohio, points out that we now KNOW DEFINITIVELY under oath that this WAS NOT TRUE–the spin that it was only rogue employees in Cincinnati and that it DID get directed from DC. Had they stopped the investigation earlier, they wouldn’t have proved the LIE that DC had no involvement.

    Hofacre was offended by the lie and Hull says he didn’t think he had any right to say anything about that LIE (wasn’t his place). Have either of them been contacted by DOJ or FBI? Hofacre says both have contacted her. Hull says DOJ did. (Yeah, but WHAT was the content of that contact, imho? Pressure to STFU?)

    Hull says it wasn’t part of his duties to complain about what they were doing, which was unprecedented in 48 years of his experience. He would make his recommendations and it would go to a reviewer. It was very rare for it to be overturned, but it did happen unusually and often in these cases.

  6. Now Connolly, like Cummings, is making a speech. Saying Issa was wrong. The facts don’t back up the allegations Issa made in the press. “Words mean something” and “we have to be careful.” Says that progressives were targeted, too. (Lie.) Connolly is attacking Issa personally. Issa says he looks forward to seeing EVIDENCE that progressives were treated as were conservatives and Tea Party groups. Issa says Tea Party groups ARE enemies of the president based upon his violations of the Constitution, and Barry made it clear many times how he felt about the Tea Party–that they were his political enemies. Connolly says the evidence shows that IG George “cherry picked evidence” to fit Issa’s allegations. He will be called in the next panel of witnesses. Now they’re taking a 5-minute recess to stop something that’s going on in the chamber. I didn’t catch what; some noise in the audience, I think. The argument between Connolly and Issa was getting heated and personal. Connolly is citing what he claims is evidence that progressives were treated the same. (Too many details and he talks too fast.) He says he’s putting it into evidence, whatever it is. It’s a press release, NOT EVIDENCE. Issa says he looks forward to seeing the underlying EVIDENCE but will enter the press release (which is NOT evidence) into the record.

  7. Mica of Florida speaks. He’s disappointed that Cummings and his side of the aisle continue to try to close down discovery of evidence. Cummings interrupts to say it’s not true. Mica refers to Cummings’s statements that the case is solved and that they attack Issa habitually. Trying to discredit the process first and then worked on Chairman Issa and now they’re moving on to discredit IG George, which is offensive. They’ve been methodical and careful in their investigation. Hull is the first guy from DC they’ve called or interviewed. He asks Hofacre when she began getting Tea Party cases–April 2010. All the cases she got were Tea Party or conservatives. She was on the “project” from the beginning and ONLY was given conservative cases. She was in contact with Hull in DC. She waited for his directions on how to proceed. Did she hear from the applicants? She would get calls when their applications stalled at Hull’s desk. Hull contacted Lerner for advice and counsel? He gave his recommendations to his “reviewer” and then Miss Kindell would send them to the political appointees (lawyers). She worked for Lerner. (They would get stalled there, apparently.) Correction: Shulman was another DC person. It’s not going to be closed down–this investigation. They’re only just beginning. When Hull never got approval from above, the applications would stall. Hofacre transferred out of the project at her own request (implication being that she was disgusted).

  8. Lynch talks about IG George, who said Tea Party, patriot, and conservative groups were targeted. He also mentioned “enhanced scrutiny of groups that were critical of the way the government is being run.” He thinks it’s “unfortunate” that allegations were made against the WH, but “those facts are not in evidence YET.” (That’s something, coming from a Democrat!)

    He is concerned that it’s a given that people who exercised a core right (to criticize the government) were being TARGETED for their criticism of how the government is run. He’s asking why these people with this viewpoint were being selected for additional review. Hofacre says somebody else screened them out and the parameter was Tea Party. (They make no sense.) Why were they being screened out? She says because the group of screeners decided they should be singled out. (Again, confusing. Deliberate?) Lynch says it’s “disgraceful” that partisan bickering is keeping them from getting to the bottom of this: People critical of the government were being targeted by the IRS and it’s disgraceful, whether or not they were targeted as conservatives or progressives. Issa applauds him for his sense. Cummings now pretends he agrees, too, imho.

  9. Duncan of TN: Hofacre tells him these cases were handled differently, based upon her 14 years experience. She had 40-60 cases when she transferred out. How common was it for someone in DC to tell her to hold up applications? She said is WASN’T common BEFORE THIS. Her frustration was that she HAD TO SIT ON THE CASES and wait for instructions from DC that never came. 298 Tea Party, 3 “progressive”, and ZERO “occupy”. All these cases are STILL pending. Duncan says none of these (alleged) progressive groups ever complained to Congress about the holdups, but the Tea Party complaints initiated the investigation. What was Hofacre’s reaction to Lerner’s press conference that conservatives were targeted and they were being blamed as rogue employees. Hofacre said it was like a “nuclear strike” that they were being blamed when it was DC doing it.

  10. Issa appreciates that Hofacre and Hull are not political people and thanks them for being there. The people in Cincinnati did what they COULD do but were stymied by DC, and Hull did what he could do but had to wait on higher ups to proceed.

    Speier speaks now. Isn’t it true that Hofacre’s job was to see to it that groups could not primarily be engaged in politics? She says yes. Their job was to ensure it was 51% social welfare. Speier says there was a big increase in applications. Some other agents sent Hofacre applications that weren’t in the scope of Tea Party but she was supposed to send them back to “general development”. She was instructed by management to work only Tea Party and the BOLO list and send others back to “inventory”. How many did she send back? She can’t say. Speier shows a powerpoint slide. One slide says look for progressive. It’s from a training presentation/document. Hofacre doesn’t remember if she was at that session. Is it logical for her to assume someone else was looking at progressive groups? She doesn’t know and never heard this from anyone else. Speier wants to know what’s under the redactions in the slide. Issa agrees. He says the term “progressive” is not AUTOMATICALLY liberal, as Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. Issa has asked before that if ANY progressives were held for three years or asked abusive questions, he wants to hear from them, because it will get them out from under the “arcane” system that prevents them from seeing the redactions.

  11. Jordan now: Hull in 48 years of good reviews from supervisors is an expert on this topic. He’s very knowledgeable. He’s done the training sessions, including Lois Lerner being there. He was assigned the Tea Party “test cases”. They were taken from him in 8/2011 and given to Hillary Goehausen (sp?), who had been at the IRS for only 4 MONTHS and cases were taken from an expert and given to her. The “test cases.” They were removed from Hull AFTER he made his recommendations about how to deal with them. Hull said one should be approved and one disapproved. Then they gave them to Goehausen AFTER Hull met with the lawyers in DC and gave his recommendations. The real harassment was NEVER getting an answer. Even if denied, then there’s an appeal, but they didn’t DENY the cases. They simply held them to keep the process stalled. He asks Hofacre, who is a veteran and was at the IRS for 14 years: How did she feel when Lerner blamed her. She said “a nuclear strike” against her. Another person had said like being “thrown under the bus,” and Hofacre agrees with that. Do you think the public has been purposely misled. She says, “yes, I believe so.” Previously she said, “exactly.” He mentions that Jay Carney and others in DC were PURPOSEFULLY misleading people and making false allegations. She agrees with regard to Lerner.

  12. Cartwright: Thanks the witnesses for being there and for their service. Says Hull stated before that the processing was subject to substantial delays because he made his recommendations and he wasn’t given any more info to proceed. He was told only that they need to get more info. Hofacre was waiting for direction from Hull. She’s not saying Hull deliberately delayed the applications. Hull says he never intentionally stalled the work. (Because the cases went higher up and then sat there.) Cartwright says there was a “miscommunication” between Cincinnati and the people above. Something to do with “development letters”. Cartwright blames these people, who were Republicans, he says, and they weren’t called to testify. Did anybody tell Hull to stall his work. No. (But it was stalled above, so what’s his point? He had to wait and wait and wait.) An unnamed attorney in DC says nobody ever instructed him to stall or delay. He says this lawyer was told to work fast.

  13. Chaffetz now: Thanks the witnesses. Hofacre asked to speak about the accuracy of what Miller testified to. True or not true about rogue agents: She says it implies that she’s one of them. She was following directions from Joseph Herr (?), then Steve Owen (?). What Miller said is NOT TRUE. When Carney blamed “line persons” is that accurate? She knows that any reference to rogue agents is “incorrect”. It was like “nuclear fallout”. She and her family were “hounded” by the press. Why? She doesn’t know why they (Miller, Lerner, Carney) said what they said or did what they did. There was NOTHING she could do about the lies being told. Chaffetz says she’s heroic instead of to blame. When a person has senior people in DC trying to discredit one employee’s service it’s horribly wrong. He says if they did what Cummings wants (they’d stop investigating). When you have the spokesperson for the president lying, how dare anyone say we should stop investigating? It’s WRONG what they have done. He’s tired of this pattern of them lying and telling people to “just move on.” It’s happened on Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc. When Cummings went on TV and said it should be stopped, it was WRONG. Cummings interrupts. Chaffetz goes on. These are not just “talking points”, he says. (Cummings brushed them off as just talking points, and yet his peeps are the ones who say “words matter.”) Cummings allowed to speak. He claims he wants every single transcript and redacted document. He claims what he said was that when it came to the issue of whether the president or WH to blame: There’s no evidence. (Need I say YET?) Chaffetz says part of the reason it’s risen to this level is that you have the WH spokesperson and the former commissioner blaming Hofacre FALSELY. DELIBERATELY. And that’s why Chaffetz believes the WH and the potus ARE involved.

    Issa demurs, says they haven’t reached that conclusion. (YET!)

  14. Maloney now: Would it be easier if no exemptions be given to any group that engages in political activity? Obviously, both agree that their jobs would be easier. She will make such a bill. (Right. I have a life-sized image of Move On being stripped of their tax exempt status and all the rest of Soros’s groups. What they want is freedom for liberals and hogties for conservatives.) She bloviates about the “myth” that the Obama campaign was somehow involved in directing this targeting. She claims depositions all said no connections. (Did they interview the right people or anyone who would have the guts tell the truth, all things considered? These people work for the government after all, and Barry runs the government.) She quotes Rubio, criticizing him for saying that Obama and his people “muscle” opponents and “intimidate” them. She asks them if either was intimidated or contacted by the Obama campaign. Both say they weren’t contacted by the campaign.

  15. Had to take a lunch break. Missed some.

    Desjarlais: Hull talked to someone; he complained to someone about questions asking where donor money came from, when that’s out of line. Hofacre and Hull won’t comment on whether or not it would be better if the IRS or Barry just would come out and tell what’s going on, what happened, who did what.

    Duckworth: Thanks Hull for his service in Vietnam and Hofacre for her service. The office of the counsel sometimes reviews cases, right? Hull says yes. In this case, two Tea Party cases were reviewed by them. Hull agrees. Duckworth says the woman of four months IRS service, who took over the cases from Hull (Goehausen?) , identified herself as a Republican. (Of course, if she’s a Demoncrat plant, that’s what Alinsky 101 would require.) That woman says the laws are “murky” and those are the cases to go to the chief counsel. Duckworth asks Hull if he agrees and he says he’s not aware of those particular murky cases. Does Hull know of any other cases that were approved by him that were sent to the chief counsel? He says he believes cases go there if the IRS has to defend denials (so why did cases approved by Hull get sent there? Duckworth didn’t ask because she probably doesn’t want to know the answer. imho, talk about cherry picking! The Democrats cherry pick all the testimony.) Does Hull have any reason to believe having the counsel to oversee these cases was political? Of course, he says no. What else would he say? How would he KNOW another’s motivations? Duckworth refers to a “chain of confusion.” (Sounds like another talking point. Watch for that one in the news.)

    • Miri, you are amazing. We owe you so much for your dedication and hard work.

      A world a gratitude for you. Many thanks!

      Yea, Tammy, not only doesn’t she want to know (because she knows), she doesn’t want it on the record.

      • TY. This story at GP summarizes the important points (according to GP. I have my own important points.)

        • Here’s a link to the letters Goehausen and Hull sent to Tea Partiers in NM: http://media.aclj.org/pdf/irs-letter-from-washington-dc-office-unredacted.pdf

          Hull said that ordinarily he would make up his own questions for additional information, according to the application. It was unclear from his testimony whether or not he made up these questions. Also unclear whether Hilary Goehausen made them up. I think Issa knows or suspects who did, especially with regard to letters that asked groups to reveal donors. We’ll probably have to wait to hear more about that, as he goes up the food chain. I hope Goehausen is on their radar.

          This story has another name for us: Gary Muthert. He’s the guy who initially began selecting the Tea Party cases, back in March 2010 (lead up to 2010 campaign/election in which Barry was shellacked by the Tea Party), but he was directed to find some “cases” by his boss but FOR somebody in DC, who wanted them. (Seems there ought to be records of THOSE communications.)

          • http://www.fox19.com/story/22573013/fox19-exclusive-17-more-irs-workers-requested-for-interviews More names, and I believe these have been interviewed already, because one of the DemoncRATS referred to how 16 more workers who were interviewed said they saw no political bias:

            “On June 4th, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee requested the IRS make available these eight additional employees for interviews:

            Hilary Goehausen
            Carter Hull
            Ronald Shoemaker
            Judith Kindell

            With these four connected to Cincinnati:

            Ron Bell
            Stephen Seok
            Donna Elliot-Moore
            Steven Bowling

            They also stated that nine more interviews may be necessary with the following people:

            Mike Seto
            Steve Grodnitzky
            Cindy Thomas
            David Fish
            Justin Lowe
            Don Spellman
            Nancy Marks
            Sarah Hall Ingram
            William Wilkins”

  16. Gowdy: Talks about Lerner’s planted question and the evolution of the defense. The second ploy was the narrative, furthered by Carney, that this was “rogue agents”. So he and the WH were obviously in on the ploy–he advanced the narrative instead of just saying “I don’t know.” Then there were Gowdy’s Democrat colleagues who said the matter is closed. Now the new iteration is that “at least the WH isn’t involved, as if that’s the new standard of propriety”–that the WH didn’t “know”. Now the meme is that the IRS is too poorly managed to be capable of concocting such a huge scheme (sound familiar, “birthers”? I wonder if Gowdy is aware that the obots say the same thing about Barry’s bogus BC?). Now the excuse is that they targeted ALL groups, so they’re not guilty of discrimination. Now he is seeing Inspector General George attacked. What’s been said about George is “reprehensible” as is Lois Lerner sitting where those witnesses sit, people who put on uniforms and defended the country, so Lerner could invoke her Fifth amendment rights but ONLY AFTER she blamed those two witnesses! To have her besmirch people who have the courage to testify when she doesn’t is reprehensible. (Paraphrasing.) Hull has been in the IRS as long as Gowdy has been alive, so he’s an expert. Both the witnesses are experts. There’s nothing novel about political activity. What’s NOVEL about determining political activity? Hull says each case is looked at and he’s done it many, many times. Each case is decided individually. There’s nothing new about making the determination today. So Gowdy is “vexed” by the “complexity” that the Democrats talk about. So what’s NEW? Why did they have to have “test cases” and have DC involved in what’s a simple determination? (I paraphrased and probably forgot quotes, so I’m not trying to plagiarize. Was transcribing as fast as I could as I went along.)

  17. Norton now: She says “political” is the most “pregnant word” in the language and it’s hard to determine 51%. She’s talking about the cuts to the IRS and says it’s “retaliation” against the IRS for “targeting”. She says she doesn’t see any “rogue agents”. (Well, she ought to ask Barry’s peeps where they are because HIS PEEPS are the ones calling them that.) She also doesn’t see “targeting.” (‘Cause she doesn’t want to.) Now she talks about social welfare and the statute. (Does she apply this to Soros’s groups? Bet not.) Bloviating about Citizens United decision. She asks if the opportunity for spending unlimited amounts of money allowed a surge of people asking for exempt status. (She makes no sense. Hull is confused.) He says he’s sure there would be. (Makes him sound partisan for the first time because he would not answer such types of questions when asked by Republicans. This was a purely political question.) They’re taking a break.

  18. Desantis: He’s struck by refusal of all higher ups to take responsibility: Miller, Lerner, Carney as potus press person. All blame others or say it didn’t happen on their watch. Bottom line the refusal has harmed the groups by denying them from participation. Lerner lied and she knew it. Took no responsibility. Tried to “cloak” the illicit activities by telling them to use the words “advocacy groups” instead of “Tea Party”. She needs to answer for her behavior and needs to testify, since they determined she waived her rights. Lerner is the “rogue agent” in his opinion.

    Issa is making something clear: when he referred to Cummings, he thinks they protest too much. Ordinarily they work well together, when not sparring over politics. He’s been offended by Cummings trying to defend the WH when he’s not attacking them. He used a metaphor earlier where he compared Issa to a child putting his hand in a cookie jar and he did NOT intend to refer to Cummings as a “boy”. (This is so ridiculous that he says the press took Issa’s use of the word “little boy” as offensive against Cummings. Figures. Everything is about RACE to the media and of course they will jump on anything they can use as a distraction from the ISSUES in this hearing.)

  19. Davis: Says that Werfel testified that progressives received treatment “similar to” what Tea Party groups got. Committee on Ways and Means got this information. Some of the progressive groups were denied after 3 years and this happened during the time period George reviewed. He says George objected to the release of this information. (Maybe because it’s not true?) He asks Hofacre if she’s aware of any progressive groups or these cases? She says no. Did she know they were being treated in a similar manner as Tea Party groups? She says no. He asks Hull if he knows who in DC technical unit were assigned the progressive applications. He says no. Does he know how these groups were screened or reviewed? No. He says Levin says the search for the progressive groups is included in the screener training slide show and they were told to look for names with “progressive” AND “Tea Party” and “patriot” and “9/12 project”. He says it “appears” that conservatives weren’t treated differently. Does Hull agree that it’s important to see how ALL groups were handled? He says he can’t comment on that. Davis says the IG report didn’t tell the whole story with regard to political advocacy groups.

  20. Meehan: Wants to put cases in context of how they were normally handled. Hofacre’s job was to make decisions on applications. Right? Yes. Before Tea Party issue, she made decisions about characteristics numerous times, right? Yes. She worked all kinds of cases. Once she made conclusions, what happened then? She provided summary, used the laws, made the conclusion, recommended conclusion to manager, and he then did or didn’t sign off on the case. If “mandatory review”, if the manager designated so, it went to further review (assuming that). In many cases previously, she gave approvals and that was that. Previously, who designed the questions for further information? That was HER JOB, based on the case. Nobody else made the decisions on questions to ask later–generally that was correct.

    In Hull’s two cases, he wrote a letter asking for more information. It didn’t have more than a page or page and a half of questions, depending upon the case.

    Did Hofacre get any more questions to ask from DC? No. In the beginning, Hull was overseen by a manager, who looked at the Tea Party groups and later Hull made the determinations himself. (So we still don’t know, so far as I know, who DID make up the onerous questions.)

    Previously, a case would be sent back to Cincinnatii and he made recommendations to Hofacre. When did it get decided he had to send it higher up instead of back to her? When he finally learned what was appropriate (from above) then he continued on as before. (I know. Confusing. I didn’t understand.)

  21. Tierney: How could things be improved? The two witnesses say they can’t answer that. (He was fishing for them to say more money and more manpower, because he mentioned both.)

    This panel is dismissed. Issa thanks them. Says they’ve moved them to the next level of investigation. Cummings thanks them. He says one of the most painful things he heard was that Hofacre had threats to herself and her family. He says they will help her any way they can. In recess until next panel (with IG George) comes in.

    • I’m wondering if Issa is holding back and is just trying to get them on the record. Its dragging out. Like everything else.

      • I wondered that, too. There is so much out there, potentially, that I can’t believe they don’t have already–like Lerner’s emails. This story talks about one email in which she outlined that the Tea Party and other like groups had to go through her onerous two-stage review. So where’s that email?

  22. George is now making an opening statement to clarify his report:

    His report included IRS used ‘inappropriate” criteria to identify cases for review based upon their names instead of law; cases referred for political activity were delayed; and unnecessary questions were asked.

    Lerner said at press conference that “they” used names to decide who to target and that was wrong. She said they were apologizing for inappropriately targeting conservatives. She said this before the audit was completed. He says it’s assumed that his report concluded that IRS targeted conservatives. He says their audit never labeled groups as conservatives or liberal.

    That conclusion reported in the media came from LERNER’S press conference admissions.

    Report focuses on Tea Party, patriot, and 9/12 because IRS gave them a document at the beginning of their audit that said these were the terms they USED to target for political cases. They focused the audit on the BOLO entries because the IRS told him that these were the criteria they used to select targeted cases! The scope of the audit included the process they used. Their understanding was that the OTHER BOLO entries were NOT used for the “specialized review” and they continue to try to determine whether that was true or not. New documents listing “progressive” but noting that progressive are NOT considered Tea Parties were provided only LAST WEEK and weren’t provided during their audit. He’s disturbed that these were not provided to them at the outset. To follow up about progressive and occupy being in the additional BOLOs, they did more looking and they don’t have full info on the use of these criteria. 3 cases have the word progressive in the name and 4 use progress. None of the 298 selected for review have “occupy” in the name. During the year of their audit, IRS staff at multiple levels concurred that Tea Party and 9/12 were the criteria used to select potential “political cases”. (My guess is that the reason he wasn’t given those other BOLOs before now is that they didn’t EXIST before now. How hard to create? See LFCOLB for Barry, e.g.)

    There is information they cannot provide to the public, by law. He provided it to Werfel and asked him to find out whether they were in use. Werfel has since restricted the use of such lists. (I hope his statement is online sometime. I can’t get the gist of it all.)

    Cummings’s letter said George failed to disclose that they found “no evidence” of political motivation. George says he told Cartwright that he found “no evidence” that employees did so “during the course of our audit.” So he’s saying Cummings mis-wrote. Something about redactions. None of the information was withheld from Congress. IRS lawyers decided on redactions, since then the IRS allowed ONE item to be unredacted (let’s guess it was about progressives, but not the explanation of who “progressives” are). He said Lerner’s statements confirm the findings in their report. IRS consistently agreed that the CONSERVATIVE names WERE the criteria used during the two years he looked at political targeting. (In other words, the IRS agreed and agrees that they DID target conservatives.)

  23. Issa asking about how they interpret the law with regard to redactions. It’s frustrating that they can’t give the victims information about the crime against them and that the investigators and Congress can’t, either. Redactions are made under the law to keep Congresspersons (who are unethical) from data mining for political reasons (which makes sense). Issa asks, isn’t it true that the each body of Congress determines how the redaction rules are interpreted. Lawyer answers for him: The heads of the committees make the decision and can get unredacted info, and can decide whether or not to redact or reveal the information, maybe in closed sessions. Issa understands the Senate shares information with the ranking members, when they get redacted info, including staff. Issa is getting at how “6103” works. What can be shared with Cummings? Currently, in open session, they can’t reveal it. Sometimes not in closed session. George’s need to err on the side of caution: Will he be protected by “speech and debate” if he releases the info? Removal from position and possible criminal prosecution if he breaks the law. (So now we understand: Cummings is criticizing George for not releasing or allowing to be released, info about progressives, but earlier Issa made the point that if the progressives would come forward, then the info could be released from “privacy” restrictions.)

  24. Cummings now: Werfel told them that career people in the IRS said it’s appropriate for the IRS to share info about “progressives” with the committee. Werfel said they were going to produce an unredacted document about progressive groups that “we felt” were similar to how Tea Party and other conservatives were grouped. Werfel reached out to George and there was a disagreement over whether or not it was 6103 protected. George says that’s true. He was contacted by counsel on his staff and there was a concern that career IRS officials indicated that this was 6103 protected, then after all this came into the public, they SUDDENLY changed their position without providing George with a legal justification. He’s going to err on the side of protecting sensitive info and not on some “willy nilly” decision by (I’m going to say political) people who suddenly decided (I’m going to say for political reasons) to release the info. (I’m going to say for political reasons, again. It becomes obvious that I should have known about and watched Werfel’s testimony yesterday!) So they’re arguing over whether or not George has the right to intervene in the decision. Cummings cuts him off. He claims there are progressive, occupy, and other liberal groups but George is trying to intervene to prevent the revelation. (I say: Where are all these groups that were allegedly targeted? Who’s stopping them from talking? You know if they exist, they would come forward. But it’s all smoke and mirrors.) George says that they only JUST learned that (allegedly, imho) progressive was used as a criterion. (I don’t believe for one minute that it was. I think they made this up as they went along. How hard is it to forge slides or emails or other “documents”?)

  25. Mica: This all started with the conservative groups complaining about being stalled and targeted. George agrees that was the genesis of the investigation. George conducted an AUDIT and not an investigation. IRS provided the list of the targeted groups. He didn’t make the list up himself. (So why weren’t there progressives on THAT list, IF they were targeted? Because they weren’t!) Ms. Hofacre said all her cases were Tea Party and she had to wait for guidance from DC. George’s lawyer says YES, that’s true. Implications have been made that George tried to block info about progressives being treated this way, too. Was there any indication? The lawyer (Kutz) says they looked at the BOLOs given to them BY THE IRS and there was no progressive stuff on it. Lerner confirmed in her press conference that the charges that the IRS targeted conservatives ARE TRUE. (Duh. Why else would she say it in a press conference?) It’s important that George’s investigation is not yet complete and they’re working with FBI and DOJ. Mica points out that they found today that there’s a direct link to Washington and Lerner’s office, and including a political appointee lawyer in the chief counsel’s office. (That’s “reverend” Wright’s lawyer Wilkins) George does NOT think this investigation should be closed down. He directed his staff to start a review of whether or not it’s true that progressive groups were targeted, too. They have concluded so far that the investigation goes up to the chief counsel’s office and into DC.

  26. Connolly: Asks if he sees himself as a non-partisan person and George says yes. Connolly alleges that Issa suggested that George only look at Tea Party targeting and George says THAT’S NOT TRUE. He says the person who said that to the media MISSPOKE. He did NOT meet with Issa to limit the scope of his investigation. There was NO MEETING with Issa prior to the audit report being issued. George was unaware of any names among the 298 groups other than Tea Party and other conservative groups. He subsequently was told that progressive groups were included.

    (Connolly sounds like Rachel Jeantel. He’s very condescending to IG George. Gee, this is so racist of him.)

    George was told that a “smoking gun” email existed that proved the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups. They looked through 5000+ emails and they did not have the wherewithal to go through so many emails–he instructed them to use the facilities they have to review them. IRS told them there was an email that elaborated on the BOLO list and they were trying to find out WHO DEVELOPED the inappropriate criteria.

  27. Jordan: Two “terms” were given to the IRS that Werfel et al THINK might indicate progressive targeting and they don’t know how many entities would be included. WHAT can George tell them about this? George doesn’t know if this information about progressives was withheld intentionally or what. (BLACK OPS to set them up?) Suddenly this appears out of nowhere. George is concerned that there MAY BE additional information that they don’t know and WEREN’T GIVEN by the IRS during their audit. Representative Jordan states that whatever progressive groups existed in the group, they were FEW and all got approved. NONE of the conservative groups got approved.

  28. Walberg: Lerner changed the BOLO in 7/2011 from “Tea Party” to “political advocacy”. One test case was “tea party”. The lawyer says that Lerner recognized the problem and tried to “fix” it by not using Tea Party, 9/12, and patriot. (But no matter what you call them, it’s the content–who was in the group–that matters.) Why were the cases taken from Hull and given to a 4-month employee? This woman testified she had NO EXPERIENCE with those types of cases. Is it odd to them that the “test cases” would be transferred to her? They say it contributed to the delays, but George says they might make such “haphazard” decisions because of resources and manpower. (DemoncRAT talking points!) George repeats that his AUDIT found no political motivation but an audit is NOT an investigation looking for political motivation.

    Desjarlais: Has he ever been in a case like this? No, basically. It’s more challenging because people are trying to misinterpret the findings of career employees who have uncovered billions of dollars that the IRS has misspent and also exposed wrong-headed (my word) policy decisions. He’s a political employee and expects the “heat” and the career people shouldn’t have to deal with it. Dejarlais brings up the Benghazi talking points and the similarity to the “rogue agents” talking point and how the People are sick of hearing this stuff. George says when the law prevents him from speaking and providing information, (assume he means it’s frustrating). Hofacre was waiting for Hull who was waiting for higher ups. Is that consistent with their audit? Yes. The audit didn’t interview anybody in the chief counsel’s office. Are there such plans? George says they’re working with DOJ and FBI and they can’t say.

  29. Cartwright: He brings up that he asked about BOLOs before and George says there was only the one about Tea Party groups. Cartwright is reading from other stuff in which George said there were no other BOLOs for political review. (Cartwright is being snide, too.) The IRS gave George the BOLOs. As recently as JUST LAST WEEK the IRS was STILL giving them information. Were there BOLOs about progressive or liberal groups? When did George first find out? The night before he testified before the Senate Finance Committee, he says. Before he testified to this committee on May 22, 2013. The BOLO group name was about “occupy” but they didn’t know how they were used and hadn’t yet looked into it (iirc, he said something like that in the testimony). The charge of his audit did not include how those BOLOs were utilized. And his investigation is not yet complete.

  30. Gowdy: George considers his job to be one of the most important for an inspector general in the government. Gowdy talks about how they try to discredit George by saying he was Republican appointed. Asks for his reaction when his integrity is attacked. George was founder of the Howard U college Democrats. He’s a Democrat. He calls it as he sees it and has never let personal politics affect decisions. George does not prosecute people or convene grand juries. That’s not his job.

  31. Norton: What was the charge of his audit. “Inconsistent treatment of applications”. She says George said he didn’t know about the handling of progressive groups. Her question goes to the methodology he was using. He used words like “targeting” and she says he needed to look at the “entire universe” to decide who was kicked out or included. If his charge was to look for inconsistent treatment, wouldn’t he have to look at all groups possible? His lawyer answers: They weren’t labeling anyone. She says he was focused on how Tea Party groups were treated. They say they were focused on the 298 cases on the targeted list. She says why didn’t they find the treatment of other groups? (Is she dense? They already told her that the IRS provided the list of the targeted groups!) George says they didn’t go line by line to characterize groups. Occupy groups were on a “watch list”; they were not on the TARGETED LIST provided to them by the IRS, which had been selected out by their use of “tea party” and other conservative names. She says she’s not saying he’s dishonest or partisan, but sounds like she’s saying he’s too incompetent to know how to do his job (what an arrogant ass).

  32. Meadows: Apologizes to them because they are the messengers and they’re having “red herrings” thrown at them. Even though there may have been two different BOLOs, they do know that 100% of the TEA PARTY groups were singled out and delayed for YEARS. There were 5 different types of BOLOs. Tea Party was “emerging issues” BOLO. Those on the other lists were NOT treated the same as the Tea Party groups. They said not exactly 100% were delayed. Meadows says only a few, if any, were approved after delays. April 2010 Lerner could have known about the “sensitive case” reports. Why did the IRS refers to these as “Tea Party cases”? If they were PREDOMINANTLY progressive or occupy groups, then they would have referred to them as a group as “progressive cases”. So his point is that the reason the IRS had a shortcut name to refer to them as Tea Party is because most of them WERE conservative groups. Were those conservative groups treated differently than progressives? They don’t know because they didn’t look. The 298 on the list given to them by the IRS WERE delayed, all of them (and most were conservatives). Trying to pin down that Lerner knew in April 2010 about the targeting.

  33. There were 3 targeted groups with names that included the word “progressive” and none with “occupy”. Issa wants to know how many of the 300 who waited as many as 500 days were NOT conservatives? Why were groups sectioned out? George says he requested that his staff look to see how the other groups were treated, but it will take time because they’re also working with DOJ and FBI on the current investigation. Cummings wants to know how long it will be before George can give them information on this. He says a month, maybe.

    Tierney: Quibbling over emails. George says the email that they were told about that was a “smoking gun” may have been destroyed. Who knows whether or not it will surface? Tierney says the report says the groups were “pulled” because they didn’t know how to handle them, according to the emails. Tierney’s making the point that George didn’t put in his report that 5000 plus emails didn’t show deliberate targeting. (Well, duh. I’m glad George mentioned that they have no idea whether or not the email was destroyed. With THIS administration, who would think that’s beyond the realm of possibility? Look at what else is just MISSING from archives.)

  34. Desantis: Was anything left out of the audit? George says some stuff is tangential and some stuff, in hindsight, might seem important. There’s always disagreement and that’s why there are numerous iterations. Nothing changes their conclusion that the IRS acted inappropriately.

    Jordan: George shared with IRS and the Treasury that his audit was going to find that they inappropriately targeted Tea Partiers, etc. And yet he didn’t share that, in the middle of a political campaign, with the committee, which is the group that ASKED FOR THE INFO. He says this proves that George is not political because if he had told the committee then, it would have affected the campaign and George would have been slammed. Jordan would have loved to have this info in May 2012 but George didn’t give this info to the committee. Politics was not involved, because it would have been “dynamite” for him to release this during the campaign, before his audit was done. (My question: why did he share it with Barry’s administration?)

    Davis: Were the staffers with whom he met to begin his audit Democrats or Republicans? George says he misspoke. Two of his staffers met with majority staff. So there were no Democrat staff there? No. Any concerns raised about lack of Democrats? Nobody raised them to him. Neither George nor Kutz were there. He was responding to staff enquiry and initiated his audit. Issa says the chair requested the audit formally. Issa said if the Democrats wanted to be involved in protecting Tea Party groups, they’re welcome because on the other side (the Senate) they were interested in TARGETING Tea Party groups (as seen in the numerous letters sent to the IRS by Democrats asking them to target Tea Partiers). Talking about WH involvement: He found nothing of the kind according to his report. Correct? George says correct, as of the time of that audit. Davis asks if that suggests he found differently since then. George won’t say because it’s an ongoing investigation. Has anything been found as of this moment? George says not as of this moment.

  35. Cummings says he has questions about George and will reserve judgment about him, and that’s his job. Issa now: He has 5617 emails that came up based on KEYWORD searches. Lerner denied stuff and took the Fifth. She’s not listed as someone they did a search on. Why not? They say it was a “limited search”. Issa says he HOPES they have preserved these records (her emails), especially for people who took the Fifth. ALL of her official email and any email addresses that she (like others) may have taken out to use as aliases to evade detection. He wants them to look into that. George says FBI and DOJ utilize different methods and he can’t confirm or deny an investigation of such. McCarthy (whoever he is) says they don’t characterize the targeted groups as liberal or conservative. They provided the lists and if Congress wants to delineate, they can. Cummings and Issa will try to do it. George has been a federal employee for 25 years, Kutz for 23 years, McCarthy for 13 years. McCarthy served under a Democrat chairman. For the other two, do they routinely tell people their politics and do they ask others what their politics are? George has no idea of the politics of his 800-person staff. Same for Kutz. (It occurs to me that even if IRS destroyed emails, Issa can ask the NSA for them!)

    Lynch: IRS office of chief counsel provides exempt organization units advice on how to process applications, periodically. Is it unusual, atypical, or a break from ordinary procedure? Lynch says the decision to consult is consistent with their usual practice. “An extra pair of eyes,” to avoid the “hazards of litigation.” In their timeline, George’s people have information about a meeting with the chief counsel. Has the investigation shown that conferring with the chief counsel was done to delay? It wasn’t part of their audit to look for intent. Management overall was the CAUSE of the delays. They didn’t interview anyone at the chief counsel.

  36. McHenry: Says millions of Americans now live in FEAR of their government and that’s the heart of this and what’s FRIGHTENING and DISTURBING about this. (TY!!!!) Some want to believe these cases were shipped to DC because they were hard and complex. But Hull says cases were taken from him and given to someone with no experience. The idea that complexity drove it is NOT the case; it was the politics that mattered, which makes people more fearful. Did George find anything COUNTER to what he just said? NO. The IRS must have the trust of the people. This is a voluntary compliance system and it can undermine the nation if we don’t trust that agency. (Well, we DON’T TRUST THEM.) Hofacre said she accidentally sent the BOLO to Washington personnel. They didn’t hear that. If she accidentally sent the list to DC leadership, shouldn’t they have known earlier? They don’t have evidence from their audit that Lerner knew before 2011 (but that doesn’t mean she didn’t know).

    Issa: The letter of the law on 501(c)4’s MAJORITY of activity must be “social welfare”. Did they find that they were using this standard or were they looking for nuances? The lawyer says using names and policy issues to determine eligibility is wrong.

    Jordan: Does it concern him that DOJ decided NOT to prosecute cases where wrongdoing happened? George says no. (HUH? I might have missed the gist of this.)

    Speier: They got an email revealing that George tasked someone to search IRS emails, looking for an email directing staff to TARGET Tea Party or other political groups. They were looking for an email that the IRS said existed. A list of employees in question and keywords were provided and emails were selected for review. Yes. Cummings wrote and asked for the search terms. They got them last night. Only four terms: tea, patriot, 9/12, c-4. She says it seems skewed. Why didn’t he search for term “progressive”? He was told there was a SPECIFIC EMAIL that mentioned these terms and this would be the “smoking gun”. (She’s an idiot. He’s looking for that specific email, but she wants him to look for progressive, too.) They were looking in a LIMITED search for a specific email that IRS said EXISTED but couldn’t find and they were trying to find that email. Speier is alleging that because they didn’t use keywords for “progressive”, that proves their bias.

    Issa: If they had searched the broader group and found that somebody was targeting people for their politics, it would disprove what the Democrats have been saying. They claim there was no targeting. The search was NOT about targeting groups, it was looking for political intent and that would fly in the face of what Democrats have been saying. That there was none. (Regardless of who was being targeted.)

    The IRS SUPPLIED THE KEYWORDS AND THE TARGET LIST. (Duh.) Speier says the law says groups’ work must be primarily for “social welfare” but the IRS on its own decided that means 51% (which is interesting, because one can believe that they made this determination when the progressives started to use that status for politics–see SOROS).

    Issa says the IRS targeting began with NUMBER ONE of the Tea Party applications. Not any RUSH of applications. They began targeting Tea Party BEFORE there were even a dozen applications, (so this rush is a red herring). They do not intend to go anywhere other than where the facts lead. They’re at the point of Lerner and the IRS counsel, (not at the WH YET).

    Kutz: the IRS gave them the list of keywords and determinations; they’re the ones who asserted that the entire population of BOLOs used for targeting is the one with only the conservative names. They didn’t change the story for over a year (but they do now) AND Lerner apologized to conservatives and nobody else. (Convenient, huh?)

    Maloney: Says the training manual told employees to look for Democrat, progressive, donkey, liberal, conservative, etc. She says it’s clear in the manual that they were trained to look for any political stuff. Did George see this? George says they received that document LAST TUESDAY. It raises concerns about what other documents were withheld. (I would say it raises concerns about the legitimacy of the “document” and whether or not it was used or even existed before last Tuesday! Hofacre had no familiarity with it, iirc.) George says they could look at it and amend the audit if necessary. He instructed his people to conduct another audit about how these other BOLOs may have been utilized but it has to wait until the other investigations are over, so there’s no conflict. (She’s snide, too. Suggests he look at the training manual–it says “progressive real big.” Smart ass.) She says she supported George even though he’s a Republican. (He’s NOT a Republican!)

    She says George’s audit tried to smear and blame someone by excluding a whole swath of the political establishment. Lying that he’s not looking at both sides. (AGAIN, the IRS GAVE THEM THE CRITERIA THEY USED AND THE KEYWORDS AND THEY APOLOGIZED FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR TO CONSERVATIVES! If they targeted progressives, too, then why didn’t Lerner apologize to them?) George responds: They received allegations from Congress and the media about a particular activity that was occurring and they were charged to look into HOW these groups were treated. Never once did he say they would limit their review to only these groups. She says he did. Once they find that the IRS is engaged in any inappropriate behavior, they alert them so they can take corrective action. The audit will alert them to be careful and do better and other groups will benefit, too. Groups that waited three years, no matter their politics, should not have had to wait three years. It was GROSS MISMANAGEMENT. Speier says George’s audit was “gross mismanagement”. Issa told her he won’t give her more time to make an attack on the witness and she can put her request in writing.

  37. Cardenas: George is made to say again that his AUDIT found no EVIDENCE (yet) of political motivation. It was an audit and not an investigation. So far, no political influence found yet.

    I’m calling it quits now. There’s nothing new here.

  38. Miri…. OK … POWERFUL>>>> bend over & take a long deep
    Bow….. one I would Honor!
    Now go & fix yourself a nice cup of TEA! & regroup…. your self.
    I listened… to the flat ho-hum drab… depressing routine… can’t say,
    don’t remember… not my job, still protecting each other as we have
    seen in the PAST! .. I should have gone into politics… getting paid
    & doing ZERO … old, brain dead, stupid & mostly… just jerk offs!
    What a Bunch of Ding Dongs… running OUR country …? or NOT!
    ~ Elizabeth Hofacre.. getting THREATS to herself & her FAMILY!
    I guess your a no-body unless your THREATENED NOW! So find
    out… WHO DID IT! FIND THEM!!! (oh sure) as they shut US UP!!!!

    • Thanks. I was just thinking that y’all must think I’m nuts, but I was listening anyway and figured I’d just as well type some of what I was hearing from the hearing. 🙂 I’m going to watch TV tonight. I’ll catch up with the rest of you tomorrow.

      Really, we all should have just got ourselves nice cushy gummint jobs. Hofacre I felt sorry for. The rest of them, not so much. Hull was an old guy but he’s a slick one. A lawyer, so … I don’t know if they WILL ever get to the bottom of it. So much of this parallels what went on with the birth certificate and his other documents. What made them think that if he can get government agencies to disappear that stuff, he would actually let them cooperate with an investigation like this? The emails are scrubbed. They use Blackberries or alias accounts, anyway. They probably, and I’m truly serious about this, rigged up the so-called “progressive” evidence. Who would think they wouldn’t? It’s just like with the birth records. First there are none. Then they come up with the SFCOLB. Then when that’s questioned, suddenly appears out of the blue a birth announcement. When that’s questioned, suddenly appear a whole mess of sketchy “witnesses” (mostly women, btw: Nordyke, Nelson, Stig’s mom, the “girlfriends” but also Abercommie with his lies.) Then when it’s all still questioned, SUDDENLY after five years, he shows up with a FORGED LFCOLB. Why weren’t the likes of Gowdy PAYING ATTENTION? Are we NOT vindicated? After they let the fox into the henhouse, now they’re crying “fowl”. 🙂 (But it’s not funny.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s