Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama 2008 - And An Early Start To The IRS Scandal -Threats To Challage Non Profit Status

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Heck has no fury as an Obama scorned... So what did he do? Since the American Issues Project upset Obama by running an ad he didn't like in 2008, he decided to fix them and good. With the IRS!


On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.

What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, "its officers and directors," and its "anonymous donors." Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a "knowing and willful violation" of election law, and wanted "action to enforce against criminal violations."



Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).


Strassel: Conservatives Became Targets in 2008
edit on 25-5-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   
So the plot thickens... It appears that prior to using the IRS for his dirty work, Obama started targeting his opponents donors in 2008. Accountable America was created to intimidate and perform criminal investigations of GOP donors. I guess once he got into the "inside", he was then able to personally utilize government agencies for his misdeeds. Read down at my next comments to see how this ties into the IRS scandal.


Strassel notes that Bob Bauer, the Obama campaign (and later White House) general counsel, wrote letters to the Department of Justice in August 2008 attacking a conservative 501(c)4 called the American Issues Project for running an ad that highlighted Obama's connection to former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer did not stop there; he also contacted the Federal Election Commission. That same month, a left-wing activist created a 501(c)4 called Accountable America that was designed to intimidate GOP donors.

Earlier that year, Strassel notes, during the Democratic Party primary, Bauer had used the same tactics against a left-wing 501(c)4 that supported Hillary Clinton, and another against one supporting John Edwards. As even Ben Smith, then of Politico and a noted defender of the Obama campaign, noted:

It's worth noting that this isn't the first time Bauer has called for criminal investigations and prosecutions into the donors to independent groups critical of Obama, including one supporting John Edwards and another supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. His words did have the effect of scaring their donors and consultants, but haven't yet appeared to result in any prosecution.


Even in those early days, they still managed to use the IRS for intimidation. They threatened a Jewish group with a challenge to their IRS non-profit status if they didn't un-invite Sarah Palin from a rally against Iran at the UN.


What happened was that a group of Jewish non-profit organizations had organized the rally and invited both Gov. Palin and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Clinton initially agreed to attend, but the Obama campaign was terrified at the prospect of her sharing a stage with Palin and sending a signal that Democrat women left frustrated by Clinton's loss might switch parties. So they pressured Clinton to withdraw--and then pressured the Jewish groups to deny Palin a platform, claiming that the rally was now "partisan." Jewish members of the Democratic National Committee reportedly made threats to challenge the groups' IRS non-profit status.."


Visit the link to read more and to learn how they were already starting to manipulate the press!

Strassel: IRS Scandal's Roots in Obama's 2008 Campaign; Attacked Clinton, Edwards, Too
edit on 25-5-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-5-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
While I look for some more evidence, I thought this would interest you. In 2008 once again folks were noticing that Obama was using intimidation tactics on his rivals. He created a circus atmosphere that made such tactics a game for all involved. So why are we so surprised by what has been found out about the IRS now that he has control over it? This is a must read article that explains the very start of Obama's intimidation tactics.

OCTOBER 13, 2008

Intimidation by ObamaNation

Responding to those who dare commit blasphemy against The One, Obama’s campaign has unleashed lawsuits and urged prosecution by no less than the Justice Department, enlisted elected officials to threaten and intimidate his foes, and deployed its vast internet e-mail list to silence bloggers and radio talk shows.



In Missouri, Obama allies, from a U.S. Senator to a local sheriff, threatened criminal proceedings against television stations than air anti-Obama commercials. Such “police state tactics” prompted Gov. Matt Blunt to charge Obama’s campaign with “abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism.”



First aimed at internet blogs supporting Hillary Clinton, Obama supporters swamp certain unfriendly blogs with “spam” complaints. When those complaints reach a threshold, Google’s Blogger platform renders the blog inoperable. Bloggers must then wait for Google to make an individual determination whether or not the accused blog is legitimate.


Now I saw all of this all along. So why was everyone blind to this until now?
edit on 25-5-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina

...

Now I saw all of this all along. So why was everyone blind to this until now?


Because we have the same long-term memory failure and historical amnesia that we accuse everyone else of?

Actually I think it's because we were all so fed-up and exhausted by the Bush years that we weren't paying attention early on. Obama seemed like a breath of fresh air then--not the fetid stench that we've all become so sick of the past few years....

edit on 5/25/2013 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


This is also a drive to get rid of any kind of religious charity, and other charities, that operate under a non-profit status.

They are communist - they want everyone under gov't control.

The only kind of hand-out you can get if you are "in need" will be tax-payer driven welfare.

And planned parenthood - abortionist, if you will.

Gov't controlled schools - no voucher for you!

I could go on and on.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Yes but everything was so, "in your face". Like what about the 2011 transparency award Obama got? It was given in a private meeting with no press allowed. This really perplexed the group that was giving him the award when they showed up and found no press. In fact it was blocked from Obama's calendar also. Oh and did you know that they want to take his award back?


edit on 25-5-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


...

I could go on and on.


No need. I've seen what's coming.

Funny thing: I notice they're in an absolute balls-out fury lately to get the control grid clamped down. According to some (and not only Ben Fulford), there's a sort of massive "burn notice" out on these traitors, and they're about to come face-to-face with their own miserable fate. I'm thinking--and I'm hoping--that all their recent activities are just a desperate bluff, and it will all come crashing down around them in the near future....



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Yes but everything was so, "in your face". Like what about the 2011 transparency award Obama got? It was given in a private meeting with no press allowed. This really perplexed the group that was giving him the award that showed up and found no press. In fact it was blocked from Obamas calendar also. Oh and did you know that they want to take his award back?


No, I didn't know that. When I heard about that award, I just rolled by eyes, thinking it was some sort of inside joke amongst his inner circle. But see my post above....

ETA: Don't get me wrong based on my initial answer. It's not like I voted for Obama in 2008 (I wrote in my own candidate). I was merely pointing out that he actually DID sound hopeful and fresh there for a while. Truthfully, I wasn't paying that much attention to what he was actually saying--and little to what he was doing. He just sounded kinda ... I don't know ... innocuous....
edit on 5/25/2013 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2

ETA: Don't get me wrong based on my initial answer. It's not like I voted for Obama in 2008 (I wrote in my own candidate). I was merely pointing out that he actually DID sound hopeful and fresh there for a while. Truthfully, I wasn't paying that much attention to what he was actually saying--and little to what he was doing. He just sounded kinda ... I don't know ... innocuous..


I didn't vote for Obama in 2008, or anyone else actually. But I understand exactly what you are talking abiout. And this fake blond bimbo actually wanted him to win. But then my roots started showing.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 





posted on May, 25 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Wasn't going to post this in this thread, but why not... We have yet another IRS scandal. It seems they were targeting conservative groups college aged interns. The audit was performed by the IRS's Boston office. And the Leadership Institite refused to give them the names of their former interns.


The IRS requested, in an audit, the names of the conservative Leadership Institute’s 2008 interns, as well as specific information about their internship work and where the interns were employed in 2012, according to a document request the IRS sent to the Leadership Institute, dated

The IRS requested:

“Copies of applications for internships and summer programs; to include: lists of those selected for internships and students in 2008.
– In regards to such internships, please provide information regarding where the interns physically worked and how the placement was arranged.
– After completing internships and courses, where were the students and interns employed?”


IRS targeted conservative college interns



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
When we right the ship in 2014 and 2016 elections, the first priority is to place Chicago in permanent federal receivership so that no politician can run for President again.
This "Chicago-stlye politics" applied nationwide thru Obama is highley disturbing to all Americans...and will not stand.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
FEC vs. Citizens United was after 2008. Back in the days where the BRCA prohibited things like what you're describing.

Not very scandalous if they were breaking the law at the time.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
FEC vs. Citizens United was after 2008. Back in the days where the BRCA prohibited things like what you're describing.

Not very scandalous if they were breaking the law at the time.


No it was not yet illegal for Obama to "push" for IRS investigations against his opponents in 2008. But still, it is morally and ethically wrong. Plus it sets the stage for the IRS's targeting scheme that started after Obama got into office. So what does this all prove? That Obama already had the intent to target folks with the IRS during his election and the involvement of the IRS itself was due to his ability to misuse his power once he was in office.

I provided quotes and articles that included dates, so I don't know where you got this "after 2008" business.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


You're talking about the election in 2008. I'm talking about the Citizens United case in 2010 that struck down portions of the BRCA that prohibited 501(c) spending on certain campaigns. The BRCA was still enforcable in 2008, it's completely reasonable that the Obama campaign believed the law was being broken at the time.

I think you're trying to build off of nothing with this. Would you have preferred the campaign ignore lawbreakers?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by elouina
 


You're talking about the election in 2008. I'm talking about the Citizens United case in 2010 that struck down portions of the BRCA that prohibited 501(c) spending on certain campaigns. The BRCA was still enforcable in 2008, it's completely reasonable that the Obama campaign believed the law was being broken at the time.

I think you're trying to build off of nothing with this. Would you have preferred the campaign ignore lawbreakers?


Ok now that I took my cats outside, I can now get back to business here...

In June of 2007 the Supreme court ruled that BCRA's limitations on corporate and labor union funding of broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election are unconstitutional. Plus the ad was paid for by a wealthy Texan.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


Your OP isn't about an ad within a timeframe, it's about a non-profit organization spending certain money on a certain ad, which was addressed in 2010, not 2007.

The Obama campaign thought the law was being broken. After the Citizens United case it wouldn't have mattered. In 2008 it mattered.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by elouina
 


Your OP isn't about an ad within a timeframe, it's about a non-profit organization spending certain money on a certain ad, which was addressed in 2010, not 2007.

The Obama campaign thought the law was being broken. After the Citizens United case it wouldn't have mattered. In 2008 it mattered.


No my article was about Obama and his attorney demanding that the IRS investiagte a non profit. Now you show me how you feel it mattered in 2008. Quote me the exact words of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that was broken, and we will take it from there.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 



The American Issues Project is a 501(c)4 nonprofit corporation. It is permitted by law to air a political ad provided that the majority of its spending is nonpolitical. It cannot accept money from corporations and it must identify the donors that finance its ads in reports to the Federal Election Commission. Pinkston said the group has set aside money to carry out non-election related work to meet the legal requirements. It filed a report identifying Simmons as its sole donor for the ad last week.


URL of source: web.archive.org...://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92PL7400 (can't get it to link properly)


The American Issues Project is a political action group organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, so that it can engage in limited amounts of civic campaigning, but cannot legally advocate for or against candidates.

Wiki link

The Ayers ad campaign was directly against Obama.

As to the relation to the BCRA:

The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.

More wiki linking

So after the troublesome googling I now see that you and the rest of the right wing blogosphere are, not only wrong, but trying to make something out of nothing. The Obama campaign had every right to 'go after' AIP for the political ads, they were lying and likely spending a majority of their money on the campaign.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Before we go on any further, how can you even attempt to argue that Obama targeting the tax exempt status of non profits was justified? The top lawyers in the country could not even indict them on anything. We can sit here and pick the laws apart sentence by sentence, but it all comes down to one thing. Obama's accusations were dancing on a fine line of the election law. A long shot, but perhaps enough to break his opponent down in time and attorney fees? They very thing happening with the IRS straight up to this month!


Ed Martin, president of the American Issues Project, responded "The American Issues Projects applauds the Department of Justice for refusing to treat as criminal the exercise of free speech during an election. The Obama campaign's tactics have been recognized for what they are - an attempt to bully a legitimate message off the air through intimidation and scare tactics."(1) The American Issues Project's ad examines the links between Sen. Obama and unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers.


So lets delve into the issue at hand further instead of getting into specific legal mumbo jumbo reserved for attorneys.


In another attack on free speech, the Obama campaign demanded TV stations in Pennsylvania and Ohio stop airing a National Rifle Association ad critical of Obama. The letter, dated Sep. 23, 2008 is “frightening” and “dangerous,” a campaign finance expert said. “When a candidate threatens a broadcaster with government sanction over the content of an ad, it is very worrisome to the First Amendment and the guarantee of free political debate,” said Sean Parnell, president of the Center for Competitive Campaigns, an organization that focuses on money in politics.(2)


Article from 2008
Obama threatens freedom of speech and freedom of the press










edit on 26-5-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join