Donald Trump Meets With Newt Gingrich, Jeff Sessions, Jim DeMint And Other Top Conservatives In DC

Trump Summit: High Level Republicans Huddle With Frontrunner On Capitol Hill – Big Government

.
…………….

.
GOP frontrunner Donald Trump explained why he held a meeting in Washington, D.C. with members of Congress, lobbyists, and political operatives on Monday.

“Just to start getting together with some of the people that I’ve known over the years, politicians in just about all cases,” he said during his press conference at the Old Post Office, which is being renovated into Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

“They were senators or congressmen, [and president of the Heritage Foundation] Jim DeMint was there, who I have great respect for,” Trump told the press conference.

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) reportedly did not know about the meeting.

Trump was asked if that was intentional. Trump said he’s “very inclusive,” and it wasn’t intentional for McConnell and Ryan not to be there.

Politico reports, “The handful of lawmakers who did attend – including Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) – were mainly those who had already endorsed Trump or voted for him in a primary, although Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who also attended, is neutral in the race.”

Former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was reportedly also in attendance.

Trump said the meeting was a “very good one,” with some of the “most respected people in Washington.”

.

.

Most Corrupt DOJ In History Refuses To Prosecute Obviously Guilty Lois Lerner Over IRS Targeting Of Conservatives

Lois Lerner Will Not Face Charges In Department Of Justice Investigation – Washington Times

.

.
The IRS did mishandle tea party and conservative groups’ nonprofit applications, but their behavior didn’t break any laws, the Justice Department said in a letter to Congress Friday that cleared the tax agency and former senior executive Lois G. Lerner of any crimes.

“Ineffective management is not a crime,” Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik said in a letter to the House Ways and Means Committee. “The Department of Justice’s exhaustive probe revealed no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution. What occurred is disquieting and may necessitate corrective action – but it does not warrant criminal prosecution.”

The decision comes more than two years after the IRS’s internal watchdog reported that auditors singled out tea party groups’ applications for special scrutiny and delayed those applications beyond reasonable timelines, preventing the groups from being able to say they were officially recognized nonprofits.

The agency initially admitted its bad behavior, and President Obama vowed an investigation – but he later said, in the middle of the probe, that there was no evidence of corruption.

Some Republicans have questioned the validity of the probe from the beginning, after learning that one of the Justice Department lawyers assigned to the investigation was a contributor to Mr. Obama’s political campaigns.

In its letter Friday the Justice Department specifically cleared Ms. Lerner, a senior executive in charge of approving the groups’ applications, who had authored a number of emails that suggested a bias against the tea party movement.

Investigators said none of the witnesses they interviewed believed Ms. Lerner acted out of political motives, and said that Ms. Lerner seemed to try to correct the inappropriate scrutiny once she “recognized that it was wrong.”

“In fact, Ms. Lerner was the first IRS official to recognize the magnitude of the problem and to take concerted steps to fix it,” Mr. Kadzik wrote.

.

.

Hey, Conservatives, Before You Jump On The Fiorina Bandwagon…

The Conservative Case Against Carly Fiorina – John Hawkins

.

.
Carly Fiorina is surging right now in the GOP Presidential primary and it’s easy to see why many conservatives like her. She’s had a couple of strong debate performances where she’s tossed out good lines, she’s the first woman to lead a Fortune 50 business and she’s portraying herself as an “outsider” in a year when conservatives are justifiably sick of politicians.

Let me paint a different picture of Carly Fiorina and explain why other than Jeb Bush, she’s the candidate I’d least like to see get the nomination. Incidentally, that is really saying something given that I own http://notjebbush.com and the only reason I haven’t bothered to launch it is that Jeb has been so off-putting that watching him speak is like a commercial for “Not Jeb Bush.” Jeb is like the weird, annoying kid in school that no one would ever talk to if he didn’t have a pool. (PS: I’m leaving out Lindsey Graham here because I’m not sure anyone other than his mother will vote for him and I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if even she votes for Walker, Paul or Jindal instead).

First of all, it’s worth noting that Fiorina may have been the first woman to lead a Fortune 50 business, but she turned out to be just as bad at it as Barack Obama has been at running the country. Despite the spin she tries to put in, Carly Fiorina was a disaster for Hewlett Packard.

Fiorina’s story is that she stormed into HP, turned the company around and was unceremoniously fired because she challenged the status quo. In actuality, she insisted on a controversial merger with Compaq, got her way and it decimated the company. Fiorina loves to talk about HP’s increase in raw numbers, but if two large computer companies merge, it’s almost a given that the revenue and the number of patents produced by both companies combined are going to increase. What didn’t increase was HP’s stock price. It dropped from $55 a share when Fiorina took over to a little less than $20 a share under her leadership. There is a reason Fiorina shows up on lists of the Worst CEOs Of All Time (See here, here, here, and here among others) and it’s not because the whole business world is engaged in some kind of conspiracy to portray her as an incompetent.

Let me also add that it’s not fair that Democrats will attack her for firing 30,000 workers because unfortunately, that just comes with the territory when you’re a CEO sometimes. However, if you think it wouldn’t be incredibly effective to point out that Fiorina fired 30,000 workers, tanked the price of the company’s stock, damaged Hewlett Packard so badly that it has yet to recover and STILL walked away with 100 million dollars for being one of the worst CEOs of all time, you’re kidding yourself. For all of his flaws, Mitt Romney was a gifted businessman and the Democrats managed to falsely portray him as a heartless, greedy monster for doing far less than that at Bain Capital.

If Carly Fiorina were to say that she’d run America like she ran Hewlett Packard, it could be taken as a direct threat against the country. So, what else does she have to offer as a candidate?

Oh, right! She’s supposedly a grassroots conservative outsider! Yeah, well about that…

Fiorina has run for office before. During the Tea Party tidal wave of 2010, there seemed to be an outside chance that Republicans might be able to knock off Barbra Boxer in California. Granted, it’s California, so it was always going to be a heavy lift, but after Scott Brown had won earlier in the year in Massachusetts, it didn’t seem impossible that a Republican could pull it off.

So, as we have often seen in these last few years, a conservative grassroots candidate squared off with a moderate candidate backed by the establishment. The grassroots conservative candidate was Chuck DeVore and the establishment candidate was Carly Fiorina. Almost every big name conservative except for Sarah Palin lined up behind DeVore (and I love Sarah, but if Fiorina had been a man, there’s not a chance in the world she would have gotten that endorsement. That’s why Sarah had to deal with a big backlash from her own fans over backing Fiorina). On the other hand, the NRSC, John McCain and Lindsey Graham were all supporting Fiorina. Interesting question: When have John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the NRSC EVER backed a conservative candidate over a moderate in a competitive race? Yes, that’s right; they don’t do that. Ever.

After beating DeVore by outspending him more than 3-to1, Fiorina went toe-to-toe with charisma-free Senator Barbara Boxer and got her brains beaten in. Surprise, surprise – Fiorina’s disastrous run at Hewlett Packard turned out to be an anchor around her neck and the fact that she was such a terrible politician that she signed off on bizarre garbage like the Demon Sheep ad (IT APPEARS at 2:26) certainly didn’t help. In a year when Republicans picked up 6 Senate seats, Boxer waltzed to a 10 point victory over Fiorina.

So, Fiorina’s a failed CEO and it would be more accurate to call her an “establishment favorite” than an outsider, but at least she’s a hardcore conservative, right? Well… not so much. Here’s Redstate on Carly Fiorina back in 2010.

From her praise of Jesse Jackson, to her playing the race and gender cards against DeVore, to her support for the Wall Street bailouts, to her qualified support for the Obama stimulus, to her past support for taxation of sales on the Internet, to her waffling on immigration, to her support for Sonia Sotomayor, to her Master’s thesis advocating greater federal control of local education, to her past support for weakening California’s Proposition 13, to her statement to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that Roe v. Wade is “a decided issue,” Carly Fiorina’s oft-repeated claim to be a “lifelong conservative” was only plausible in the universe of NRSC staffers who recruited her in the first place.

…She endorsed Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research for “extra” embyros.

She endorsed the California DREAM Act, which grants in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

She refused to endorse California’s Proposition 23, which suspends the job-killing AB 32 climate-change law.

Fiorina also strongly supported Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan that even he claims not to back anymore, endorsed cap & trade and attacked Ted Cruz for being willing to shut down the government to stop Obamacare.

How do you trust Fiorina on immigration, small government issues, taxes, pro-life issues, global warming or to even try to kill Obamacare after that?

None of this means Carly Fiorina is a bad person, a liberal, a stalking horse or anything else. If you like Carly Fiorina, support her, but at least know what you’re really getting. If you’re backing Carly Fiorina, you’re backing a 0-1, establishment moderate who was an epic failure at the one thing that is supposed to qualify her for the presidency. On the other hand, Fiorina does seem to be pretty good at debating. Of course, if you’re in the market for a charismatic candidate who’s relatively moderate, Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee would seem to be a much better choice, but opinions vary.

Although it’s very difficult to predict what’s going to happen in a primary season as crazy as this one has been, the difference between what people THINK Fiorina is and what she ACTUALLY is, is so great that we can hazard one guess: Carly Fiorina is going to follow the 2012 pattern. People will initially get excited about her, find out what her record really looks like and then she’ll quickly implode.

.
————————————————————————————————
.

Related articles:

.
Establishment Tool Carly Fiorina May Have Server Issues Too – Moonbattery

Remember 2012, when the most vulnerable issue for Democrats was the overwhelmingly unpopular imposition of ObamaCare? The Establishment stuck Republicans with Mitt Romney, who couldn’t use the issue because he was responsible for imposing ObamaCare’s prototype on Massachusetts.

Since it looks like Obama will keep Shrillary out of jail, she remains the Democrat frontrunner for 2016. Her most vulnerable point is her illegal use of a private email server for top secret communications, presumably to cover her influence peddling activities. When the server was subpoenaed by Congress, she tried to wipe it – an arrogant crime that would land you or me in federal prison for some time.

Now the Establishment is using the media to hype Carly Fiorina. Here is what she says about Shrillary’s server issues:

Fiorina said that it’s “absolutely crystal clear” that Clinton broke the rules and that she’s trying cover it up.

She pointed out that Clinton had a “server in her basement” for years, then decided to “wipe it clean” two years after leaving the State Department and before her presidential run.

But it is alleged that Fiorina has server issues too:

My name is Charles Nielsen and I was an employee with HP from 1/2000 until 8/2001. I worked in the Boise, Idaho Data Center. I was the sole Customer Engineer allowed to work on Carly’s Private Server. It was kept under lock and key and I was the only engineer allowed to work on it under the direct supervision of the Data Center Manager; I was new to the company and was used as a dupe. In March of 2001, just before Carly Fiorina had taken control of HP from Walter Hewlett, I was asked to remove the 5 hard drives from her personal server and physically destroy them with a hammer. I asked why I would destroy hard drives that at the time were worth over $15k apiece and I was told because she said so. Shortly after destroying all evidence of her conspiracy to take over the company she removed Walter Hewlett from the board of directors and made off with approximately $500 million dollars from the company with the rest of the board of directors ($100 million for Carly personally). All of her emails and all working documents were destroyed. I have kept my silence until now when I find it highly offensive that after laying off close to 30k workers and sending stock prices into the gutter ( $55 a share when Fiorina took over to a little less than $20 a share under her leadership) she is pretending she would never behave like Hillary has. Carly Fiorina is as corrupt as they come.

It would be nice for the mainstream media to use its resources to vet this guy so we know how seriously to take his allegations. But as we learned from the rise of Obama, vetting is not something the media does anymore. It digs up dirt on people it wants to destroy, and covers for those it wants to advance.

Right now it wants to advance Fiorino, I mean Fiorina – and not because she can win. Her record in both the business and political worlds consists of one failure precariously balanced atop another. In a general election the whole mess would collapse. That’s not a bug; it’s a feature.

Rush Limbaugh explains why the media has been hyping Fiorina and hiding her record:

“Because they want to get rid of Trump,” Limbaugh said…

“Look, this is very, very important for everybody to understand. And the reason it’s very, very important is this is how they choose our nominees for us…

“[I]t’s not that they love Carly Fiorina. They love what supporting her now might enable them to accomplish, and that is get rid of a Republican who can win.”

Romney could have beaten Obama in 2008. But mysteriously he was surpassed that year by the worst candidate the GOP could come up with, a sellout universally hated by the conservative base, John McCain.

Like the designated loser McCain, Fiorina is a tool the media will discard when she has served her usefulness.

.

.
————————————————————————————————

.
RINO Report On Carly Fiorina – The Examiner

When Republicans un-apologetically embrace conservatism with the time-proven Reagan-Bush Sr. approach, they win by landslides. It happens every time. When they “reach across the aisle” and vote like Democrats on issue-after-issue with the failed Dole-McCain-Romney approach, our right-of-center electorate doesn’t show up and they always lose.

The following is a list of Carly Fiorina’s liberal RINO policy positions and red flags from her background:

-In September of 2010, she repeated the left’s fraudulent “consensus of experts” fallacy on global warming. She also refused to take a stand against one of California’s most extreme job-killing environmental measures, endorsed man-made global warming in 2014, and supported the left’s economically-suicidal “Cap-and-Trade” insanity in 2008.

-In September of 2010, she supported the Dream Act (amnesty for children of illegal immigrants). She avoids the question on overall amnesty, and in May of 2010, smeared those seeking to enforce our laws as racists.

-In 2010, she praised Obama’s “Race to the Top” program as well as “No Child Left Behind.” And in 1989, she wrote this in her doctoral dissertation for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

“Where I began as a proponent of ‘States’ Rights’ in education, I have ended by believing that we will never meet our own expectations of public education unless the federal government is willing to play a consistent, long-term role; unless education truly becomes a matter of national policy, not just a matter of national rhetoric.”

-In 2003, she said, “In the past 40 years, there are very few people who have used their talent along lines of excellence to achieve more things for more people in more places than Reverend Jackson. And we are all better off for his leadership.” She has an extensive record of praising and supporting this sleazy shakedown artist and his bogus, race-baiting extortion schemes.

-In April of 2010, she said that Roe vs. Wade was a “settled issue,” and confirmed that she would not rule out a Supreme Court nominee over their position on abortion. Republicans closest to her describe her as “pro-choice.”

-In August of 2010, she stated that she supports allowing homosexuals in the military. She opposes a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s blatantly illegal invention of federal marriage rights for homosexuals (at the expense of actual constitutional rights like state sovereignty and free religious exercise).

-In May of 2014 and February of 2015, she perpetuated the left’s debunked myth of women getting paid less than men for the same work. She also routinely promotes her gender as a reason to vote for her.

-In 2008, she was John McCain’s economic adviser as he supported the TARP bailout, the auto bailout, a mortgage bailout, and the the AIG bailout. She is also on the record supporting the bank bailouts before she was against them.

-In April of 2009, she supported Obama’s stimulus program, before she was against it.

-In November of 2009, she stated that she would have voted to confirm racist, anti-gun gender fanatic Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

-In 2000, she supported an Internet sales tax, before she was against it.

-In January of 2010, she revealed her radical feminist intolerance for equal opportunity: “I like to remind people that women are not a constituency – women are a majority. Women are the majority of voters and we will never have a truly representative democracy unless women make up half, at least, of our elected representatives.”

-In 2010, she was endorsed by the PAC of far left RINO John McCain.

.

.

.

RINO Boehner Caves To House Conservatives – Will Call For Vote On Resolution That Could Stop Iran Deal Cold

Report: Boehner Caves To House Conservatives On Iran Deal Vote – Gateway Pundit

It looks like the thousands of protesters outside the U.S. Capitol may have persuaded at least one Congressman to rethink Obama’s nuclear deal.

.

.
Speaker John Boehner reportedly has agreed to vote on a resolution introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL). The resolution will state that Obama has not complied with the law by not submitting the full Iranian nuclear deal to Congress.

Instapundit reported:

Looks like pressure from the House conservative Freedom Caucus membership has forced House Speaker John Boehner to agree the House will not pass a resolution disapproving of President Obama’s Iran deal. Instead, the House will apparently vote Friday on the resolution introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), which will state that Obama has not complied with the Corker-Cardin law because he has not submitted the full Iranian nuclear “agreement,” which that law explicitly defines to include all “side deals,” between third parties (including the Iran-IAEA side deals).

The House is also anticipated to now vote on a second resolution, which would state that because the President has failed to submit the “agreement” defined by Corker-Cardin, the President has no corresponding authority to lift any existing Iranian sanctions.
.
The move by Boehner came after Freedom Caucus members threatened to vote down a planned resolution disapproving of the Iran deal, leaving the House on record as approving the deal. This threat was designed to leverage Boehner via potential political embarrassment, and encourage GOP leadership to consider the Roskam alternative, which will both delay congressional action on the Iran deal, as well as provide a stronger legal basis upon which to challenge any presidential action lifting sanctions.

.

.

House Conservatives Devise Plan To Kill Iran Deal Despite Surrender-Monkeys In GOP Leadership

Conservatives Detail Pathway Forward To Kill Iran Deal, But John Boehner Stands In Way – Daily Caller

.

.
Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus have a strategy to actually kill President Barack Obama’s nuclear arms deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran – rather than “play fight” against it, as GOP leadership wants to do.

“House Freedom Caucus members are poised to demand Wednesday that Republican leaders delay a vote on an Iran disapproval resolution until the White House has revealed all ‘side deals’ with Iran,” Roll Call’s Matt Fuller wrote late Tuesday. “And if GOP leaders don’t delay the Iran disapproval resolution, HFC members are discussing voting down the rule for the resolution on Wednesday.”

Fuller quotes Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) detailing the newly emerging strategy.

Meadows is the House Freedom Caucus member who has put forward a resolution containing a motion to vacate the chair – a fancy term for throwing House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) out. The strategy centers around the fact that President Obama has not followed the law with regard to the Iran deal, specifically a bill that was signed into law from Sens. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) and therefore the deal is no good.

“I think the plan is just to say that there’s a law on Corker-Cardin, it hasn’t been followed, we can’t ignore it, so to continue on with a vote in light of the administration not adhering to the law would be erroneous and really usurp the authority of Congress,” Meadows told Roll Call.

Fuller wrote that it’s expected, according to one member he spoke with, that the House Freedom Caucus members would band together to vote down a rule to bring the Iran deal disapproval resolution to the floor of the House this week if Boehner and his leadership team insist on moving this through Congress as quickly as seems to be happening.

“An HFC member who spoke on the condition of anonymity later told CQ Roll Call that, while the Freedom Caucus did not come to an official position on voting down the rule for the Iran nuclear resolution, he believes HFC members would band together to do so if leadership does not heed member advice during Wednesday morning’s weekly conference meeting,” Fuller wrote.

Voting down a rule is one of the most significant acts against one’s own party’s leadership that members can make. It’s normally expected that members of a majority vote for rules, and then cast their consequential votes on the legislation.

But voting against the rule is seen as a public protest of leadership’s strategy – in this case, not really fighting against the Obama-Iran deal – and if they’re successful in taking the rule down or forcing Democrats to vote for the rule, Boehner’s authority as Speaker of the House will be severely weakened. Conservatives tried, almost successfully, a similar strategy when it came to Obamatrade votes earlier in the year, but this time they will likely have a better shot at success because there’s even more of a national anti-political class mood now and the Iran deal is extremely unpopular.

Members are furious that Boehner is considering desecrating the 14-year-anniversary of the Al Qaeda-led terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 11 as the day the House would vote to “play fight,” as National Review’s Andy McCarthy calls it, against the Iran deal rather than really trying to stop it.

“Overall, members reported the majority of the discussion Tuesday night during the HFC meeting was dedicated to Iran and whether it was appropriate to start debate Wednesday and hold a vote Friday, which is Sept. 11,” Fuller wrote about the meeting, noting that Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) was furious. “You gotta be kidding me!” Gosar told him.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), another conservative, previously told Breitbart News that Boehner’s move to hold the Iran “play fight” vote on Sept. 11 made the House GOP leadership worse than Neville Chamberlain, the late 1930s British Prime Minister who infamously declared he had reached a deal with German dictator Adolf Hitler that would deliver “peace for our time.”

More importantly, however, Fuller noted that members are upset that the Obama administration has not provided Congress with the full details of “side deals” between “Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

“Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), offered a privileged motion Tuesday for a vote on a resolution that states the House should not act on the Iran nuclear legislation until it receives all ‘side deals,’” Fuller wrote. “Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, the president is obligated to send Congress ‘all related materials and annexes,’ and until the president does that, the 60-day clock for a vote on Iran does not start.”

National Review’s McCarthy laid out in two recent columns how the GOP could actually stop the Iran deal from going through, by asserting its authority in Congress, something Boehner seems hell-bent on avoiding.

“It is an easy one, because all that the Republican-controlled Congress has to do, if it really wants to derail this thing, is follow the law that they wrote and Obama signed, the Corker law – the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, sometimes also known as ‘Corker-Cardin,’ after Senate sponsors Bob Corker (R-TN.) and Ben Cardin (D-MD.),” McCarthy writes of his strategy in one of the columns. “Sadly, in another iteration of the anger that is the wind beneath Donald Trump’s wings, many readers insist that GOP leadership has no intention to block Obama on Iran. If that is so, it is passing strange. The national-security threat here is grave. Plus, how much credibility can Republicans have (maybe I should just end the sentence there) in complaining about Obama’s disregard of federal law if they won’t even follow the law they themselves enacted just four months ago?”

McCarthy specified in the other first column exactly how Republicans can kill Obama’s deal with Iran.

“While maddening, the Corker bill is not an abject congressional surrender to Obama and Tehran,” McCarthy wrote.

It is a conditional surrender. It would grant Obama grudging congressional endorsement of the deal in the absence of a now unattainable veto-proof resolution of disapproval, but only if Obama fulfills certain basic terms. Obama has not complied with the most basic one: the mandate that he provide the complete Iran deal for Congress’s consideration. Therefore, notwithstanding Washington’s frenzied assumption that the 60-day period for a congressional vote is winding down, the clock has never actually started to run. Congress’s obligations under Corker have never been triggered; the Corker process is moot.

McCarthy argues that Republicans who are just going through the motions of the Corker-Cardin bill by pushing a disapproval resolution under it, rather than fighting Obama to comply with the law, are “play fighting” against the Iran deal.

‘“Surrender… Then Play-Fight’ is Republican leadership’s shameful approach to ‘governing,’” McCarthy wrote in the second column. “The quotes around ‘governing’ are intentional. After voters, having trusted the GOP’s 2014 campaign promises to block Obama’s agenda, gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress, Senate majority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) notoriously said that the party’s primary objective was to show the public that it could ‘govern.’”

This example with regard to Iran is no different, he argues.

And for now, according to Fuller’s report in Roll Call, it looks like Boehner’s leadership team is moving forward with their plans to “play fight” against the Iran deal while actually surrendering and not really fighting against it.

“On the same day that Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) hold a Capitol Hill rally urging Congress to reject this deal, it will be pretty hard to argue that we should let Democrats off the hook and not take a stand at all,” a “senior GOP aide” – code for someone from the offices of Boehner, House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) or House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) – told Roll Call on Tuesday evening.

No wonder why Boehner doesn’t have enough GOP votes to survive Meadows’ motion to vacate the chair should it come up this fall, according to Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC).

Mulvaney told Breitbart News on Tuesday that Boehner would need Democrats to survive if there were a speakership election held now. Those people coming out to the rally against the Iran deal can see right through congressional leadership’s “play fight.” What happens next, of course, is not entirely clear – but Congress is in for a bumpy ride for the rest of September.

.

.

New Emails Provide Smoking-Gun Evidence Of The Coordinated Targeting Of Conservatives And Cover-Up By Obama IRS

Smoking Gun: New Emails Show Coordinated Targeting Of Conservative Groups And Cover-Up By Obama IRS – Dateway Pundit

.

.
The IRS Conservative Targeting Scandal involved:

* Hundreds of conservative groups
* At least 5 pro-Israel groups
* Constitutional groups
* Groups that criticized Obama administration
* At least two pro-life groups
* An 83 year-old Nazi concentration camp survivor
* A 180 year-old Baptist paper
* A Texas voting-rights group
* A Hollywood conservative group was targeted and harassed
* Conservative activists and businesses
* At least one conservative Hispanic group
* IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed
* 10% of Tea Party donors were audited by the IRS
* And… 100% of the 501(c)(4) Groups Audited by IRS Were Conservative

IRS Commissioner John Koskinentestified before the House Oversight and Government Reform on March 26, 2014. Koskinen told Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) during the hearing that Lois Lerner’s emails were archived and it would take a long time to retrieve them.

In June 2014 the IRS told Congress Lois Lerner’s emails were lost in a computer crash.

In April the Inspector General notified the Senate Finance Committee that they have recovered thousands of Lois Lerner emails.

In June 2015 the Obama IRS erased 422 computer backup tapes related to the Tea Party scandal.

Earlier this month it was reported the Obama IRS plotted how they could prosecute conservative activist groups.

Now there’s a Smoking Gun –

Newly discovered emails prove the Obama IRS was targeting conservative groups and harassing individuals.

There is evidence of a cover-up and investigators have “Smoking Gun” proof.

The Real Story reported:

.

.
Judicial Watch reported:

Judicial Watch released 906 pages of newly recovered Lois Lerner emails from the IRS that are believed to recently have been recovered by the IRS’ internal watchdog – the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). The IRS released the emails under a court order by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. The new documents show that Lois Lerner and other top officials in the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), including soon-to-be Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, closely monitored and approved the controversial handling of tax-exempt applications by Tea Party organizations. The documents also show that at least one group received an inquiry from the IRS in order to buy time and keep the organization from contacting Congress.

At July 1, 2015, status conference, Judge Sullivan ordered the IRS to begin producing, every week, the nearly 1,800 newly recovered Lois Lerner emails responsive to Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Despite the court order, the IRS did not produce any Lois Lerner emails until July 15. The IRS also failed to provide Judicial Watch a status report of the Lois Lerner email production issues, as also ordered by Judge Sullivan. Last week, Judge Sullivan ordered sua sponte the parties to appear for a status hearing for tomorrow (July 29) shortly after Judicial Watch raised concerns about the IRS’ failure to comply with his orders to release the newly discovered Lerner emails and status updates on its production of previously “missing” documents.

The developments come in Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit seeking documents about the Obama IRS’ targeting and harassment of Tea Party and conservative opponents of President Obama (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)). Judicial Watch’s litigation forced the IRS first to admit that Lerner’s emails were supposedly missing and, then, that the emails were on IRS’ back-up systems.

.

.

Wisconsin Supreme Court FINALLY Stops Nazistic John Doe Investigation Against Conservatives

Wisconsin Supreme Court Stops John Doe Investigation Against Conservatives – Legal Insurrection

.

.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has effectively killed the “John Doe” case which led to home raids and intimidation of a wide range of Wisconsin conservative activists.

The decision is embedded at the bottom of this post.

Here is the key finding, which completely shreds both the legal theories and motives of the prosecutors, completely vindicates the targets, and praises those who fought back legally against prosecutorial misconduct (emphasis added):

¶133 Our lengthy discussion of these three cases can be distilled into a few simple, but important, points. It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a “perfect storm” of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them. It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution. Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.

Andrew Grossman, who filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case and who has served as counsel to Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth (two of the targets of the investigation) in various federal civil rights litigation against the prosecutors, provided me with the following statement:

Today’s decision puts an end to one of the worst abuses of power ever seen in Wisconsin law enforcement. The next step will be holding those responsible accountable for their actions. The Court’s recognition that the John Doe was a politically motivated “dragnet” of Gov. Walker’s allies provides strong support for Cindy Archer’s civil rights action against the Milwaukee prosecutors and lawsuits by potentially any of the other John Doe targets.

Background on John Doe abuses:

We have been covering the John Doe cases for a year and a half. You can read all out posts in the John Doe (WI) Tag.

Here are some key posts:

* Revealed: Wisconsin John Doe investigation was full-blown anti-conservative fishing expedition
* Exposed: How Prosecutors targeted Scott Walker and conservatives
* Was Prosecutor’s union-operative wife behind “John Doe” investigation of Scott Walker?
* Wisconsin “John Doe” War on Walker wins “Nastiest Political Tactic of the Year”
* Wisconsin Dems used battering rams against Scott Walker supporters – literally
* Former Scott Walker Aide Sues prosecutors for WI John Doe “Home Invasion”

.

.
Analysis:

The court found that Wisconsin statutes did not limit “issue advocacy,” and that any attempt to so limit speech was unconstitutional:

¶7 We can resolve the original action, Two Unnamed Petitioners, by first examining whether the statutory definitions of “committee,” “contributions,” “disbursements,” and “political purposes” in Wis. Stat. §§ 11.01(4), (6), (7), and (16) are limited to express advocacy[4] or whether they encompass the conduct of coordination between a candidate or a campaign committee and an independent organization that engages in issue advocacy. Second, if the definitions extend to issue advocacy coordination, what then constitutes prohibited “coordination?”

* * *

¶41 We turn first to Two Unnamed Petitioners, the original action filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This case requires us to interpret Wisconsin’s campaign finance law, Wis. Stat. Ch. 11. By its very nature, this task involves fundamental questions regarding the scope of the government’s ability to regulate political speech. To resolve this case, we must engage in statutory interpretation of the phrase “political purposes,” which includes all activities “done for the purpose of influencing [an] election.” Wis. Stat. § 11.01(16). We conclude, consistent with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution, that the plain language of “political purposes” in Wis. Stat. § 11.01(16) is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague if it is not given a limiting construction and applied to only express advocacy and its functional equivalent. This conclusion invalidates the special prosecutor’s theory of the case and ends the John Doe investigation. Therefore, we agree with the Unnamed Movants and grant their requested relief.

The Court ripped into the investigating prosecutors (emphasis added):

¶68 Having reached our conclusion about the scope of conduct regulated by Chapter 11, we now turn to the special prosecutor’s theories of coordination and whether the alleged conduct is regulated under Wisconsin law.[23] The special prosecutor has disregarded the vital principle that in our nation and our state political speech is a fundamental right and is afforded the highest level of protection. The special prosecutor’s theories, rather than “assur[ing] [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,” Roth, 354 U.S. at 484, instead would assure that such political speech will be investigated with paramilitary-style home invasions conducted in the pre-dawn hours and then prosecuted and punished. In short, the special prosecutor completely ignores the command that, when seeking to regulate issue advocacy groups, such regulation must be done with “narrow specificity.” Barland II, 751 F.3d at 811 (quotations omitted).

¶69 The limiting construction that we apply makes clear that the special prosecutor’s theories are unsupportable in law given that the theories rely on overbroad and vague statutes. By limiting the definition of “political purposes” to express advocacy and its functional equivalent, political speech continues to be protected as a fundamental First Amendment right.

The court made clear the investigation was stopped cold in its tracks:

¶76 To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law. Consequently, the investigation is closed. Consistent with our decision and the order entered by Reserve Judge Peterson, we order that the special prosecutor and the district attorneys involved in this investigation must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation. All Unnamed Movants are relieved of any duty to cooperate further with the investigation.

The Court went on in addition to uphold a lower court’s quashing of a subpoenas and search warrants sought by the prosecutors, finding that the John Doe powers did not allow “a fishing expedition”:

¶91 Reasonableness and particularity are not just requirements of search warrants, however. Subpoenas issued by courts, and by extension John Doe judges, must also satisfy these requirements of the Fourth Amendment. In re John Doe Proceeding, 272 Wis. 2d 208, ¶38. A John Doe proceeding, with its broad investigatory powers, must never be allowed to become a fishing expedition.

¶92 It is difficult, if not impossible, to overstate the importance of the role of the John Doe judge. If he does not conduct the investigation fairly, as a neutral and detached magistrate, the risk of harm to innocent targets of the investigation-and we remain mindful that all such targets are presumed innocent-is too great. Through the use of a John Doe proceeding, “law enforcement officers are able to obtain the benefit of powers not otherwise available to them, i.e., the power to subpoena witnesses, to take testimony under oath, and to compel the testimony of a reluctant witness.” Washington, 83 Wis. 2d at 822-23. Such powers, if not wielded with care and skill may serve to transform a John Doe proceeding into an implement of harassment and persecution by a vengeful or unethical prosecutor. Thus, John Doe judges must be mindful of this danger and zealously guard the rights of all citizens against over-reach.

The Court then summarized its holdings, just so there was no doubt that it had completely rejected the prosecutors’ legal theory on coordination of issue advocacy (emphasis added):

¶133 Our lengthy discussion of these three cases can be distilled into a few simple, but important, points. It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a “perfect storm” of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them. It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution. Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.

¶134 In Two Unnamed Petitioners, we hold that the definition of “political purposes” in Wis. Stat. § 11.01(16) is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution because its language “‘is so sweeping that its sanctions may be applied to constitutionally protected conduct which the state is not permitted to regulate.’” Janssen, 219 Wis. 2d at 374 (quoting Bachowski, 139 Wis. 2d at 411). However, a readily available limiting construction exists that we will apply and that will prevent the chilling of otherwise protected speech; namely, that “political purposes” is limited to express advocacy and its functional equivalent as those terms are defined in Buckley and WRTL II. With this limiting construction in place, Chapter 11 does not proscribe any of the alleged conduct of any of the Unnamed Movants. The special prosecutor has not alleged any express advocacy, and issue advocacy, whether coordinated or not, is “beyond the reach of [Ch. 11].” Barland II, 751 F.3d at 815. Accordingly, we invalidate the special prosecutor’s theory of the case, and we grant the relief requested by the Unnamed Movants.

¶135 To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law. Consequently, the investigation is closed. Consistent with our decision and the order entered by Reserve Judge Peterson, we order that the special prosecutor and the district attorneys involved in this investigation must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation. All Unnamed Movants are relieved of any duty to cooperate further with the investigation.

Wisconsin Supreme Court – John Doe Decision

.

.