http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Hearings Sun, 19 May 2013 11:04:18 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Hearings Sat, 18 May 2013 13:08:33 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e25_1368896745 ConspiracyTardLL After a late start, and a "ten minute break" that lasted more than a half hour, the NJ Senate committee on gun control decides to cut off public comment on the proposed gun control bills at 4 o'clock. The chairman and most of the committee then refuse to honor the pledge of allegiance. This took place at the NJ Senate gun control hearings in Trenton on April 30, 2013. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e25_1368896745 ConspiracyTardLL NJ Citizen testimony cut off; Chairman sits during Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of Allegiance Sat, 18 May 2013 08:15:30 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d2_1368878891 Detroit Iron By Colbert King East Germany's Ministry for State Security, also known as the Stasi, posed a major challenge during my three-year stint as an attache at the U.S. Embassy in Bonn during the 1960s. Detecting and preventing Stasi agents from penetrating the security of U.S. diplomatic facilities in West Germany was a 24-7 undertaking. The East German secret police were even more ruthless and relentless in operations against their own citizens. Political suppression in that communist state was total. There was no room for dissent. Thousands of East Germans were arbitrarily imprisoned for "internal security" reasons. So it was especially galling to learn upon returning to the states in 1969 that the FBI had a counterintelligence program, known as COINTELPRO, that was, in some ways, as pernicious as the threat we were working against overseas. Senate hearings in the 1970s revealed that the FBI, under the guise of protecting national security, had treated rights guaranteed by the First Amendment as little more than a collection of antiquated wishes best ignored. With its surveillance of citizens, infiltration of civil rights groups and disruption of legal activities, the FBI's counterintelligence program echoed the behavior of East Germany's Stasi. The FBIacknowledges on its Web site that "COINTELPRO was later rightfully criticized by Congress and the American people for abridging first amendment rights and for other reasons." Fortunately, Congress reined in the FBI, placing it behind, and not beyond, the Constitution. Where are we now? The revelations that the Justice Department had secretly seized journalists' phone records and that the Internal Revenue Service had targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status show that government's heavy hand has not been lifted. Are these examples of COINTELPRO revisited? Not quite, though they are disturbing. Governments spend millions to prevent secrets from falling into enemy hands. A Justice Department probe into a compromised Middle East intelligence operation last year was not focused on the surreptitious work of a foreign power. The unlawful disclosure came from within. The Justice Department sought to discover who in the U.S. government allegedly told the Associated Press about a failed al-Qaeda plot in Yemen. The compromised Yemeni operation differs from some breakdowns in national security for its cause. Chalk up that serious breach to hubris: the leaker's puerile chest-thumping about having bested a sworn enemy or, worse, a self-serving desire to burnish the Obama administration's credentials as an al-Qaeda slayer. In this regard, the administration has only itself to blame. On top of the mistakes made by a U.S. official leaking the nation's secrets, the administration compounded things by launching a dragnet for the records of callsreceived and made from 20 phone lines (including office, home and cell numbers) of the AP journalists in five area codes and three states. Talk about power running amok. Meanwhile, back in the bureaucracy, Internal Revenue Service workers were having a high old time putting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status through hoops. IRS employees were instructed to be on the "lookout" for groups with "tea party" and "patriot" in their names, according to the report of the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration. The acting IRS commissioner has already been forced to walk the plank, and more heads may roll. The IRS has a steep hill to climb to gain the public's trust. But there is one bright spot: This misbehavior was detected and exposed by government self-policing. Of course, the selective screening never should have occurred. But the inspector general system created to ferret out government fraud, waste and abuse worked in this case. The Justice Department, meanwhile, is in an even deeper hole. Who can take seriously the department's mission, as stated by its Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, "to protect the privacy and civil liberties of the American people"? Famed First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told the Daily Beast this week that the Justice Department's broad seizure of journalists' phone records was "certainly one of the most intense intrusions by the government into a pressroom that I can remember." "Why couldn't they put this issue before a judge?" Abrams asked. "What they have done is foreclose any meaningful response by the AP. This isn't just seeking a record of one journalist for one day. This is breaking and entering into the heart of the journalistic process of the Associated Press." Media outlets covering D.C. affairs should also be concerned. Journalists who draw on confidential sources while aggressively covering the city's corruption scandal may now wonder if U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen is going after their phone records. After all, it was Machen's office that served the subpoenas in the AP case. COINTELPRO? No. Unchecked government power? Yes. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/colbert-king-disturbing-abuses-of-power/2013/05/17/915a7264-bea9-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html?hpid=z2 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d2_1368878891 Detroit Iron Disturbing abuses of power U.S. Justice Department, Internal Revenue Service, Sat, 18 May 2013 08:01:21 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3d9_1368878130 dfaugust Treasury Sec: I Knew About IRS Scandal Last Week--And Also Last FallIn an interview with Bloomberg TV, former Obama chief of staff-turned-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew offered two conflicting yet carefully worded answers as to when he first learned that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had targeted Tea Party and conservative groups: he learned last week--and possibly before the 2012 election. Bloomberg's Al Hunt asked Lew, whose Treasury Department oversees the IRS: "When were you first notified that IRS agents were targeting conservative groups like the Tea Party?" Instead of answering Hunt's question directly, however, Lew instead chose to answer when he first learned about the IG report, a tactic President Barack Obama also used earlier this week during a press conference. "I learned the substance of this report last Friday when it became a matter of public knowledge," Lew claimed. "Before that, in mid-March , I had had a conversation, just a getting-to-know-you conversation, with the inspector general right after I started, and he went through a number of items that were matters they were working on. And the topic of a project on the 501(c)3 issue was one of the things he briefed me was ongoing." Hunt then asked whether former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Lew's deputy, Neal Wolin, or the general counsel knew about the IRS's political profiling of conservative groups. "I think that there was-the heads-up that I got was something that was a matter of public knowledge," said Lew. "It was posted on the IG's website in the fall of 2012. I believe that other is typically the practice that an inspector general notify the agencies when matters are opened. I was not aware of any details." It is possible that "fall of 2012" could refer to a period of time before the election. Regardless, Lew would have discovered the investigation in his capacity as President Obama's chief of staff, meaning that it is possible the president knew of the investigation in 2012 as well. This is not the first time Lew has provided confusing or less-than-candid answers. During Lew's confirmation, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) blasted Lew for misleading Congress: Jack Lew must never be Treasury Secretary. He made a series of false representations to Congress and to the American people in a deliberate effort to deceive. The man charged with safeguarding the Treasury of the United States cannot be someone who has so thoroughly ruined his own credibility. We must have a person who, when speaking of America's financial condition, will be totally candid. Congressional hearings on the widening IRS scandal resume Monday. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/17/Treasury-Sec-I-Knew-About-IRS-Scandal-Last-Week-And-Also-Before-The-Election http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3d9_1368878130 dfaugust Treasury Sec: I Knew About IRS Scandal Last Week--And Also Last Fall obama, hillary clinton, IRS Scandal, corruption, TYRANNY, treasury secretary jack lew Sat, 18 May 2013 00:10:22 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4d4_1368849938 Detroit Iron By Barnini Chakraborty Published May 17, 2013 FoxNews.com Jay Devereaux hadn't paid much attention to the daily drumbeat of partisan politics in D.C. He wasn't a Washington nerd, and didn't know who said what during congressional hearings -- nor did he care. But when news broke that the government was using taxpayer money to bail out Wall Street banks, he started paying attention and didn't like what he was hearing. So the Florida father and information technology specialist decided to form a group, Unite in Action, to educate people in his area about the issues, he said. It was originally formed as a corporation before Devereaux decided to apply for tax-exempt status from the IRS. That was two years ago. It was never approved. "It's all but killed us," Devereaux told FoxNews.com. "We could lose everything. Today, it's me and my organization, but tomorrow it could be you." Devereaux is among a group of activists, being represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, who are preparing to sue the federal government for the practice of targeting Tea Party groups. ACLJ Executive Director Jordan Sekulow told FoxNews.com he'll likely file the civil suits next Wednesday or Thursday on behalf of more than a dozen Tea Party groups who say they were singled out by the IRS and had their tax-exempt status severely delayed or denied altogether. The suits, combined with congressional inquiries and an FBI probe, signal that the heated hearing on Capitol Hill Friday - with the outgoing IRS chief - was just the start of a protracted legal and political battle over the scandal. Sekulow said the number of plaintiffs in the civil suit are growing as is the list of who his organization wants held accountable. It's still unclear whether the organization will file as a class-action or individually in the 17 different states where the complaints originate. Litigation could take months or years and for some like Devereaux, time isn't on their side. While initially waiting for IRS approval, Devereaux dipped into his own bank account, maxed out credit cards and even borrowed money from friends so his group could put on a civic-engagement training session at the Omni Shoreham hotel in Washington. His goal was to eventually set up a steady stream of revenue for a tax-exempt nonprofit. The next time Devereaux heard from the IRS, they had requested details and credentials on every single speaker and all the educational materials provided in the 78 classes held at the hotel. The IRS also wanted information on all 45 vendors, their credentials and a donor list. Devereaux refused. Five rounds of IRS letters later, and United in Action's tax-exempt status is still in limbo. If they are denied, Devereaux's group would owe the federal government "somewhere in the neighborhood of $70,000 in back taxes," he said, referring to money he would owe the government on donations. "It's more than we have in our bank account," he said. He's not alone. Waco Tea Party President Toby Walker said her group applied for a 501(c)(4) status in July 2010. She'd call the IRS from time to time to check on the progress but was basically told, 'Don't call us, we'll call you,' she said. Then in February 2012, the IRS finally made contact. Walker said she was asked questions that went well beyond the purview of the agency's authority. They wanted to know everything about the Waco Tea Party group, their relationships with public officials, lists of volunteers and every single news story the group had ever been mentioned in. Walker said the request was so lengthy and intrusive that had she complied with the demands, she "would have needed a U-haul truck of about 20 feet." While Walker's group was finally granted tax-exempt status in March 2013, she said a lot of damage has already been done. She said people were afraid to support her group financially because they had not received the IRS-stamped status. Others were afraid that they might be targeted by the IRS if they supported Walker's group publicly. Having one of the most powerful government agencies angry at them wasn't a risk many people were willing to take. And so the group suffered, she said. "We spent thousands of our own dollars fighting this," she said. "If this happens to one organization in America, we should all be outraged." Allegations that the IRS had been targeting conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status date back years but a government report released Wednesday backed up the claims. The White House has spent most of the week trying to contain the fallout from the scandal. "Americans are right to be angry about it, and I am angry about it," President Obama said earlier this week. By Friday, two of the agency's top tax officials had been removed from their posts. One, outgoing acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller, was grilled Friday morning in the House Ways and Means Committee by Republican and Democratic lawmakers who demanded answers on why the unfair practice of targeting conservative groups was allowed to continue on his watch. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/17/could-lose-everything-tea-party-groups-prepare-to-sue-irs/#ixzz2Tc7oBrur http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4d4_1368849938 Detroit Iron 'We could lose everything': Tea Party groups prepare to sue IRS Unite in Action, IRS, Fri, 17 May 2013 17:23:00 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=09f_1368825544 echo4250 Since September, Republicans have claimed the Obama administration covered up the truth about the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya by altering the talking points Susan Rice used on the Sunday morning talk shows. To bolster the story, Republicans misquoted or significantly embellished the emails officials used to draft Rice's remarks, the CBS Evening News reported Thursday. CBS News' Major Garrett confirmed that it was a GOP source who leaked the altered emails. The miscast quotes affect at least two emails that include a State Department spokesperson and a White House deputy adviser - the two parties GOP lawmakers insist were trying to engage a cover-up on behalf of the Obama administration to protect the president's chances of re-election. A leaked email adds new language to State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland's email, including a specific reference to al-Qaeda: "The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda's presence and activities of al-Qaeda." The actual email read: "The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Departmentfor not paying attention to Agency warnings." A leaked email written by deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes suggests that he asked for the final draft to remove references to warnings about specific attacks, a demand made by the State Department: "We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation." But the actual email did not mention the State Department: "We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation." Since the congressional hearings last week, the White House on Wednesday released a hundred pages of emails from after the consulate attack. The full version undermines already-thin accusations that this is a White House scandal. Think Progress http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=09f_1368825544 echo4250 GOP Sources Altered Benghazi Emails to Suggest a Cover-UP Republicans,exposed,frauds,liars Fri, 17 May 2013 17:00:10 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f96_1368824286 cajunmojo In no uncertain terms and with no hedging, The New York Times reports that the Obama Administration was aware of the fact that the IRS was targeting Tea Party groups as far back as June of 2012. The Treasury Department's Inspector General confirmed that he told senior Treasury officials in June of 2012, a full five months before Election Day:The Treasury Department's inspector general told senior Treasury officials in June 2012 he was investigating the Internal Revenue Service's screening of politically active organizations seeking tax exemptions, disclosing for the first time on Friday that Obama administration officials were aware of the matter during the presidential campaign year. We still don't know for sure what the President knew or when he knew it, but this does confirm that the Administration was aware of the fact that Obama's political enemies were under fire by the IRS and covered that fact up during an election year. As Lisa Meyers of NBC News told "Morning Joe" today , "Imagine if we -- if you can -- what would have happened if this fact came out in September 2012, in the middle of a presidential election? The terrain would have looked very different." The first time President Obama was asked when he found out about the IRS scandal, he told the media that he learned of the news last Friday, the same way the rest of us did -- from the news media. Thursday, a Bloomberg reporter asked the President when both he or anyone in the White House learned of the scandal. The President dodged the question . With this latest news confirming when the Administration first learned of the IRS scandal, we now know that, along with Benghazi and the unfurling Associated Press scandal, that there were three scandals brewing and unfolding in the White House during an election year. But we are only now hearing about them -- six months after Barack Obama is safely re-elected. This fact says as much about the failure of our lapdog national media as it does about President Obama. Why just this morning the Times itself dismissed the IRS scandal on its editorial page. Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f96_1368824286 cajunmojo NYT: OBAMA ADMINISTRATION KNEW OF IRS SCANDAL 5 MONTHS BEFORE ELECTION obama, irs, democrats, liberals Fri, 17 May 2013 12:27:12 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48f_1368806567 Brockk Democratic Party Marches in Washington DC 1928 Fear And IntimidationThe apple does not fall far from the tree Remember your roots Representative Paul Ryan was my guest Thursday and we covered a lot of ground. The transcript will be posted ASAP below. On the question of DOJ's snooping of the House press gallery, Representative Ryan replied to my question about it: "Of course I'm troubled. Are you kidding?" Most of the MSM hasn't figured out yet that if the DOJ can grab the press phone records originating from the House, they can grab any phone record coming out of the Hill. Ryan also comments on the impact on the election of the manipulation of the Benghazi attack by the White House and on the IRS scandal. For additional background on the IRS scandal, read this post and this post by Carol Platt Liebau, and this post by National Review's Kevin Williamson, for background on Benghazi this post by Powerline's John Hinderaker, and for the impact of all the scandals on the president this important column by Peggy Noonan. Transcript of the Paul Ryan interview: HH: Joining me, a member of the Ways And Means Committee, and of course, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan. Congressman, welcome back, good to talk to you. PR: Hey, Hugh, how have you been? Good to see you, or good to be with you, excuse me. I guess I can't see you. Good to hear you. HH: Thank you. I want to begin with what my colleague, Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall.com has pinned as the key thing thus far in the IRS scandal. On August 4th, 2011, Obama appointee Williams Wilkins, who is chief counsel of the IRS, was briefed on the political targeting of conservative groups. Now he's a well-trained lawyer. PR: Right. HH: Could he possibly have learned of this and not informed the White House, in your view, Paul Ryan? PR: We're going to find out. You know, I don't know the answer to the question, but I can tell you this, we're going to find out the answer to these questions. The reason we know about this already is because of the Ways And Means Committee and the oversight and research we've been doing, which prompted the Inspector General report. We had hearings last year in the Ways And Means Committee where we asked the commissioner about this, and they just denied it. And so they have had a couple of opportunities since that moment you just, you know, since then, to affirm, confirm or deny with Congress whether this happened or not. They denied it. So there's a lot we have left to learn. They can try and have disciplinary action, they can call for resignations. Those things are necessary. But they're not enough. And Hugh, this goes much bigger than this. And this is unfortunately the kind of thing you have with a big government and a really bad tax code. And you know, we have a government that's working for itself, not for the people. And the IRS is fishing around people's private lives, it's approving the groups it likes and harassing the groups it doesn't. That's not who we are. HH: Congressman, Peggy Noonan, in a piece that went online minutes ago, and will be in the paper tomorrow, writes we are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. And she writes, as it always comes down to trust, do you trust the President's answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not. And it goes on to say look, these are his agencies. The IRS and the Justice Department answer to him. Does he set the tone? PR: Of course he sets the tone. This isn't just about incompetence, though. This is about an overreach. This is about a government that has gone beyond its scope, and this also speaks to the philosophy of government that's at play here in Washington. And if you want to have a government that does everything for you, they've got to know everything about you. If you want to have a government that should be in the position of picking winners and losers, well then, they will pick winners and losers. And so it's not a story just about incompetence. It's about overreach. You know, big government is bad in theory, but it's much worse in practice. And effective government, that is good government that's limited, focuses in on our core duties. So this speaks to more than just, you know, did they do this to conservative groups before an election to try and give themselves an advantage? It also goes beyond that to, you know, bureaucrats are making decisions for us on behalf of government, not on behalf of the people. And so... HH: Now Congressman, I've heard... PR: That's, to me, a bigger, the bigger issue here. HH: I have heard from people that the SEC has targeted Romney/Ryan supporters. I have heard, and I know for a fact about the EPA scandals and the fake ID's, and the selective FOIA requests. I was told by Rob Portman yesterday about the HHS Obamacare fundraising scandal. PR: Right. HH: It's everywhere. How vast is this culture of intimidation and corruption? PR: I get the sense that we're just at the tip of the iceberg here. And this is why we're going to do this methodically, we're going to do this the right way, we're not going to be passioned or partisan. We're going to do our jobs as the representatives of the people, you know, the legislative branch of government doing our Constitutional duty of conducting oversight of the executive branch. The executive branch has clearly overreached. This seems more like a pattern than a couple of one-off events that a couple of rogue people in Cincinnati. It clearly goes bigger than that. And we're going to painstakingly go through this system and find out just how deep this is. But I would say at the core of the system is a government that is spending beyond its reach. HH: Now many hearings have you set aside? And how far into the summer are they scheduled? PR: Well, we're in the middle of planning all of that. And so we're just trying to collect as much information as we can right now in the Ways And Means Committee. There's a lot of people we've got to talk to, a lot of people that have to be deposed, and a lot of evidence that has to be gathered. And so just like a good investigation, you go where the evidence shows you. And here's the point we're trying to get at. We need to restore accountability, trust and transparency to government. And that means you have to get answers. That's what Benghazi is all about, getting to the actual answers so things like this do not happen again. HH: Speaking of Benghazi... PR: Tomorrow, we're holding a hearing in the Ways and Means, we're going to hold the IRS accountable, we're going to ask tough questions, but we're going to keep going. And we also need to ask deeper questions. I hope we don't lose the moment to ask deeper questions. What is the government's role? What should it be doing? And what shouldn't it be doing? We can get this right, and people deserve a government that supports them. Families deserve real security. They deserve a government that treats them equally, and that's not what we're getting right now. HH: Now Congressman, speaking of Benghazi, John Hinkeraker of Powerline is coming up after this, and he's gone through the emails. They're a MacGuffin. They reveal that they intended at the White House to mislead Congress in the election narrative, but they don't tell us where this, the video narrative came from. You were living in the middle of that campaign. As you look back at this, how great a degree of deception was being practiced and organized at Team Obama concerning Benghazi? PR: Well, I mean, now what I know, I didn't know this then, of course, but what I know now is that there was clearly an attempt to dissuade the country from thinking this was terrorism. The question is who made the decision to tell our U.N. ambassador to go on the Sunday shows and say this was just some spontaneous mob, there's nothing to see here, don't worry about it, it's not terrorism. And then there are the issues, the even bigger issues, which is what could have been done to save these lives that evening, especially the two guys who were killed later on, and what wasn't done, and why were those decisions made. And then who's decision was it to basically put out information that they knew not to be true? We heard that from the campaign. I don't want to sound like some sore loser about the campaign, but I don't want my government, as an American citizen, telling me things that they know aren't true. I don't want my government picking winners and losers for IRS oversight to harass people because of their political views. That's what a banana republic does. That's not what the United States of America should be doing. And so if we want to make sure that this kind of banana republic thuggish behavior doesn't continue, then we in the Congress are going to do our jobs and hold people accountable. HH: I'm not asking you to be sour grapes here, and I heard you say that. But do you believe the manipulation of the Benghazi story resulted, impacted the election outcome? PR: Well, I think, of course, I think it had impacts. I can't say whether this was, I don't know that anybody could say that it was the factor. I don't think that you could say that. But if people knew all of these facts that we now know, and there's more to find out, then, if we knew then what we know now, do I think that could have changed some opinion? Do I think that would have changed the direction of public opinion? Sure. Of course. But I can't, I have no idea whether it would have changed the outcome or not. HH: Your colleague, Devin Nunes, was on the program yesterday, and brought to my attention what I had not realized, which is the extent of this snooping on AP reached the House of Representatives. PR: Yeah. HH: And he used the wrong term. He said wiretapping. He meant snooping, because they just swept up the phone records. Does that shock you that the DOJ without a court order and on their own initiative, swept up the phone records of the House of Representatives? PR: Well, it's the Cloak Room, excuse me, it's not the Cloak room where members of Congress used the phones. They call it the Press Gallery, which is not far from the Cloak Room. It's in the same House floor, it's off the House floor. But my understanding is they took the records of the House Press Gallery AP. Members of Congress use the phones in what we call the Cloak Room. I don't think they took those records. So I don't think you could say they swept up the records of members of Congress' phone calls. They took the records of AP reporters in the House Gallery who were doing, were reporting on Congress. HH: But if they can do that, if they can go into the House, can't... PR: Yeah, look, I'm not making an excuse. I'm just trying to make sure that we're accurate here. HH: Does it trouble you? PR: Of course it troubles me. Are you kidding me? Look, this is why, again, the point I'm trying to make here is let's not think of this as just, oh gosh, some bad people at the IRS did those dumb things, and then oh, some overzealous prosecutor at the Justice Department did that, and oh, gosh, you know, some low level person at the State Department did this. We should not be thinking like that. We should be thinking this is what you get with big government in practice. This is what you get when you have a government that just has gone beyond its moorings, that has gone beyond its scope, and this is the kind of government you get with progressive politics. And that's just not in keeping with our Constitution. That's not what we deserve. We want equality under the law, and that's not what we're getting, whether we're a reporter, a taxpayer, or a citizen. HH: Congressman Paul Ryan, we will be watching the Ways And Means Committee hearing tomorrow with great, great interest. Thanks for joining us. End of interview. http://www.hughhewitt.com/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48f_1368806567 Brockk Democratic Party Marches in Washington DC 1928 Fear,Intimidation Fri, 17 May 2013 09:06:19 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23b_1368795857 omniradar By Daya Gamage May 16, 2013 "Information Clearing House " -" Asian Tribune"- There is a 'side story' going on in the American media - both the electronic and print about the Islamist jihadists lethal attack on the American 'post' in Benghazi, Libya last September 11 which killed American ambassador Christopher Steven and three others; The emphasis and the debate is on why the event was twisted by the Obama administration to conceal a terrorist attack on eve of the presidential election. With the killing of Osama bin Larden on May 2 last year the administration, which was approaching the re-election of Mr. Obama in November, wants to convince the American people that the al Qaeda was now annihilated for good. When the Islamist jihadist group affiliated to al Qaeda lethally attacked the American 'post' in Benghazi the Obama administration twisted the events to convince that a anti-Islamic video produced by someone in California was the cause of the attack. These days the highlights and debate is about why the 'talking points' were changed twelve times to give that different picture. As Obama rightfully said a couple of days ago about this debate, mostly spearheaded by the Republicans, was a 'side show.' The 'real show' is in fact buried. And the 'real show' is that the United States, Ambassador Steven playing a major role, was in the process of shipping arms to Syrian rebels to topple Basher el-Assad's regime. It was on October 25 last year that FoxNews.com broke the story that a mysterious Libyan ship was reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels would have had some link to the September 11 terror attack on the U.S. 'post' in Benghazi. Why do we use the term 'post' in this report? Because when changes were made to the Benghazi attack story by the Obama administration it changed from 'American Consulate' to 'American Post'. The reason: Benghazi operation was entirely a CIA operation. Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means "The Victory," was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun -- 35 miles from the Syrian border -- on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officers were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants. On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the 'posts' front gate one hour before the assault began. Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. When asked to comment, a State Department spokeswoman dismissed the idea, saying Stevens was there for diplomatic meetings, and to attend the opening of a cultural center. According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria's rebels on the frontlines. The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG's and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS. In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group-a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life. In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria. The Internet Media reported at that time that Ambassador Stevens had only one person-Belhadj-between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria. The Asian Tribune has also found that the Internet Media further reported that if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey-a deal brokered by Stevens' primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution-then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it. Furthermore there was a CIA post in Benghazi, located 1.2 miles from the U.S. consulate, used as "a base for, among other things, collecting information on the proliferation of weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals, including surface-to-air missiles" ... and that its security features "were more advanced than those at rented villa where Stevens died." As noted earlier, the Obama administration has since described the American facility in Benghazi not as a 'Consulate' but as a 'Post'. The U.S. Republican Senator Rand Paul, who is expected to run for his party presidential nomination in the year 2016, was the only American lawmaker who disclosed about this 'arms deal' which he connects to Ambassador Steven's brutal muder in the hands of the Islamist Jihadists. In an interview aired on CNN May 9 evening, Sen. Paul said he hasn't ruled out the possibility that last year's attack unfolded as a result of a secret arms trade. The confusion in the immediate aftermath of the event - including unfounded admissions from America's United Nations envoy Susan Rice that contradicted what is known today about the attack - could actually be a cover-up, the senator said. The Obama administration sent its ambassador to UN Susan Rice on the following Sunday talk shows to say that the offending Islamic video was the cause of the attack in Benghazi. "I've actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria," he said. "Were they trying to obscure that there was an arms operation going on at the CIA annex?" Paul asked. "I'm not sure exactly what was going on, but I think questions ought to be asked and answered, and I'm a little curious when employees of the State Department are told by government officials they shouldn't testify - before the Senate or House committees - and then they are sort of sequestered and kept away from testimony, so I think there may be more to this." This is not the first time either that Senator Paul raised questions about possible arms supplies under the CIA umbrella. During her testimony in the Senate in January, Rand Paul asked then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton whether the spy agency was sending weapons from Benghazi into other countries. Clinton replied that he would have to ask CIA officials about it. Sen. Rand Paul said on Aaron Klein Radio in mid April: "First of all with regard to Benghazi, I think it's important because it may have something to do with why the compound was attacked. If we were involved with shipping guns to Turkey, there was a report that a ship left from Libya towards Turkey and that there were arms on it in the week preceding this ; there were reports that our ambassador was meeting with the Turkish attach'e, so I think with regards to figuring out what happened at Benghazi, it's very important to know whether or not the CIA annex had anything to do with facilitating guns being sent to Turkey and ultimately to Syria. With regard to arming the rebels, just this week in the armed services committee, General Dempsey, the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that we were no longer able to distinguish who the good guys were from the bad guys and that sounds pretty worrisome if we are actually arming people who in the end may be enemies of America...enemies of Israel... enemies maybe of the Christians who live within Syria...sending arms to a rebel force to that may include Al-Nusra and other radical jihadists." In the eighties, the Iran-Contra Arms Affair shook the Regan administration the way the Benghazi affair is developing to shake the foundation of the Obama administration. Iran-contra affair, in U.S. history, secret arrangement in the 1980s to provide funds to the Nicaraguan contra rebels from profits gained by selling arms to Iran. The Iran-contra affair was the product of two separate initiatives during the administration of President Ronald Reagan. The first was a commitment to aid the contras who were conducting a guerrilla war against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The second was to placate "moderates" within the Iranian government in order to secure the release of American hostages held by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon and to influence Iranian foreign policy in a pro-Western direction. Despite the strong opposition of the Reagan administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted legislation that prohibited the Defense Dept., the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or any other government agency from providing military aid to the contras from Dec., 1983, to Sept., 1985. The Reagan administration circumvented these limitations by using the National Security Council (NSC), which was not explicitly covered by the law, to supervise covert military aid to the contras. Under Robert McFarlane (1983-85) and John Poindexter (1985-86) the NSC raised private and foreign funds for the contras. This operation was directed by NSC staffer Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North. McFarlane and North were also the central figures in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo. In early Nov., 1986, the scandal broke when reports in Lebanese newspapers forced the Reagan administration to disclose the arms deals. Poindexter resigned before the end of the month; North was fired. Select congressional committees held joint hearings, and in Dec., 1986, Lawrence E. Walsh was named as special prosecutor to investigate the affair. Higher administration officials, particularly Reagan, Vice President Bush, and William J. Casey (former director of the CIA, who died in May, 1987), were implicated in some testimony, but the extent of their involvement remained unclear. North said he believed Reagan was largely aware of the secret arrangement, and the independent prosecutor's report (1994) said that Reagan and Bush had some knowledge of the affair or its cover-up. Reagan and Bush both claimed to have been uninformed about the details of the affair, and no evidence was found to link them to any crime. A presidential commission was critical of the NSC, while congressional hearings uncovered a web of official deception, mismanagement, and illegality. A number of criminal convictions resulted, including those of McFarlane, North, and Poindexter, but North's and Poindexter's were vacated on appeal because of immunity agreements with the Senate concerning their testimony. Former State Dept. and CIA officials pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information about the contra aid from Congress, and Caspar Weinberger, defense secretary under Reagan, was charged (1992) with the same offense. In 1992 then-president Bush pardoned Weinberger and other officials who had been indicted or convicted for withholding information on or obstructing investigation of the affair. Will the Benghazi Affair leads that far? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23b_1368795857 omniradar The real Benghazi story US Smuggling Weapons to Syrian Rebels Thu, 16 May 2013 13:55:33 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cfa_1368726435 Detroit Iron By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: May 16th, 2013 This has been a nightmare week for Barack Obama, without a doubt the worst of his presidency so far. Steven T. Miller, acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service has resigned over his agency's targeting of conservative groups, which even The Washington Post labeled this morning a "horror story" . Yesterday Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee on a host of issues including the Benghazi debacle, in what can only be described as a train wreck of a performance. Holder was simply unable or unwilling to answer most key questions, and demonstrated a level of contempt for elected officials in Congress that was breathtaking. It was yet another public relations disaster for the Obama team. In addition the administration has come under heavy fire over the Justice Department's monitoring of phone records belonging to Associated Press journalists. All this has combined to create a perfect storm in the first year of Obama's second term, a wave of scandals that has been so damaging to the standing of this administration that even The New York Times today carries the headline on its front page: "An Onset of Woes Raises Questions on Obama Vision" . When even the usually subservient inflight newspaper of Air Force One has doubts over the job the president is doing you know the situation is really desperate for The White House. George F. Will, one of America's most influential political commentators, and a columnist for The Washington Post, believes there are "echoes of Watergate" in both the IRS and Benghazi scandals. As Will wrote earlier this week: The burglary occurred in 1972, the climax came in 1974, but40 years ago this week - May 17, 1973 - the Senate Watergate hearings began exploring the nature of Richard Nixon's administration. Now the nature of Barack Obama's administration is being clarified as revelations about IRS targeting of conservative groups merge with myriad Benghazi mendacities. Will doesn't go as far as saying that Barack Obama will suffer the same fate as Nixon. After all, Obama benefits from a Senate controlled by the Democrats. But there is no denying the parallels between the sense of impunity in this White House and that of Richard Nixon's four decades ago. In fact it's considerably worse on many fronts. Political analyst Michael Barone warned back in October 2008 of what he called "The Coming Liberal Thugocracy," referring to then Senator Obama's call for his supporters "to get in their face" when confronting Republicans and Independents. Barone argued at the time that "Obama supporters who found the campuses congenial and Mr. Obama himself, who has chosen to live all his adult life in university communities, seem to find it entirely natural to suppress speech they don't like and seem utterly oblivious to claims this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment." Barone's predictions have been proved correct. As I've noted in previous pieces, this is a nasty, brutish, imperial-style presidency that is highly intolerant of dissent, and which goes out of its way to target political opponents. It is ironic that one of the journalists threatened by the Obama White House in recent months has been Bob Woodward, one of two Washington Post reporters who originally broke the Watergate scandal, and who was immortalised in the 1976 Oscar winner All The President's Men , where he was played by Robert Redford. Woodward was warned back in February by White House economic adviser Gene Sperling that he would "regret" remarks he made on the sequester issue. Other writers, including Bill Clinton's former special counsel Lanny Davis, have faced similar threats. Is it any surprise that conservative groups have been targeted en masse by the federal government following the kind of deeply unpleasant rhetoric used by Vice President Joe Biden, who supported the charge by Democrat Congressman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania that Tea Party Republicans had "acted like terrorists" over the debt issue? Biden has been a master of this kind of divisive, heated language, telling union members at an AFL-CIO rally in Detroit in September 2011 that "you are the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates." At the same rally, Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa declared : "President Obama, this is your army, and we are ready to march. Everybody here's got a vote. If we go back, and we keep the eye on the prize, let's take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong." Needless to say, President Obama remained silent on both the Biden and Hoffa remarks, and in the following year called on his supporters to take "revenge" against Republicans at the ballot box. This week, thanks to unprecedented levels of Congressional and mainstream media scrutiny of the actions of the Obama administration, the American people have been given a powerful insight into the way in which this presidency has operated. For far too long, the Obama administration has acted like an imperial court rather than a government that is accountable to the nation. The White House's culture of arrogance and impunity, coupled with a deeply unpleasant vindictiveness, is increasingly there for all to see. Suppression of political dissent, a callous disregard for the loss of American life in Benghazi, and the relentless rise of big government - these will be three of the most of enduring images of Barack Obama's imperial presidency. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100216779/why-barack-obamas-imperial-presidency-is-imploding/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cfa_1368726435 Detroit Iron Why Barack Obama's imperial presidency is imploding Obama, Eric Holder, George F. Will, Michael Barone, New York Times, Richard Nixon, Washington Post, Watergate Mon, 13 May 2013 09:44:01 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6d3_1368452437 omniradar I don't like Gingrich but on this occasion he makes a good point !!!! Gingrich: Obama 'will not profile terrorists but profile patriots' By David Edwards Monday, May 13, 2013 9:23 EDT Tweet Former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Monday tied a scandal where the Internal Revenue Service targeted tea party groups to President Barack Obama's health care reform law and last September's attacks in Benghazi. In an interview on MSNBC, host Joe Scarborough asked the former House Speaker what the president needed to do after The Associated Press revealed that the IRS has improperly scrutinized tea party organizations to determine if they had abused their tax-exempt status. "This is a huge problem because Obamacare relies very heavily on the IRS," Gingrich opined. "I think the president has to say he's going to open up totally, he's going to demand everybody meet with Congress, go to the hearings, he's going to fire everybody he can legally fire who's been involved in this." "And they've got to look at changes," he continued. "How can you put Obamacare under an Internal Revenue Service - remember this is an administration which will not profile terrorists, but profile patriots, profile constitutional groups. I mean, this is almost madness." But Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Carl Bernstein said that Gingrich was making a mistake by tying the IRS scandal to Obamacare. "There ought to be an investigation, there ought to be a criminal investigation if it's warranted," Bernstein explained. "And that's it. But to start making these global pronouncements about where it goes and it affects Obamacare seems to me is part of the problem." "My point is, Carl, why would you trust the bureaucracy with your health if you can't trust the bureaucracy with you politics?" Gingrich shot back. "But notice one other thing, the parallel between Benghazi and the IRS story is amazing. Lying and then lying about lying then hiding from the fact that they're lying then seeking to apologize from lies that they claim they didn't tell. I mean, this pattern is a culture of big government that believes it's more important than the American people." "The notion that somehow bureaucracy is always bad, the government does some very good things," Bernstein noted. "We've got to look at the government not as this monolith that does all bad, all good. We got to look specifically at what we're talking about." "There's something culturally sick if the American government says, 'Boy, you put that word Constitution in your name, we're going to come after you,'" Gingrich insisted. "Again, this is the administration that is shocked at the idea of profiling for terrorism, but apparently had an entire part of the IRS that was profiling for patriotism." On Sunday, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) called for an inspector general's audit of the Internal Revenue Service. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6d3_1368452437 omniradar Gingrich: Obama 'will not profile terrorists but profile patriots' Obama being Un-American ? Sun, 12 May 2013 16:56:23 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=75e_1368392000 dcmfox Posted: 05/10/2013 8:31 am When a former member of the Executive calls for Congress to subpoena another former member of the Executive, it is a game-changer. No longer can he rely on "Executive Privilege" to block his own testimony. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has suggested that the GOP subpoena former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again on Benghazi. Fine and dandy. Let us first subpoena Mr. Cheney to testify about 9/11, Iraq, torture and the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Unlike former Secretary Clinton, who has testified to Congress for hours on Benghazi, Cheney has never testified for one minute before Congress on any of these matters. Indeed, Congress never really investigated 9/11. It appointed a commission more than a year later to determine what changes needed to be made in U.S. security, not to assign accountability. One might ask Cheney who is accountable for 9/11, who lost their jobs over it. That is what Senator John McCain (R-AZ) keeps asking about Benghazi, yet I have never heard the official answers to those questions regarding 9/11/2001. Regarding 9/11, Cheney had been chosen (in the same way that he was 'chosen' to be VP nominee) by Bush to be in charge of security . The most important point to recall is that, despite all the warnings from January 25 from the then-White House counterterrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, Cheney never even called a meeting of the "principals" responsible for national security to discuss those warnings until 9/4/2001, and that meeting was perfunctory. ( Against All Enemies , Richard Clarke, p. 237). It is also worth noting that New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, who had no classified information, called it in a June 26, 2001 column, "A Memo from Osama bin Laden." Regarding Iraq, the Committee could probe how Cheney and his staff used Judith Miller to publish articles in the New York Times on Saddam's WMD that were sourced from Cheney and that Cheney then quoted without revealing he was essentially quoting himself. They might ask him about the certainty of his public pronouncements when the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) expressed serious doubt about many of its own findings. The Committee might ask him about his references to Mohammed Atta in Prague, and, well, one would scarcely know where to begin, or end. Regarding torture, there is recent bipartisan report that the Bush Adminstration engaged in torture and that the highest levels of government (read, Cheney and Bush) bear direct responsibility. Even the commission's co-chair, NRA apologist and former Republican Congressman Asa Hutchinson, agreed with that finding. The report has gone almost unnoticed. Perhaps the Cheney hearings can bring it to the fore where it belongs. And then, of course, there is Valerie Plame. The Committee might ask him the justification for revealing classified information at all, and, by so doing, providing aid-and-comfort to enemies of the United States. So, here's the deal. Hillary Clinton has already testified on Benghazi once. When Dick Cheney appears before Congress to answer questions about his actions that caused the death and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people, some from incompetence, some as a result of outright lying- -- then he can come talk to us about Hillary Clinton testifying again. Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pabrams2001 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=75e_1368392000 dcmfox Game Change: Cheney Opens Himself to Subpoena Regarding 9/11, Iraq, Torture and Valerie Plame Dick Cheney , Hillary Clinton , Benghazi , Iraq , Torture , 9/11 , Asa Hutchinson , Executive Privilege , Valerie Plame , Congressional Testimony , Politics News Sun, 12 May 2013 13:39:18 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=24d_1368380010 Detroit Iron 8:00 AM, MAY 12, 2013 o BY VICTORIA TOENSING The White House has touted the Accountability Review Board (ARB) investigation of the Benghazi massacre as a review "led by two men of unimpeachable expertise and credibility that oversaw a process that was rigorous and unsparing." In fact, the report was purposefully incomplete and willfully misleading. The two men in charge of the ARB, Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Thomas Mullen, a diplomat and military man respectively, have no meaningful investigative experience. Instead of letting the facts lead the direction of the investigation, the report appears designed to protect the interests of Hillary Clinton, the State Department higher ups, and the president. A most obvious question is: why was Secretary Clinton never interviewed for the investigation? She is mentioned only once in the report, as the person who convened the Board. If, as Clinton herself has said, she took full responsibility for what happened in Benghazi, her decisions and decision-making process are materially relevant for investigating what happened before and during the night of September 11, 2012, and preventing what went wrong from ever happening again. Other relevant questions the report does not answer are: How often did Clinton and President Obama speak during the attack? What decisions did the president make, and what orders did he give? What was the hour by hour participation of the president during the attack? My husband, Joseph diGenova, and I represented two State Department whistleblowers for the House Oversight and Reform Committee hearings held last week, on May 8. Mark Thompson, my husband's client, testified that he asked twice to be interviewed by the ARB and was not. Mr. Thompson was the deputy assistant secretary in charge of coordinating the deployment of a multi-agency team for hostage taking and terrorism attacks. Yet, he was excluded from all decisions, communications, and meetings on September 11 and 12, 2012. Why? Others asked to be interviewed and were not. Until they see how my client, Gregory Hicks, former charg'e and deputy chief of mission (DCM) in Libya, and Mr. Thompson fare after their testimony, they will not step forward. In addition, the ARB used procedures no seasoned investigator would ever follow. More significantly, the process was unfair to the witnesses. For example, no stenographer was present. So there is no verbatim transcript of testimony from each witness. The ARB used note takers. Mr. Hicks was not allowed to review the note taker's document that supposedly reflects what he said, but is limited to what the note taker thought he heard and decided to record. Mr. Hicks was not permitted to review the draft ARB report to suggest corrections or point out any omissions. He has never been allowed to read the classified report. The unfair process, in fact, has become even more troubling since I received calls from reporters after last week's hearing telling me that unnamed State Department persons are whispering that Mr. Hicks's statements to the ARB are "inconsistent" with his congressional testimony. The congressional testimony is more expansive because both Democratic and Republican staff interviewed Mr. Hicks, and others, for nearly five hours. By contrast, the ARB questioned Mr. Hicks for only two hours, despite the fact that he was the highest-ranking State Department official in Tripoli the night of the attack. Inconsistent? No! And how would anyone disprove that false claim without a transcript? The ARB report has at least one significant discrepancy, inconsistent with what Mr. Hicks told the Board. He specifically stated, with Pickering present, that the reason Ambassador Christopher Stevens went to Benghazi was to establish a permanent constituent post, an assignment received directly from Clinton in May 2012 when he was sworn in as ambassador. Soon after, Stevens told Mr. Hicks about this assignment over lunch when they discussed the procedures for getting the task done. When Mr. Hicks arrived in Tripoli in July 2012 they revisited the needs related to making Benghazi a permanent post. At the time, Stevens had out of country commitments and could not go to Benghazi until September. The trip was scheduled for mid-September because the report about building structures and security had to be submitted before the end of the fiscal year: September 30. When Mr. Hicks told the ARB the reason for the trip, Pickering visibly flinched and said: "Does the 7thfloor know about this?" (The office of the Secretary of State is on the 7th floor.) This relevant information was omitted in the ARB's unclassified report. Worse, it was concealed by a false statement: "The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice. Timing for his trip was driven in part by commitments in Tripoli, as well as a staffing gap ... in Benghazi." Mr. Hicks testified in the hearing that Washington was well aware prior to the trip that Stevens was going to Benghazi. Many observers have deplored the ARB's conclusion assigning responsibility to lower-level career officials at State for all mistakes, while clearing the political appointees above the assistant secretary of any missteps. It is a convenient finding-at least, for the State Department higher-ups. But the ARB's shoddy report is an insult to the memory of four dead Americans. The truth, even or especially at this point, does make a difference. Victoria Toensing, former chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and deputy assistant attorney general, is founding partner of diGenova & Toensing, a Washington, D.C. law firm. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/administration-relying-shoddy-benghazi-report-absolve-itself-blame_722379.html?page=2 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=24d_1368380010 Detroit Iron Administration Relying on Shoddy Benghazi Report to Absolve Itself of Blame Benghazi, Accountability Review Board (ARB)