New FBI texts highlight a motive to conceal the president’s involvement.

If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges.

That is why such an indictment of Hillary Clinton was never going to happen. The latest jaw-dropping disclosures of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, illustrate this point.

READ MORE

When the levee breaks

Excerpt from a long, but important message from Bob Owens:

The Obama Administration, through orchestrated abuse of power in multiple executive branch agencies, has attempted to suppress the free speech of millions of Americans by targeting hundreds of apolitical and independent non-profit groups vested in liberty.

The Obama Administration, through orchestrated abuse of power in multiple executive branch agencies, has used the power and intimidation of the state to bully and harass individual Americans that dared to exercise their free speech rights.

The Obama Administration, through orchestrated abuse of power in multiple executive branch agencies, targeted news media critical of the Administration, going so far as to use laws designed to catch and prosecute spies, against them.

Collectively, these felony high crimes are unforgivable. They are impeachable. They are indictable under federal and state felony laws, including conspiracy and racketeering.

The phrase “gangster government” is no longer hyperbole.

What will be your response?

READ MORE

Whose felony is this anyway?

According to the Weekly Standard, if someone in the Obama administration were to look at a taxpayer's tax records, it would be a violation of a federal law that was enacted in 1976 in response to Watergate.

Although there have been many amendments to the law since that time, the basic statutory scheme established in 1976 remains in place today.

But the Weekly Standard reports that

In August 2010, Austan Goolsbee, serving at the time as economic adviser to President Obama, told reporters during an anonymous background briefing that Koch Industries doesn't pay corporate income taxes.

There is no adequate explanation given why a member of the Obama administration would be privy to that information!

Then we learn that Political Hacks at the IRS Leaked Confidential Information on Conservatives to the Liberal Media Group ProPublica

Keep in mind that the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) is under the US Department of the Treasury, in the Executive Branch (currently the Obama administration).

You can read for yourself and see what the IRS can and cannot do:

PUBLICATION 4639 (Rev 10-2012) Disclosure & Privacy Law Reference Guide

If you want a simple explanation of what the stakes are, read what (ironically) the IRS preaches about its own mission:

V. CONCLUSION

A distinguishing characteristic and, indeed, one of the strengths of American tax administration, is the self assessment feature of the system. Employees of the Office of Chief Counsel and the IRS must be constantly aware that in fostering this system, there must be public confidence with respect to the confidentiality of personal and financial information given to us for tax administration purposes.

Thus, we must administer the disclosure provisions of the internal revenue laws in accordance with the spirit and intent of the law, ever mindful of this public trust. The law makes the confidential relationship between the taxpayer and the IRS quite apparent. By the single act of filing a tax return, a record is created and also a trust. We are responsible for maintaining both.

There is probably no other government agency having as much contact with as many citizens as the IRS in the course of carrying out its responsibility of collecting the 1-18 revenue. As a result, a vast majority of our records are confidential in the very real sense that they represent information the American people have provided to their government in confidence. The confidential nature of these records requires that each request for information be evaluated in the light of a considerable body of law and regulations that either authorize or prohibit disclosure. The diversity of our records, the size of our organization, and the complexity of our operations, all contribute to the issues we must consider when performing our official duties.

How would YOU (Mr. & Mrs. Citizen) rate the Obama Administration's performance?

Or are you suddenly busy in the bathroom bending over your privy?