Search This Blog

Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts

Friday, June 26, 2020

Tom Fitton From Judicial Watch on Michael Flynn, Hunter Biden, Susan Rice and the Benghazi Attack, and More

Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch
This week (June 21-26 2020) Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, has so many interesting documents discussed in Tom Fitton's weekly video, I decided to put the entire post from Judicial Watch.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ.com
Editor, ADVOCATZ Blog
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice
Editor, NYC Public Voice
Editor, Inside 3020-a Teacher Trials 



Revealed: Obama Effort to ‘Evolve’ Explanation of Benghazi Attack

It’s hard to keep your story straight if you’re making it up as you go along, which was the modus operandi of Obama fabricator Ben Rhodes.

The Justice Department released 80 pages of records showing top Obama White House officials scrambling to “evolve” its false claims that the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. Government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video on the Internet.

The emails reveal top Obama White House official Ben Rhodes and Clinton State Department Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan joking about being called “liars” and “leakers.”

The records were produced in response to our 2016 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:16-cv-02046)). We filed the lawsuit after the Justice Department failed to comply with a July 7, 2016, FOIA request for records of the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure.

On September 16, 2012, then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday television talk shows claiming the Benghazi attack was incited spontaneously by an anti-Muslim Internet video. The newly released records show a redacted official’s email from September 27 to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and then-NSC spokesman Tommy Vietor, copying then-Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, saying, “What’s the plan here?” Rhodes responds:
Broader plan is IC [intelligence community] acknowledgement of an evolving assessment of what took place, which happens to be true (unlike just about everything else we’ve seen reported on Benghazi.)
Further along in the email thread, an official whose name is redacted, says, “Everyone know [sic] Susan [in her TV appearances] was using not just IC approved guidance, but IC created.”

Additionally, Rhodes says to Sullivan and other redacted officials:
At least you’re only a liar. Could be worse – we’re liars and also allegedly leakers. So you’ve got that going for you, which is something.
Sullivan replies: “We’re only lying footsoldiers [sic]. You’re lying masterminds. That’s cooler.”
A redacted official replies to Sullivan: “I prefer that we go by henchmen. Has more of a Marvel comic sinisterness to it. There should be a cable show where all the guests, and the anchor, have to wear polygraphs. Or, when there’s a dispute between source, the aggrieved parties take a poly, with some neutral third party rendering judgment. The Biggest Liar.”
Rhodes says to Sullivan: “I’d like to go on television and tell everybody what I think…. Look at it this way. I[t] could be worse. You could be a career bureaucrat whose greatest thrill in life is leaking half-truths, self-justifications and outright lies to the likes of Eli Lake, Kim Dozier, and whoever picks up the phone at Fox News.”
We previously uncovered that on September 14 Rhodes and other Obama administration officials were attempting to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” Also included were numerous emails sent during the assault on the Benghazi diplomatic facility. The contemporaneous and dramatic emails describe the assault as an “attack:”
September 11, 2012, 6:41 PM – Senior Advisor Eric Pelofsky, to Susan Rice:

As reported, the Benghazi compound came under attack and it took a bit of time for the ‘Annex’ colleagues and Libyan February 17 brigade to secure it. One of our colleagues was killed – IMO Sean Smith. Amb Chris Stevens, who was visiting Benghazi this week is missing.  U.S. and Libyan colleagues are looking for him…
At 8:51 pm, Pelofsky tells Rice and others that “Post received a call from a person using an [sic] RSO phone that Chris was given saying the caller was with a person matching Chris’s description at a hospital and that he was alive and well.  Of course, if he were alive and well, one could ask why he didn’t make the call himself.”
Later that evening, Pelofsky emailed Rice that he was “very, very worried.  In particular that he [Stevens] is either dead or this was a concerted effort to kidnap him.”  Rice replied, “God forbid.”
The new records show a December 2, 2015, communication from NASA Regional Counterintelligence Director Arthur Payton to the FBI Counterintelligence Division in which Payton returns a review of evidence obtained in the course of the FBI investigation of Clinton’s email server, specifically, a “classification and determination review.” The contents of the classification review and determination were not included among the records released.

In an April 20, 2016, memorandum from Robert Zanger, of DOJ’s Office of Records Management and Policy, to Peter Strzok memorializing an earlier request by Strzok, Zanger indicates that Strzok had requested that DOJ produce “‘all electronic and transactional records between any @clintonemail.com email account’ and thirty-nine (39) specified DOJ email accounts …’” Strzok also asked the DOJ for a “general, or gateway, search of its [DOJ’s] systems for any other electronic and transactional records involving the identified external e-mail domain [@clintonemail.com].” The April 20 memo indicates DOJ complied with the request, saying, “JMD  [Justice Management Division] searched for any appearance of the @clintonemail.com domain in the electronic information (including emails and documents) of current and departed named custodians from the components for which JMD maintains electronic information. JMD located a small number of documents, but no email between the @clintonemail.com domain and any named custodian.” The memo notes that JMD had other DOJ components search their records too, and that:
The Civil Division located nine documents containing the term @clintonemail.com. A review of the content of the nine records by the Civil Division confirmed that the responses were related to the Division’s handling of Freedom of Information Act litigation, not communications between the custodian and the @clintonemail.com domain.
The memo noted that while it conducted a search of DOJ’s email gateway server for any email between DOJ email accounts and the @clintonemail.com domain, “The server log is maintained for a period of two years. [Emphasis added] JMD performed a search [April 2016] in the JMD-managed Email Gateway Server Log for the @clintonemail.com domain covering the period of 2/3/14 to 2/3/16 and found no email to or from the @clintonemail.com domain. [By the time this search was conducted, and no records were found, Clinton had been out of office as secretary of state since January 2013, a period of three years and three months.]

In a January 28, 2016, memo from Peter Strzok to the Counterespionage Group at the CIA, Strzok says that – due to a Section 811(c) referral under the Intelligence Authorization Act from the Intelligence Community Inspector General relating to the unauthorized release of classified information – the FBI is requesting a copy of a document, the title of which is redacted. Strzok notes that, “The assessment was provided to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the National Security Council (NSC) and to the Department of State (DoS) in, or around, October of 2009.”

In connection with an apparent response to the above “Request for Records,” an FBI memo dated June 27, 2016, indicates that the CIA provided the document sought. The synopsis of the memo reads: “CIA response to FBI LHM [Letterhead Memo] dated January 28, 2016 regarding a document request.” The memo further notes: “[redacted] document attached to CIOL [apparently referring to a Counterintelligence Operations Letter].”

Joking about being called ‘liars’ after being caught lying about the Benghazi terrorist attack says a lot about the Obama-Clinton team’s contempt for the rule of law and those four innocent Americans murdered in Libya September 11, 2012. The documents also show that Ben Rhodes, the Obama White House official who created the false story for Susan Rice to use on Benghazi, was planning to orchestrate again an ‘evolving’ explanation about the Benghazi attack by the Intelligence Community in time for then-President Obama’s reelection.  You can see how this manipulation is a prelude to Obama’s extensive abuse of the “intelligence community” during the next election to go after President Trump!


Secret Service: Hunter Biden Took 411 Flights, Visited 29 Countries, Including 5 Visits to China

New Secret Service records show Hunter Biden’s significant overseas travels during the first part of the Obama-Biden administration.

Judicial Watch investigators uncovered records from the U.S. Secret Service showing that, for the first five and a half years of the Obama administration, Hunter Biden traveled extensively with a Secret Service protective detail. During the time period of the records, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden took 411 separate domestic and international flights, including to 29 different foreign countries. He visited China five times.
Our February 7, 2020, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request sought:
Records reflecting the dates and locations of travel, international and domestic, for Hunter Biden while he received a U.S. Secret Service protective detail; please note whether his travel was on Air Force One or Two, or other government aircraft, as applicable and whether additional family members were present for each trip; time frame is 2001 to present.
The Secret Service did not indicate, as was requested, whether Biden’s travel was on Air Force One, Air Force Two or other government aircraft, or whether additional family members were present.

The records show that countries and territories visited by Hunter Biden, between June 2009 and May 2014, included:
  • Ethiopia and India on June 14-22, 2009
  • Argentina on September 14-17, 2009
  • France and Spain on November 9-13, 2009
  • Canada on February 12-15, 2010
  • Dominican Republic on February 18-22, 2010
  • Puerto Rico on March 20-27, 2010
  • China on April 6-9, 2010
  • Belgium, Spain, and the United Kingdom on May 5-8, 2010
  • UK, Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, Ascension Island, U.S. Virgin Islands on June 6-13, 2010
  • Denmark and South Africa on August 9-24, 2010
  • Hong Kong, Taiwan and China on April 16-22, 2011
  • Mexico on May 15-17, 2011
  • Colombia, France, United Arab Emirates and France again on November 1-11, 2011
  • UK and Russia on February 15-18, 2012
  • Germany, France and UK on February 1-5, 2013
  • UK and Ireland on March 20-22, 2013
  • China on June 13-15, 2013
  • Switzerland and Italy on July 26-August 7, 2013
  • Japan, China, South Korea and the Philippines on December 2-9, 2013
  • China and Qatar on May 7-14, 2014
The records were also provided, but were not made public, to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson in a response to a request the senators sent to Secret Service Director James Murray on February, 2020.

In its cover letter to Grassley and Johnson, which was included in the records we received, the Secret Service said that the senators’ request was time and labor intensive, and they could only provide a limited amount of information by the senators’ imposed turnaround time of February 19.

Given the Burisma-Ukraine-China influence peddling scandals, Hunter Biden’s extensive international travel during the Obama-Biden presidency, including at least 5 trips to China, will certainly raise additional questions.

According to reports, Vice President Joe Biden and Hunter Biden flew on Air Force Two for the official trip to Beijing in December 2013. The records we obtained show Hunter Biden arrived in Tokyo on December 2, 2013, and departed for Beijing two days later. While it is typical for the families of the president and vice president to travel with them, questions have been raised about whether Hunter Biden used the government trip to further his business interests.

NBC reporter Josh Lederman, who was one of four reporters on the December 2013 trip, noted in an October 2, 2019, report that, “What wasn’t known then was that as he accompanied his father to China, Hunter Biden was forming a Chinese private equity fund that associates said at the time was planning to raise big money, including from China.”

His travel is only one of our inquiries.

During the last year and a half of the Obama administration, Hunter Biden served on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings while his father was heading up Ukraine policy. We are seeking records through six lawsuits and dozens of FOIA requests related to Hunter Biden’s dealings with the Ukrainian Burisma Holdings and the Chinese BHR Partners.


FDA Bought ‘Fresh’ Human Fetal Parts for ‘Humanized Mice’ Creation

Your federal government has been an active customer of the abortion industry, and we have new details of the sordid transactions.

We received 165 pages of records from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showing that between 2012 and 2018 the FDA entered into eight contracts worth $96,370 to acquire “fresh and never frozen” tissue from 1st and 2nd trimester aborted fetuses for use in creating “humanized mice” for research.

These documents are a horror show. They show that the FDA was trafficking in human fetal parts. Incredibly, there continues to be a push to reopen these monstrous experiments!

The contracts were with Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR), a nonprofit firm that has been the subject of criminal referrals from House and Senate committees investigating whether Planned Parenthood or any other entity was illegally profiting from the handling of fetal tissue from aborted babies.

Federal law regulates the purchase and acceptance of human fetal tissue for research purposes. It is unlawful to knowingly transfer fetal tissue for profit.

We received the records after filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services (No. 1:19-cv-00876)) after HHS failed to respond adequately to our September 28, 2018, FOIA request seeking:
  • All contracts and related documentation between FDA and Advanced Biosciences Resources (ABR) for the provision of human fetal tissue to be used in humanized mice research.
  • All records reflecting the disbursement of funds to ABR for the provision of human fetal tissue to be used in humanized mice research.
  • All guidelines and procedural documents provided to ABR by FDA relating to the acquisition and extraction of human fetal tissue for its provision to the FDA for humanized mice research.
  • All communications between FDA officials and employees and representatives of ABR related to the provision by ABR to the FDA of human fetal tissue for the purpose of humanized mice research.
The records show a June 28, 2017, email exchange with the subject line “FDA RFQ” (Request for Quotation) between a redacted FDA contract specialist and an ABR official named Ms. Larton, in which the FDA official tells the ABR official, “I am tasked with the purchase of tissues suitable for HM [humanized mice] research. I would like to request a quote. Please review the Statement of Work and quote your pricing as outlined.” She then includes a table for 16 “Human Fetal Tissue – Liver”, 16 “Human Fetal Tissue – Thymus”, 16 HIV, HepA, HepB, HepC tests, and shipping and delivery. The Statement of Work notes:
The Division of Applied Regulatory Science (DARS) OCP/OTS/CDER is conducting a research program to evaluate the usefulness of humanized mice (HM) for regulatory purposes. The HM are created by surgical implantation of human tissue into mice that have multiple genetic mutations that block the development of the mouse immune system at a very early stage. The absence of the mouse immune system allows the human tissues to grow and develop into functional human tissues. As part of this process DARS needs to repeatedly acquire the proper type of tissues. In order for the humanization to proceed correctly we need to obtain fetal tissue with a specific set of specialized characteristics.
Among the specific characteristics are that the tissue be “Age range 16-24 weeks” and “Tissue must be fresh and never frozen.” An ABR official responds, saying, “Your quote is attached.”

In a June 12, 2017, email thread related to a “contract closeout” of a $24,500 contract between the FDA and ABR in a project titled “Human Tissue,” an FDA official emails an ABR official asking to “confirm all the items/services requested under this order were delivered and all payments processed, so that I may close out this contract…. Our records indicate funds in the amount of $15,090.00 to be de-obligated as a result of this closeout.”

A screenshot of a database (called UFMS) print-out indicates a “Matched Amount” of $9,410. The difference between the “matched amount” and the contract value is $15,090. An ABR official responds on June 26, 2017, saying, “I confirm there are no outstanding invoices or [redacted] P.O. #HHSF223201510746P, and it is my understanding that there are no pending requests for tissue procurements on this P.O. at this time.”

In an email thread beginning July 14, 2017, an FDA contracting specialist advises ABR that, “In order to properly document pricing, I require some documentation of your prices as offered to the public.” They ask for either redacted invoices or “a place on your website that lists prices.” An ABR representative responds:
We do not have a website, and we don‘t allow ‘the public’ to request tissue. It is only sent to verified researchers who have applied and have been approved to receive tissue.
As we are not selling items, we do not have prices. We assess fees for our services. The only document provided then to qualified recipients would be our Fees For Services Schedule. I’ve attached another copy of our current Fee Schedule for your reference. We’re a small non-profit company, and the fees are the same for everyone.
I hope this fulfills your requirement. We’ve done business with the F.D.A. for many years and we‘ve not experienced such rigorous procedures for the production of purchase orders. Will this process be necessary for each P.O. created now?
The “Fees for Services Schedule” provided by ABR lists “Fetal Cadaverous Specimen Procurement” that includes pricing for “2nd trimester specimen (13 – 24 weeks)” and “1st trimester specimen (8 – 12 weeks),” with the pricing amounts redacted. Under a section titled “Special Processing/Preservation” are fees for “Specimen ‘cleaning,’” “Snap freezing (LN2),” “Passive freezing (dry ice)” and “Foreign shipments.”

A July 25, 2018, FDA “Order for Supplies or Services” to ABR called for the purchase of “humanized mice” for the period July 26, 2018, to July 25, 2019, for a contract amount of $15,900. The contract called for the provision of 15 sets of second trimester livers and thymuses, along with associated “HIV/HA/HB blood testing,” and shipping.

In a September 17, 2018, email from the FDA to ABR notifying ABR of the “Closeout” of a contract for “Tissue procurement for humanized mice”, the FDA notes the contract value was $9,900, and that remaining funds of $2,430 for the purchase order existed. The FDA asks ABR to “confirm if all the items/services requested under this order were delivered so that I may close out this contract.” The responding ABR official notes that the FDA said that no invoices were submitted under the purchase order, and the ABR official adds that the FDA acknowledged that “there is a $7,470 difference between the noted Contract Value of $9,900 and REMAINING FUNDS of $2,430.” ABR further advises they would submit nine invoices under the contract, all of which were paid.

On September 24, 2018, the FDA terminated a contract with ABR to provide fetal tissue, saying: “[T]he Government is not sufficiently assured that the human tissue provided to the Government to humanize the immune systems of mice will comply with the prohibitions set forth under 42 U.S.C. § 289g-2.” The letter adds that “[T]he Government has concerns with the sufficiency of the sole-source justification.”

The law 42 USC 289g-2 involves “Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue.”

HHS said in a statement on September 24, 2018, that it was “conducting an audit of all acquisitions involving human fetal tissue to ensure conformity with procurement and human fetal tissue research laws and regulations.”

In February, we uncovered 676 pages of records from NIH showing that the agency paid thousands of dollars to California-based ABR to purchase organs from aborted human fetuses to create “humanized mice” for HIV research.

These documents are the most disturbing I’ve reviewed in my 22 years at Judicial Watch. Both the Trump administration and Congress should launch emergency investigations into this barbarism.

Until next week …

Friday, May 17, 2013

John Dean: Obama Will Not Be Tinged By Any Scandal


John Dean
John Dean served as Counsel to the President of the United States from July 1970 to April 1973.  Before becoming White House counsel at age thirty-one, he was the chief minority counsel to the…more.
Jeff Kinsey/Shutterstock.com
After a scandal-free first term, and only a few months into his second term, President Barrack Obama is suddenly faced with a series of burgeoning scandals.  It’s a trifecta: Benghazi, IRS, and the AP’s phone logs.  But a close look shows that these supposed scandals are all smoke and no real fire.  While Congressional Republicans, Fox News, and other anti-Obama wags will try to keep them smoking, no high-level officials in the Obama Administration are going to get burned.  And the broader public will tire of watching the smoke. There is nothing Nixonian or Watergate-like about any of these purported scandals, and those claiming otherwise are remarkably ignorant of history.
As I wrote in my 2004 book, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, having experienced Watergate firsthand and having studied virtually every presidential scandal before and after Watergate (out of personal curiosity), I have some understanding of the nature and dynamics of scandals.  (Incidentally, I found the actions of Bush/Cheney to be worse than Watergate because their use of secrecy to take the United States to war in Iraq on the false pretense of pursuing weapons of mass destruction, and their use of torture, a crime against humanity, were way beyond scandal.)
Notwithstanding the plentiful material that is available on American political scandals, few American scholars study our scandals.  Indeed, I may be as much of a “personally experienced” expert on political scandals as can be found, so I am offering a few of my thoughts on Obama’s growing problems, while also drawing upon the thoughts of a academics who have studied them.
Although all scandals have much in common, each has its own unique DNA, so they must be addressed separately.  But let me begin with an analysis of the common characteristics of all modern political scandals.
The Nature of Modern Political Scandals
UK academic Robert Williams (University of Durham) undertook a study for Political Scandals in the USA (1998) noting that “[a]ttempts to classify scandals have been fraught with difficulties” because they are difficult to define.  Yet this definitional problem is less of  a problem with “political” scandals, for such scandals, by their very name, involve those within the political process.
As Williams notes, political scandals “tend to involve the use of public office for private benefit and/or the abuse of power in the pursuit of policy goals.” In addition, many such scandals have involved election finance. More specifically, he notes: “although every political scandal is different, they all usually involve allegations of violation of the political process and the illegitimate exercise of power.” I would add that they frequently involve sex as well.
Another UK scholar, John B. Thompson (University of Cambridge), I believe has even more perceptively analyzed modern scandal in his work Political Scandals: Power and Visibility In the Media Age (2000).  In examining the etymology of the word scandal, Thompson comes up with a modern working definition: The modern scandal “refers to actions or events involving certain kinds of transgressions which become known to others and are sufficiently serious to elicit a public response.” More specifically, modern scandals provoke a response by the mainstream (non-partisan, as well as both right- and left-leaning) media.
Viewing scandal in these terms, Thompson found that they all had common characteristics: (1) the transgression violated widely held values, norms or moral code; (2) typically there is an element of secrecy; (3) non-participants are offended by the transgression; (4) and this disapproval is expressed publicly by denouncing the actions or events; and, in most cases but not all, (5) the disclosure and condemnation of the actions or events damages the reputation of those responsible.  Most importantly, however, Thompson found that modern political scandals are “mediated,” meaning that the news and other media take the disclosure of the transgression, and make it an issue for public discussion.  In fact, if the media ignores a reported transgression, it will not likely become a scandal.
With this background in mind, let’s look at the three scandals that have erupted to confront the Obama Administration, taking them in the order they have arisen: The Benghazi scandal, the scandal regarding the IRS’s targeting of conservative organizations, and the scandal over the Department of Justice’s subpoenaing the telephone records of reporters and editors at the Associated Press.
The Benghazi Scandal
As readers will doubtless recall, on September 11, 2012, the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, Libya, was attacked, and ten people were injured, along with four who were killed, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.  Following the attack, on September 12, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the death of Ambassador Stevens, and President Obama, joined by Secretary Clinton, denounced the attack from the Rose Garden at the White House.  On September 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, appeared on virtually all of the Sunday TV talks shows in Washington, and provided the Obama Administration’s analysis of the situation.
For example, on CBS’s “Face The Nation,” Rice responded to a question of whether the attack was preplanned as follows: “We’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions,” Rice began. “But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy . . . sparked by this hateful [anti-Muslin] video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that—in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent . . . .  We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
When Rice was asked whether or not al Qaeda was involved, she replied: “Well, we’ll have to find that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.”
Republicans have taken exception to everything that happened in Benghazi by accusing Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton,, and President Obama each of lying, and the Obama Administration of failing to protect the Americans stationed at Benghazi. Republicans  sought initially to make this an issue in the 2012 election, with Mitt Romney accusing President Obama of refusing to describe it as a terrorist attack on September 12th, when, in fact, the President had done exactly that, which resulted in Romney’s eating crow for his false public accusation during the presidential debate.
Most recently, the Republicans have held hearings for Benghazi “whistleblowers“ before the House Oversight Committee chaired by Darrell Issa (R-CA), who has been searching for years for Obama scandals.  The news media largely ignored the hearings, which were something of a non-event. Notwithstanding months of effort, accompanied by a full-throated chorus of conservative media outlets, to make this a major scandal, Bill Maher spoke for millions of Americans when he recently said, “I still don’t understand what the scandal is.” Understandably, President Obama recently called the GOP Benghazi focus “a sideshow.”
Viewing this situation analytically, Benghazi is a political scandal ONLY for Republicans. In truth, it is a scandal in search of an offending underlying transgression.  Actually, it is more like a GOP conspiracy theory, which keeps evolving as questions are answered by claiming new purported wrong, than it is like a scandal. The GOP motive appears to be to somehow muddy and seeks to harm Hillary Clinton since it happened on her watch as Secretary of State.  In fact, I think the GOP is doing Hillary a favor by taking the air out of this issue if she decides to run for president in 2016, because you cannot create a scandal when no one can figure out what the wrongdoing was, and simply inventing new alleged wrongdoings, which distort the truth and are based on the same basic facts, only works for a short time.
The legs on this so-called scandal have been buckling and wobbling for months.  I expect the Republicans to soon give it up, since they now have what they believe are better scandals with which to work, particularly the scandal regarding purported abuse of power by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), an issue all Americans understand.
The Scandal Relating to IRS Targeting of Conservative Organizations
On May 17, 2013, the acting commissioner of IRS, Steve Miller, and the Inspector General of the Treasury Department, Russell George, who recently issued an investigative report,are/were scheduled to testify before the House Ways and Means Committee.  They will address the scandal that erupted a week earlier, when Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division of the IRS, let slip the fact that the IRS had targeted conservative organizations seeking 501(c)(4) exemption from the tax code as “social welfare” organizations.  Within hours, it exploded into a scandal.
Lois Lerner, a career federal employee and attorney, is not a person who would be cast as the catalyst of an IRS scandal.  She became the face of this scandal when she was answering questions at a meeting in Washington of the tax section of the American Bar Association (ABA).  It appears that she did not plan to create the outcry that has resulted, althoughsome have questioned if she made her comment in anticipation of the critical report that was being prepared by the Treasury Department’s Inspector General.
Given the disastrous conference call that followed her comments at the ABA meeting, I doubt that she planned to cause the stir that has resulted.  While she is an experienced and capable upper mid-level federal employee, she was over her head in dealing with the news media and the public alarm—and ensuing scandal—that her comments at the ABA provoked.
The IRS is an agency all Americans love to hate.  It has had a long history of scandals, although none of recent vintage. The underlying transgression of treating any taxpayer unfairly, and with political bias, is something that is widely understood and inherently offensive.  Not surprisingly, it is believed by many—though the facts are still unclear—that this activity was widespread and went beyond the Exempt Organizations Division operations in Cincinnati, Ohio, as some claim. This matter will be sorted out in the Congressional hearings.
This is not, however, as claimed by conservative commentators like George Will, the equivalent of the activities for which Richard Nixon was impeached, and the 1974 House impeachment inquiry did not know a fraction of what Nixon was doing. (For a book-in-progress, I am listening to Nixon’s once-secret recordings, hundreds of conversations relating to Watergate that no one has bothered to transcribe, or maybe even listen to.  Nixon’s demands to use the IRS against his perceived enemies were stunning, far beyond anything I even suspected when I was working for him.  He only spoke with his two top aides, H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman, on this subject—and he wanted to use the IRS as a weapon against those who caused him political problems.)
President Obama is actually fortunate that the Treasury Department’s Inspector General (these IG offices throughout government are post-Watergate reforms) had received complaints from Members of Congress about the granting of 501(c)(4) exemptions, and had undertaken an investigation, which partially leaked after Lois Lerner made her comments about targeting conservative organizations, but has now been released in full. That report indicates that the targeting of conservative groups was an internal IRS decision—mismanagement of the exemption procedure, according to the IG. It was  not a result of the Obama White House’s calling for it.
While Republicans will undoubtedly pound the scandal drum about this activity to make it seen to be more than, in fact, it was, this too will not be a significant scandal.  The underlying transgression does not appear to have been motivated by partisan politics or pressure, but rather by ineptitude by lower IRS employees, and by IRS management’s failing to correct a conspicuously bad practice.  And Attorney General Eric Holder’s FBI investigation of IRS, in which he has made clear that if any IRS officials gave Congress false information then they will be held responsible, along with the resignation of the Acting Commissioner, is taking the oxygen out of this scandal quickly.
The Scandal Relating to the Justice Department’s Subpoenaing AP Telephone Records
The fact that the U.S. Department of Justice secretly obtained the telephone toll records of reporters and editors of the Associated Press (AP) in connection with its investigation of a serious leak of national security information has angered both the left and right, and given the fact that this scandal involves the news media, they are outraged on both left and right.  Nonetheless, this is not really a scandal for there does not appear to be an underlying transgression by those in government.  Rather, the scandal simply illustrates that newspeople are very unhappy with the policy of the Obama Administration in prosecuting leakers.
This story broke when the AP reported that it had been informed by the Justice Department that it had secretly obtained AP phone records (listing incoming and outgoing calls) of several AP reporters and editors who were involved in a May 7, 2012 story about a CIA operation that thwarted a terror attack in Yemen.  The head of the AP sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder claiming that the government had sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation, and demanded the return of the phone records and the destruction of all copies.
Later reports have revealed that the records were obtained after a federal judge approved a subpoena, which was sought pursuant to Justice Department regulations that apply in such First Amendment-sensitive cases, and was approved by Deputy Attorney General James Cole, a seasoned career attorney who runs the day-to-day operations of the department.  There is no underlying transgression, no wrongdoing by those conducting the investigation. Rather, there is displeasure among the news media with Obama’s policy of going after those who leak national security information—which they only have access to because they have pledged that they will not provide it to unauthorized parties.
Ironically, many of the members of Congress who are now complaining about the subpoena had earlier called for the Justice Department to conduct an investigation of this leak—which made President Obama look good in breaking up an Al Qaeda plot to kill Americans before the elections—because they believed that the Obama White House was behind leaking the information before the election to help the president. Now they are complaining about that investigation, and an unhappy news media is delighted to cover them.
All presidents are troubled by national-security leaks.  No president can govern in a fishbowl, but there is a delicate balance to be struck in dealing with such leaks.  The underlying statute prohibiting leaks—the Espionage Act—was written in 1917, and while it is broad enough to cover news outlets that publish leaked information, no president has gone beyond those who leaked the classified information in the first place.  Congress hasclearly authorized all presidents to pursue leaks of classified information.   In seeking the records of the AP in the investigation that has caused the current outrage, the Obama Justice Department has not gone nearly as far as it might, and called the AP’s editors and reporters before the grand jury to demand that they reveal their source(s) or be jailed for contempt of court.  So using a court-approved subpoena is hardly an overreach.  In addition, every reporter in Washington who covers national security stories knows that you do not talk to leakers on the telephone, or in places where there are surveillance cameras.
In sum, this scandal is all mediation and no underlying transgression.
The Bottom Line on Obama’s Scandals
If these three purported scandals are handled properly, President Obama should have no problem with dispatching them.  How he proceeds from here will determine if he is even tinged by them at all.
Photo Credit: Jeff Kinsey/Shutterstock.com

John W. Dean, a Justia columnist, is a former counsel to the president.