Obama used a DoJ slush fund to transfer money to leftist groups? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14781795
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03 ... roups.html

The Obama administration funneled billions of dollars to activist organizations through a Department of Justice slush fund scheme, according to congressional investigators.

“It’s clear partisan politics played a role in the illicit actions that were made,” Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, told Fox News. “The DOJ is the last place this should have occurred.”

Findings spearheaded by the House Judiciary Committee point to a process shrouded in secrecy whereby monies were distributed to a labyrinth of nonprofit organizations involved with grass-roots activism.

“Advocates for big government and progressive power are using the Justice Department to extort money from corporations,” Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton told Fox News. “It’s a shakedown. It’s corrupt, pure and simple.”

There is a recent effort by Republicans to eliminate the practice, which many believe was widely abused during the Obama administration.

Sounds like a big deal. Perhaps an even bigger deal than the fact that Russia exists and people in the Trump administration have spoken to ambassadors from this "Russia".
#14781803
It's being followed up on by members of congress and Judicial Watch. I can't comment on it in detail myself because I recognize what I don't know or understand, but it seems like something will come of this and if nothing else, a lot of liberal groups are about to lose a significant amount of their funding. The "slush fund" is said to have amounted to US$3 billion.

Another thing I read is that Obama's AG Loretta Lynch, who supposedly talked with Bill Clinton about their grandchildren, doesn't have grandchildren? [/AIRHORN]

This last one is a little more tenuous, not sure if it has legs or not like the first one does. Did Obama order the federal government to spy on Trump's transition team?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated.

In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama.
#14781953
To break it down, here's what appears to have been happening. The DoJ sues groups for breaking the law, e.g., Volkswagen for breaking emissions standards. Money from those lawsuits stays under the DoJ's control. It was funneling this money to groups that would funnel it to other groups, eventually funding Black Lives Matter, La Raza and so-on. The presentations I am seeing suggest that this is all out in the open if people look in the right places.
#14782044
Are they talking about DOJ grants?

Those are public record and should take about a half an hour to investigate.

I'd do it myself, but the article is so full of speculation and misleading things that I don't exactly know what they're talking about besides a vague sense of conspiracy theory. Which, I suspect, is the purpose.
#14782126
Governments funnel money around all the time. Ours has a habit of asking for more than they need, "in case" vs a policy of cutting spending. Inevitably, some departments are bankrupt before the upcoming budget, and scramble for someone in a department with unused money. The richy rich dept. then buys whatever the broke department needs, ie computers etc, but the gear is delivered unto the broke department. The broke guys get what they need, the rich department gets to ask for even more money in the next budget.
#14782230
I am tired of Trump's finger pointing at others. Is a finger pointer what we want as leader of the USA? Is this responsible? Is this a sign of strength and confidence? I say NO to all the questions.

We want someone who can lead with a firm hand. He needs to accept his duty and take it seriously, not hide behind the shadow of his predecessor.

I thought the POTUS was responsible for diplomacy and handling law...not doing transactions in the Accounting department? I did not know that he studied Accounting. :?:
#14782246
The richy rich dept. then buys whatever the broke department needs, ie computers etc, but the gear is delivered unto the broke department. The broke guys get what they need, the rich department gets to ask for even more money in the next budget.


Here as well. It has become the standard to ask for double what you want. a story.

Once upon a time my commander asked me to make certain we ordered office supplies and forms. I was new to the army and he told me I should "always order 100 and you might get 10". I took his advice to heart and put together an order for all of the forms we would use in a year. Well you know what happened. I got every bleeding one that I ordered. We had about 1000 secret cover sheets and on a good year might use 20. We had 107 people in the unit and about 2000 leave forms. So that was inconvenient as hell but I just gave them to other units or stored them far away. That was not the bad part. In an effort to streamline the ordering process, the next year I got the same order delivered when my new clerk decided it would be easier to just "do what we did last year" because, he noticed, we never ran out of forms.

It is the government way.
#14782507
Hong Wu wrote:To break it down, here's what appears to have been happening. The DoJ sues groups for breaking the law, e.g., Volkswagen for breaking emissions standards. Money from those lawsuits stays under the DoJ's control. It was funneling this money to groups that would funnel it to other groups, eventually funding Black Lives Matter, La Raza and so-on. The presentations I am seeing suggest that this is all out in the open if people look in the right places.

To break it down, here is what is happening: you are quoting two fake news sites, -Fox and BREITBART OF ALL PLACES!!! :lol:
#14782516
Senter wrote:
To break it down, here is what is happening: you are quoting two fake news sites, -Fox and BREITBART OF ALL PLACES!!! :lol:


Actually FOX and FOX Business are the best in political cable news. I can't speak for BREITBART. However, CNN and MSNBC are the Fake political cable news outlets producing biased left-wing opinion propaganda as news. Their normal news is pretty good for the most part.
#14782529
[quote]Senter wrote:
Your opinion. I've watched both enough to know better.[/wrote]

Apparently not enough, if I have to educate you on the facts. But it could be that you have already been indoctrinated with left-wing propaganda and can no longer discern real from fake political news.
#14782671
This is what's wrong with not recognizing that all of these companies are trying to make money and not involved in some kind of various conspiracy theories going back and forth.

FOX News and Brietbart are going to keep selling what they're selling. The fact that Dan Rather claimed to have found damning stuff about Bush made a compelling story, and that would have made money.

Rightwingers always like to forget that the dreaded New York Times was to the Bush administration what Brietbart is to the Trump administration. Why? It gave them access and allowed them to sell stories that make money.

There is no grand conspiracy. They are capitalist agencies working within a capitalist economy governed by a capitalist government. The key to these mysterious elites, at least in this case, is that they want money.
#14782739
The fact is that like any industry, the media is run by money.

Without money, would The Wallstreet Journal still be alive? Without money, would Fox still be alive? No and no, of course!

In any industry, there are people that can be bought. Truth can be rigged and lies can be spun to be truth. In pretty much any news source, there is a lie either in what is said or what is omitted. So pick your poison! ;)
#14856242


In the emails, Obama DOJ staffers not only discuss sending money to outside groups but openly say they don't want to send money to a conservative group. So they were both transferring money and sending it only to liberal groups. Combined with the Uranium One scandal, the Russian dossier and wiretaps scandal and continuing developments in how the DNC primary was stolen from Bernie (although the lawsuit was already thrown out and probably won't be coming back), it's not looking good for the DNC right now. Unfortunately it will likely take years to sort this out even with solid evidence like this.

I am not claiming that there are zero genetic dif[…]

Customs is rarely nice. It's always best to pack l[…]

The more time passes, the more instances of harass[…]

And I don't blame Noam Chomsky for being a falli[…]