Senate Waited Until Christmas To Reveal How Many Harassment Settlements Were Paid Out

And we were never told about this stuff, nor did we ever approve it. And they all knew.

Via Daily Caller:

As the Christmas holiday weekend set in, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee released a report revealing the Senate has spent $1.5 million on workplace harassment settlements since 1998.

The data, provided by the Office of Compliance, a little known administrative body that has quietly settled dozens of complaints against congressional offices, provides little by way of details, beyond an itemized list of violations and the corresponding settlement.

GOP Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, who chairs the Rules Committee, said further particulars cannot be made public, in order to respect the confidentiality afforded to victims.

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2s3tLUa

Prager U: Where Does the Federal Government Get All That Money?

PragerU and Information Station team-up for the new educational short “Where Does the Federal Government Get All That Money?” The video breaks down the individual income tax and how much the government is taking from the taxpayer.

“Every year the U.S. federal government collects more than $3 trillion in taxes, and almost half of that comes from you and me, the individual income taxpayers,” the narrator explains. “These are the taxes that come out of your paycheck or maybe you pay quarterly. Either way… it’s a lot of money, so it’s worth learning more about!”

The video breaks down five little known facts about the federal income tax.

“Number one: The individual income tax has been the largest source of federal government revenue since 1950… accounting for 47.3 percent of revenue in 2016.”

That is a large chunk of the bill that taxpayers are covering for government programs.

“Number two: While the name ‘individual income tax’ implies that only individual Americans pay the tax, many small businesses are subject to it as well. A majority of small businesses are set up as ‘pass-through’ entities, which means that business profits are included on the owner’s individual tax sheet and is thus taxed at the individual rate which is higher than the rates big corporations pay.”

Citing 2016 data, the narrator notes that “44 percent of Americans, or roughly 77 million people, don’t pay any federal income taxes at all.”

Then there’s all the wasted time and money on simply filling out and paying tax returns. “A combined 2.6 billion man hours is spent every year filling out tax returns. That’s an average of 17 hours per American tax filer.”

Taxes should be easy to file, not complicated to the point of taking almost twice an average work day to complete.

“And lastly number five: According to the most recent data from the Tax Foundation, the top one percent of taxpayers contribute roughly 40 percent of all federal income taxes collected.”

The narrator goes on to explain that the bottom 50 percent pay less than 3 percent of total tax revenues, which destroys the Left’s notion that the top earners aren’t paying their “fair share.”

Watch the video below:

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2wzeEU9

Judge: U.S. Military Must Provide Lawyer For American Accused Of Fighting For ISIS In Syria

Turn him over to the Iraqis for prosecution.

Via Fox News:

A federal judge ruled Saturday that the U.S. military must provide legal counsel to an American citizen who was picked up months ago on the Syrian battlefield and accused of fighting with Islamic State militants.

The unidentified American, who has not been charged, surrendered to U.S.-backed fighters in Syria around Sept. 12 and is currently being held in Iraq as an unlawful enemy combatant.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a court petition challenging his detention and asking to act on his behalf to provide him access to legal counsel.

Late last month, the U.S. government acknowledged that it has detained an American citizen accused of fighting with IS for months without fulfilling his request to see a lawyer. Responding to a court order, the government said the man picked up on the Syrian battlefield indicated he was willing to talk to FBI agents but “felt he should have an attorney present.”

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan denied the Defense Department’s motion to dismiss the matter and ordered the military to let the ACLU “immediate and unmonitored access to the detainee” so that it can determine whether he wants the ACLU to represent him. The judge also ordered the Defense Department not to transfer the detainee until the ACLU tells the court of the detainee’s wishes.

“This is a landmark ruling that rejects the Trump administration’s unprecedented attempt to block an American citizen from challenging his executive imprisonment,” said Jonathan Hafetz, senior staff attorney for the ACLU. “Ensuring citizens detained by the government have access to a lawyer and a court is essential to preserving the Constitution and the rule of law in America.”

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2s3tLUa

“I Don’t Think A Lot Of People Will Be Happy”: Former Top DOJ Official Hints IG Report Might Be A Doozy For Hillary Clinton

Thanks to the soon to be released Justice Inspector General report, Hillary Clinton may find herself in MORE hot water if political bias is found to have played a role in the email investigation’s findings, says former Justice Department official Michael Bromwich.

USA Today reports:

Former Justice inspector general Michael Bromwich said that the office has a long established record as “a reliable and independent voice” that has held some of the most powerful institutions to account.

The disclosures of the agents’ text messages, he said, “has certainly re-focused the spotlight on investigation that many people may have forgotten about but remains an important piece of work that needs to be completed.”

More than once, Bromwich found himself at the center of a firestorm while inspector general. In 1997, Bromwich authored a damning review of the FBI’s crime laboratory on the eve of the federal trial of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. While McVeigh was ultimately convicted and executed, the lab had been heavily involved in examining evidence in that case.

“Michael (Horowitz) is a very solid guy with exactly the right background for the job. It’s a job that doesn’t make you many friends,” Bromwich said. “And I don’t think a lot of people will be happy when it’s over. But I think he is going to call it as he sees it.”

Unsure who Horowitz is? Here’s the latest on the Inspector General:

In a recent letter sent to Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI), Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz revealed details about the discovery of the anti-Trump texts.

Daily Caller reports:

Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department watchdog, said that his office obtained the text messages from the FBI on July 20. A week later, he met with Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to inform them of the politically-charged texts. […]

Horowitz, writing to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, said that his office obtained the Strzok texts after asking the FBI to produce communications from bureau-issued phones for a select group of employees who worked on the Clinton email probe. […]

“After finding a number of politically-oriented text messages between Page and Strzok, the OIG sought from the FBI all text messages between Strzok and Page from their FBI-issued phones through November 30, 2016, which covered the entire period of the Clinton e-mail server investigation,” Horowitz revealed to both Grassley and Johnson.

Below is a photo of Horowitz.

Source: DOJ

This month, Fox News published a portion of the approximately 10,000 texts messages sent between FBI agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page. Among the messages is an exchange revealing Strzok and Page discussed an ‘insurance policy,’ against a Trump presidency.

Strzok, who was fired from Mueller’s Russia probe after reports revealed the disgraced law enforcement officer sent ‘anti-Trump,’ texts to a colleague, personally changed key language that former Bureau Director James Comey used to describe Hillary Clinton’s email conduct.

CNN reports:

A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey’s description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter. Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey’s earlier draft language describing Clinton’s actions as “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” the source said. The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the matter.

The post “I Don’t Think A Lot Of People Will Be Happy”: Former Top DOJ Official Hints IG Report Might Be A Doozy For Hillary Clinton appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/SIPp5X

Has the New York Times Made Gloria Steinem’s Original 1998 Defense of Bill Clinton Disappear?

The Associated Press’s failure to report Gloria Steinem’s early-December howler about how Donald Trump supposedly “lost” the 2016 presidential election “by 10 million votes” which I noted in a December 10 NewsBusters post is consistent with the press’s history of preventing leftists’ most provocative and controversial statements from becoming widely known. The press considers Steinem a feminist “icon,” and thus especially worthy of protection.

In preparing that post, I discovered that the New York Times appears to have taken their protection of Steinem to an unusual level.

Steinem sent her feminist credentials into the toilet in March 1998 when, in a Times op-ed, she defended Bill Clinton against the charges which eventually led to his impeachment later that year.

The link to that op-ed in the previous paragraph was found in a public library database. That’s because I couldn’t locate it in multiple searches at the Times website.

If the Times is indeed protecting Steinem, this is how they’re doing it.

In 2010, the Times published a highly selective excerpt from that 1992 op-ed. That six-paragraph excerpt, with the title changed from the original “Feminists and the Clinton Question” to “Why Feminists Support Clinton,” excluded not only Steinem’s bitterly personal attacks against Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, and Linda Tripp, but also her laughable assessment of Willey’s and Jones’s then-known allegations against Clinton.

Steinem’s original bottom line concerning Willey and Jones in March 1998 was: “It’s not harassment and we’re not hypocrites,” words which were given the large-type, featured treatment in the print edition’s presentation:

NYTsteinemOpedSnip03221998

Steinem’s core claim was horse manure then, and is even more obviously so now.

Steinem’s original 1998 op-ed appears to be no longer accessible at the Times’s website; at the very least, it is not readily accessible.

Searches on the op-ed’s published title (“Feminists and the Clinton question”), the 2010 title (in case the original title carried online might have been the same), its opening seven words (“If all the sexual allegations now swirling”), and on “Gloria Steinem Bill Clinton” all failed to list that original op-ed in their results (all searches were done without quote marks). The final search just noted surfaced about a dozen letters to the editor responding and mostly objecting to Steinem’s now-inaccessible op-ed — but not the op-ed itself.

Tim Graham at NewsBusters also did a related Nexis search in early December, reporting the following: “You find letters objecting to Steinem (Op-ed, Mar. 22), but when you search for ‘Gloria Steinem’ and ‘March 22’ you only get the letters!”

Recalling Steinem’s now-virtually hidden bottom line is important, because of what the UK Guardian reported in late November of this year:

… Steinem said she did not regret writing the New York Times article in the first place.

“We have to believe women. I wouldn’t write the same thing now because there’s probably more known about other women now. I’m not sure,” she said on the red carpet of an annual comedy benefit for the Ms Foundation for Women, of which she is a founder.

“What you write in one decade you don’t necessarily write in the next. But I’m glad I wrote it in that decade.”

This has nothing to do with different decades, and everything to do with double standards.

In Gloria Steinem’s warped mind, defending a Democratic Party president with a demonstrated, proven history of sexual assault and harassment — as was clear by March 1998 in court documents and voluminous evidence gathered by an independent prosecutor — even to the point of denying that the clearly harassed and assaulted accusers were not harassed and assaulted, was somehow okay then. But attacking a Republican president as “harasser-in-chief” over a litany of aired but yet-unproven charges is okay now.

So Steinem, despite her drop-dead obvious hypocrisy, gets to move on, and remains a “feminist icon.” This is how easy it is for someone the feminism-friendly establishment press adores to get rehabilitated.

Based on the results described above, the Times apparently expects readers to believe that its 2010 Steinem excerpt fairly represents what she wrote in 1998. It clearly does not — and, from all appearances, the Old Gray Lady doesn’t want its readers to find out otherwise.

<<< Please support MRC’s NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

The evidence presented here inevitably leads one to wonder how many other items embarrassing to the left the Times has flushed down the memory hole through the years.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/2v7eUfC

Politico: California Dems face sexual-harassment meltdown

Democrats have had an iron grip on power in California for at least the last decade; without Arnold Schwarzenegger’s celebrity governorship, it would be more like a generation. Democrats have supermajorities in both chambers of the state legislature, control all of the statewide offices, and haven’t elected a Republican to the US Senate since Pete Wilson in 1988. The Golden State has turned so blue that last year’s general election to replace Barbara Boxer featured two Democrats and no Republicans at all.

That grip on power might get threatened now, Politico reports, thanks to burgeoning sexual harassment scandals within the party. Will this give Republicans an opening for a comeback in California? (Spoiler: Naaah.)

Scandal-induced resignations will cost California’s Democratic Party its supermajority in the state Legislature at least temporarily next year, and the fallout is spilling into the 2018 elections. It’s scrambling calculations for some of the state’s most powerful politicians in Sacramento, and even House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was caught in the fray when she defended now former-Rep. John Conyers last month as an “icon.”

“We’re in unchartered territory here,” said Garry South, a veteran Democratic strategist who advised former California Gov. Gray Davis. “This whole issue has hit a critical mass in a very short time. I’ve never seen anything like it before — and I don’t know where it ends.”

Where it won’t end is in a bounceback for the GOP, but we’ll get to that in a moment. Just how bad is this scandal, anyway? Bad enough for some progressive activists to claim that the Democrats are hiding rapists and molesters among their leaders:

Among those who have been outspoken in their demands for more action is Christine Pelosi, chairwoman of the California Democratic Party Women’s Caucus and Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, who told lawmakers at the start of an Assembly hearing last month, “We have rapists in this building. We have molesters among us.” …

“It’s kind of a snowball effect, and every week seems to bring a new powerful man who is brought down by these accusations,” said Jessica Levinson, a Los Angeles-based political analyst. “And I don’t feel that we’ve totally cleaned house- and all the accusations are made and everybody else who remains in power has never conducted themselves in an inappropriate way before.”

The political environment in California appears similar to what we’ve seen nationally, only with perhaps even greater intensity. As alleged victims come forward and get a respectful hearing, others feel more comfortable in coming forward, too. It’s taken decades for the lid to come off, so this will continue to intensify as those claims emerge. Since the accountability structures in the California legislature for abuse are similar to that of Congress — which is to say next to nothing — there may be a whole lot of abuses left to uncover. And since Democrats have had Sacramento mainly to themselves for the last few decades, the abusers will overwhelmingly be Democrats.

Democrats have a big problem in California, legally and politically. What they almost certainly don’t have is an electoral problem. For most of these districts, the option for voters dealing with a scandal-plagued Democratic incumbent will be another Democrat, not a Republican. There may be a few politicians in battleground districts where the GOP might find a competitive challenger, but those districts are few and far between in California. The damage might be more noticeable in statewide elections, but it would take a tremendous amount of damage to translate into electoral success.

The results of the 2016 primary for the Senate seat won by Kamala Harris provides us a clear window into the California GOP’s prospects. California uses a so-called “nonpartisan blanket primary” in which all candidates regardless of party affiliation compete. The top vote-getting Republican in that primary was former state party chair George “Duf” Sundheim … who got 7.8% of the vote. Democrat Loretta Sanchez got 18.9% of the vote to come in second. Sanchez raised $3.2 million and Harris raised $9.7 million for their campaigns by the time of the primary; the top five Republicans didn’t even raise $1 million combined.

California isn’t a Democratic bastion by accident or by fluke. It’s deep blue because its voters want it that way. Primarily that’s driven by the greater Los Angeles area and San Francisco-Oakland population centers, but that accounts for 2/3rds of the state’s population, too. The sexual harassment scandal will be embarrassing and potentially could end many Democrats’ political careers, but Republicans won’t get too much benefit out of it. If they want to compete in the Golden State, they need to make inroads in Democratic strongholds and convince them that decades of Democratic failure has to be countered with smaller-government policies and economic approaches that rebuild businesses in their communities. Until that happens, the GOP will remain on the sidelines in California no matter how many scandals plague the Democrats.

The post Politico: California Dems face sexual-harassment meltdown appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Donald Trump: Phony Dossier Is a ‘Crooked Hillary Pile of Garbage’

Donald Trump: Phony Dossier Is a ‘Crooked Hillary Pile of Garbage’



President Donald Trump again dismissed the phony Russia “dossier” after watching a Fox News report discrediting the information in it.

“WOW,” Trump wrote, pointing to the Fox & Friends report. “Dossier is bogus. Clinton Campaign, DNC funded Dossier. FBI CANNOT (after all of this time) VERIFY CLAIMS IN DOSSIER OF RUSSIA/TRUMP COLLUSION. FBI TAINTED.”

Trump appeared amazed that the dossier was used to accuse his campaign of colluding with Russia.

“[T]hey used this Crooked Hillary pile of garbage as the basis for going after the Trump Campaign!” he exclaimed:

Trump commented on the dossier after former Congressman Jason Chaffetz dismissed the document as “bogus” in an interview on Fox & Friends, pointing to reports that the FBI refused to reveal who funded the opposition research document.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://ift.tt/uktKj3