Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn hearing. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn hearing. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Tư, 15 tháng 5, 2013

Sources: IRS official won't plead fifth at hearing on scandal

  • IRS660REUTERS.jpg

    May 14, 2013: A general view of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Building in Washington.Reuters

Steven Miller, the embattled acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, has assured congressional investigators he will cooperate fully with lawmakers in upcoming Capitol Hill hearings on the IRS’ targeting of Tea Party groups, and will not exercise his constitutional right to refuse to answer questions on the grounds that doing so may incriminate him in the ongoing FBI probe, Fox News has learned. 

Rather, sources say, Miller has agreed to provide his best testimony on the sudden swirl of allegations surrounding last week’s disclosure that the IRS had systematically singled out conservative-leaning groups for delays in their applications for tax-exempt status. Miller was reportedly made aware of the practice, which commenced early in 2010, as early as March 2012, but shortly thereafter assured lawmakers the IRS was not engaged in such targeting.

Congressional investigators have sought an informal deposition with Miller in advance of Friday’s hearing by the House Ways and Means Committee, but believe it unlikely Miller will grant such a session, sources said.

In addition to determining who was ultimately responsible for initiating the practice – culpability the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration failed to assign in his report on the subject, issued Tuesday – Capitol Hill investigators are said to be examining two other critical aspects to the scandal.

These include the dissemination of privileged tax data amassed during the targeting exercise to the left-leaning news outlet ProPublica; and allegations that conservatives listed by the targeted groups as donors were in turn singled out for adverse treatment by IRS.

The alleged improper conduct toward those donors would have been performed by a different office at IRS, sources said, than that which was responsible for the slow-walking of the conservative groups’ applications for tax-exempt status.

Both initiatives, Capitol Hill staffers told Fox News, could suggest a greater level of coordination on the overall project among – or even beyond – IRS management echelons.

Key congressional aides do not rule out the possibility that the targeting was conceived and executed by “rogue” elements in middle-management positions within IRS. But the bureaucratic culture within the agency is said to place an exceedingly high premium on compliance with orders from above – to the point of securing them, often in writing, when they are absent – and accordingly not one that would foster the emergence of so rigorous and enduring a targeting system without some measure of management supervision.

The IG report concluded that organizations with the words “Tea Party,” “Patriots” or “9/12” in their titles faced special treatment by IRS in their applications for tax-exempt status, including the agency’s application of “inappropriate criteria” to trigger reviews and other dilatory actions towards the applications.

While Miller will face more intense scrutiny, J. Russell George, the inspector general for IRS’ Tax Administration division, whose office released Tuesday’s damning intra-agency report, will also be confronted with tough questions, sources said. Capitol Hill staffers told Fox News they regard George’s report as “watered down” and are eager to ask him why his probe failed to fix ultimate responsibility for the targeting, and why he didn’t raise alarms about the practice sooner.

An IRS spokesperson did not immediately return an email seeking comment for this article.


View the original article here

Holder lashes out at Issa during tense hearing, calls conduct 'shameful'

Eric Holder lashed out at his chief antagonist Wednesday at a congressional hearing where the attorney general was questioned on recent administration scandals, telling Republican Rep. Darrell Issa at the end of a tense exchange that his conduct is "shameful." 

Holder’s comments came after Issa accused him of purposely and repeatedly keeping information from Congress. 

“No, that’s what you typically do,” Holder responded. Following crosstalk, Holder added, “That is inappropriate and is too consistent with the way in which you conduct yourself as a member of Congress. It’s unacceptable and it’s shameful.” 

The heated exchange with the lawmaker who led the charge against Holder regarding the botched Operation Fast and Furious came during a House Judiciary Committee hearing that examined a new set of scandals. Holder was grilled on a series of allegations, including the way the agency tried to find out who was behind a government leak to The Associated Press. 

The AP, along with several lawmakers, say the Justice Department infringed on the constitutional rights of the press when it secretly obtained two months' worth of phone records. Lawmakers tried to get answers out of Holder Wednesday but voiced frustration after Holder repeatedly rebuffed questions by claiming he wasn’t involved in the decision-making process. 

Wisconsin Rep. James Sensenbrenner was among the group of bipartisan lawmakers who pressed Holder on why the Justice Department secretly collected telephone records. 

Holder said he had recused himself from the case because "I am a possessor of information eventually leaked." 

He also said he was unable to answer any questions on why the department he oversees failed to negotiate with the AP prior to obtaining subpoenas -- something which is standard practice in these cases.

Holder testified that all the decisions made in the case fell on Deputy Attorney General James Cole’s shoulders. Sensenbrenner then suggested having Cole testify before the House Judiciary Committee. While Congress could call Cole to testify, he would be prohibited from discussing any ongoing case. His testimony would likely yield few answers.

"There doesn't appear to be any acceptance of responsibility for things that have gone wrong," Sensenbrenner said, after suggesting administration officials travel to the Harry Truman Presidential Library and take a photo of the famous sign, "the buck stops here."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said he was "troubled by the notion that our government would pursue a broad array of phone records over a period of time." But like Sensenbrenner, he was unable to pull any new information about the AP case from Holder.

On Monday, AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt disclosed the government’s action in a letter to Holder that was made public.

In it, Pruitt called the collection of phone records at four AP bureaus a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” of the news agency’s freedom of press rights granted under the U.S. Constitution.

The AP case immediately sparked bipartisan outrage, leading members of both parties to publicly question the government’s actions.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said the attorney general should resign over the issue, adding: "Freedom of the press is an essential right in a free society."

Holder acknowledged Priebus’s calls for his resignation during his opening remarks, though again noted that he was not behind the subpoena. 

On Wednesday, New York Sen. Charles Schumer said he plans to reintroduce legislation that would protect journalists from revealing their sources. The bill, which was brought up in 2009, has since stalled in Congress.

The Obama administration has been very aggressive in going after government workers leaking classified information. To date, the White House has brought indictments against five workers. The Defense Department is pursuing a sixth case against the U.S. Army soldier accused of sending classified documents to the anti-secrecy online group WikiLeaks.

Under Holder’s command, the Justice Department has prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks under the World War I-era Espionage Act than all of the AGs who came before him – combined.


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 12 tháng 5, 2013

House panel releases set of questions for IRS, ahead of hearing on targeting Tea Party

The House Ways and Means Committee this weekend released a timeline of interactions with the IRS and a list of 10 questions it will ask agency officials in an upcoming hearing -- following the agency acknowledging Friday that it targeted conservative political groups during the 2012 election season.

“The IRS absolutely must be non-partisan in its enforcement of our tax laws,” committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., said late Saturday. “The committee …will hold the IRS accountable for its actions.”   

The tax-collecting agency on Friday acknowledged it flagged the groups for additional review to see whether they were violating their tax-exempt status. 

On Saturday, a draft of an inspector general's report, to be released in full later this week, shows senior Internal Revenue Service officials knew agents were targeting Tea Party groups as early as 2011. That information seemingly contradicts public statements by the IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman.

The timeline shows that Louisiana Rep. Charles Boustany, chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, sent a letter to Shulman on Oct. 6, 2011, requesting information “regarding the tax-exempt sector.”

The timeline ends with a March 12, 2012, entry stating the IRS responded “with no mention of knowledge of targeting conservative groups.”

“Since the inception of this investigation, the Ways and Means Committee has persistently pushed the IRS to explain why it appeared to be unfairly targeting some political groups over others -- a charge they repeatedly denied,” Boustany said Saturday. “My greatest concern is what would have come from this blatant abuse of power if Ways and Means, as well as others, had not spoken up.”

Camp said within hours of the IRS acknowledgement Friday that his committee would hold a hearing on the issue.

Among the expected question, according to a committee document obtained by Fox News is: What steps, if any, has the IRS taken to ensure that the targeting of individuals and organizations does not occur in the future?

Another question is: When was the IRS commissioner made “aware of these unlawful practices, what steps were taken, if any, to halt the harassment of conservative organizations? Who was disciplined regarding these practices, if anyone?”


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 26 tháng 3, 2013

Justices indicate interest in narrow ruling on gay marriage in landmark hearing

The gay marriage debate lands before the Supreme Court Tuesday morning, as the justices weigh the first of two cases that could have sweeping implications for the states. 

Tuesday's historic arguments will center on California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages. Spectators have been waiting in line since Thursday for the chance at being in the room while the two sides try to sway the court. 

Lawyers representing one lesbian and one gay couple from California will try to persuade the nine Supreme Court justices Tuesday to strike down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages and to declare that gay couples can marry nationwide.

Lawyers representing supporters of the California ban known as Prop 8 will argue that the court should not override the democratic process and impose a judicial solution that would redefine marriage in the some 40 states that do not allow same-sex couples to wed.

The case has the potential to be monumental, as the justices could, if they choose to rule broadly, overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. 

Or, they could set back the gay marriage movement by upholding California's ban and continuing to leave the issue up to the states. 

The case before the high court came together four years ago when the two couples agreed to be the named plaintiffs and become the public faces of a well-funded, high-profile effort to challenge Proposition 8 in the courts.

The fight began in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered city officials to issue marriage licenses. Six months later, the state Supreme Court invalidated the same-sex unions. Less than four years later, however, the same state court overturned California's prohibition on same-sex unions. 

Then, in the same election that put President Obama in the White House in 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, undoing the court ruling and defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The ballot measure halted same-sex unions in California. Roughly 18,000 couples were wed in the nearly five months that same-sex marriage was legal and those marriages remain valid in California.

The high-profile case has brought together two one-time Supreme Court opponents. Republican Theodore Olson and Democrat David Boies are leading the legal team representing the same-sex couples.

 They argued against each other in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the disputed 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Opposing them is Charles Cooper, Olson's onetime colleague at the Justice Department in the Reagan administration.

On Wednesday the court will consider a provision that defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits, as part of a 1996 measure called the Defense of Marriage Act.

The arguments come at a time of changing views on the issue. Support for gay marriage is becoming a mainstream Democratic position and the issue is causing a sharp divide among Republicans.

Signaling the widespread interest in the rulings, spectators have been lining up all weekend outside the court, camping out in Washington for a chance to hear the arguments. 

The issue has created fault lines within the Republican Party, as some prominent members drop their opposition to same-sex marriage while others stiffen it. 

Gary Bauer, president of American Values, told "Fox News Sunday" that proponents of gay marriage are effectively asking "for unelected judges to deny the people of the states the right to decide what marriage is in their state." 

Bauer said he would prefer that every state bar gay marriage. But, acknowledging that's not likely, he said the court should let the states decide. 

Bauer said people are only changing their minds on the issue "because there's been a full-court blitz ... by the popular culture, by elites and all kinds of folks to intimidate and to cower people into no longer defending marriage between a man and a woman." 

However Nicolle Wallace, a former adviser to former President George W. Bush and to the 2008 McCain campaign, said those arguing against Prop 8 are in fact using a "conservative legal argument." 

"They will basically lay out the conservative case that there is not any place in the Constitution that allows for a different set of rules for a different class of people," she told "Fox News Sunday." "There's also a moral imperative here. If you believe, if you value and treasure and revere the institution of marriage, then you should want every family unit to be really wrapped in marriage."

Top Democrats who previously opposed same-sex marriage -- and had taken the more moderate position of supporting civil unions -- have in recent months and years shifted course. 

President Obama announced his support for gay marriage in the months leading up to the presidential election. Hillary Clinton also recently followed suit. 

But Republicans have also been crossing to the pro-gay marriage side. Wallace is among dozens of Republicans who filed a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for Prop 8 to be overturned.  And Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, publicly reversed his position on the issue after his son came out as gay. 

The position shifts, though, do not signal a party-wide change of heart. Many Republicans would still prefer the issue be left up to the states and are encouraging the high court justices to rule narrowly. 

"They would be far better off to decide these two cases on the narrowest possible grounds," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday. A sweeping decision against gay marriage, he said, would be a "huge mistake" that would "undermine respect for the judiciary." 

Americans as a whole are likewise divided. A Fox News poll released Thursday showed 49 percent of voters favor legalizing gay marriage, while 46 percent oppose it. 

That marks a shift since the question was first asked in 2003 -- when 32 percent said gay marriage should be legal, and 58 percent opposed it. 

Support for gay marriage has grown the most among Democrats, and self-described moderates and independents. Still, support for gay marriage rose by 10 points among Republicans over the past decade, according to the Fox News polling. 

Gay marriage has been approved in nine states -- Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington -- and the District of Columbia. But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example last May. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 21 tháng 3, 2013

Former Chinese contractor at NASA's Langley Research Center faces hearing on lying charges

  • NASA Langley.jpg

    NASA photographer Sean Smith hitched a ride with the U.S. Coast Guard to get this aerial view of NASA Langley Research Center on December 7, 2011.NASA/Sean Smith

A court hearing is scheduled for a former Chinese contractor at NASA's Langley Research Center who was arrested on a Beijing-bound plane with hard drives and a laptop.

Bo Jiang has been indicted and charged with making false statements to federal agents. A preliminary and detention hearing are scheduled for Thursday.

Jiang worked for the National Institute of Aerospace in Hampton Va., for about two years. He was on a Beijing-bound plane at Dulles International Airport on Saturday when he was questioned by agents about what electronics he was taking with him.

The indictment says he failed to disclose a laptop and two hard drives, among other things.

An FBI affidavit says Jiang had a one-way ticket to China and was under investigation for possible violations of the Arms Control Export Act.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 5 tháng 3, 2013

Colorado state senator criticized for remarks to rape victim at gun hearing

A Colorado state senator has come under fire for remarks she made to a rape victim at a committee hearing Monday on a bill that would ban concealed weapons on public college campuses.

Sen. Evie Hudak, a Democrat from Westminster, Colo., criticized testimony provided by Amanda Collins, 27, who said that the attack on her at University of Nevada, Reno, may have been avoided had she been allowed to carry a gun on campus, The Denver Post reported.

"I just want to say that, actually, statistics are not on your side even if you had a gun," Hudak told Collins during the hearing, according to the report. "And chances are that if you would have had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you."

Hudak cited statistical data compiled by the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence, claiming that for every woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by their own weapon, The Post reported.

Collins, who reportedly had a valid concealed-carry permit at the time of the assault, told the paper that Hudak's remarks were shocking and deeply disturbing. 

"I had a hard time falling asleep because I couldn't stop thinking about what she said to me," Collins said.

Dave Kopel, a professor at the University of Denver law school and author of a firearms law and policy textbook, told The Post that Hudak's comments displayed the senator's "self-righteous, ignorant bigotry."

Hudak, who apologized to Collins after the hearing, said in a statement to the paper that she "didn't mean to be insensitive." 

The bill, which would reverse a state Supreme Court ruling that forces colleges to accommodate students with concealed carry permits, passed the committee on a 3-2 party line vote.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Click here for more from The Denver Post.


View the original article here