Wednesday, March 5, 2014


News Clips For The Day


Ukraine crisis: Diplomats meet in Paris to find an "off-ramp" as tension over Russia's takeover of Crimea simmers
CBS/Wire Services March 5, 2014

PARIS -- Top diplomats from the major players trying to find an end to the crisis in Ukraine were to gather in Paris Wednesday as tensions simmered over the Russian military takeover of the strategic Crimean Peninsula.

Speaking in Madrid just hours before the meetings in Paris, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated Moscow's stance that Ukraine's newly installed president, and the uprising which forced his predecessor, Kremlin-backed President Viktor Yanukovych, to flee Kiev, were "illegitimate."

Lavrov said Russia could not order pro-Russian armed groups in Crimea to return to their bases because they are Ukrainian "self-defense" forces which do not answer to Moscow.

"If you mean the self-defense units created by residents of Crimea, we give them no orders, they take no orders from us," he told the news conference shown live on Russian state television.

"As for the military personnel of the Black Sea Fleet, they are in their deployment sites," Lavrov said, referring to a Russian naval unit based in Crimea. "Yes, additional vigilance measures were taken to safeguard the sites.

"We will do everything to prevent bloodshed, and obviously we will defend everybody in Ukraine, including citizens of the Russian federation."

He also said it was up to Crimean and Ukrainian authorities to decide whether to grant international monitors access to the region. There have been suggestions of a possible diplomatic "off-ramp" in recent days; a proposal for Russian forces to agree to remain on their bases and for international monitors to enter Crimea to help guarantee the safety of ethnic Russians in the region.

Lavrov accused the west of setting a "bad example" by supporting the anti-Russian uprising in Kiev which eventually toppled Yanukovych.

Moscow has insisted that any military action it takes in Crimea would be for the sole purpose of protecting those civilians and its military interests in the region.
Lavrov's claim that Russian troops have stayed on their bases conflicts, however, with claims from the new government in Kiev -- which accuses Russian of an outright "invasion" -- and from independent journalists, who have reported a number of Ukrainian military installations in the region being taken over or surrounded by apparent Russian troops.

While many pro-Russian civilians have taken to the streets in Crimea this week, engaging in tense standoffs with Ukrainian forces, they are not the same as the well-organized, well and uniformly-armed military or militia units that have patrolled areas around key military sites -- albeit without any insignia on their fatigues to prove they are Russian.

The envoys from Russia, Ukraine, the U.S., Britain and France were not necessarily to meet around the same table Wednesday in Paris, but French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said everyone had been working non-stop for a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

"We have a principle of firmness but at the same time of searching for dialogue," Fabius said as he stood alongside his Ukrainian counterpart, making his first trip abroad in the new post.

Russia took over Crimea on Saturday, placing troops around its ferry, military bases and border posts.

"Today the Ukrainian future will be decided," Andriy Deshchytsia, Ukraine's foreign minister, said of the meetings in Paris. "We want to keep neighborly relations with the Russian people. We want to settle this peacefully."

Wednesday's gathering, originally scheduled to deal with the Syrian refugee crisis, came after Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared to step back from the brink of war, but the crisis is far from resolved.

Ukraine is near bankruptcy, and the European Union's executive arm was supposed to decide Wednesday on a package of support measures to add to a $1 billion energy subsidy package promised by the U.S. to Kiev on Tuesday.

The aid for Kiev was part of a two-pronged approach announced by the White House on Tuesday to ramp up pressure on Moscow; the other prong being the threat of direct sanctions against Russia if the Kremlin fails to de-escalate the situation.

Followup story

U.S. aiding NATO allies' defenses over Ukraine crisis – CBS
CBS/Wire Services March 5, 2014, 12:11 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration took steps Wednesday to support the defenses of U.S. allies in Europe in response to Russia's takeover of Ukraine's Crimean peninsula.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the U.S. was stepping up joint aviation training with Polish forces. The Pentagon also is increasing American participation in NATO's air policing mission in its Baltic countries, he said.

In Paris, CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan reports that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was unable to get top diplomats from Russia and Ukraine in the same room or to hold direct talks on Wednesday, a senior State Department official confirmed to CBS News.

Ukraine's Foreign Ministry told CBS News that Foreign Minister Andriy Deshchytsia was making his way to Paris' airport Wednesday afternoon after flying in on Kerry's plane from Kiev Tuesday night. Officials say there is still a chance he might stay in an attempt to hold talks later in the week.

The hope had been that Wednesday would be the first time for the two countries to begin direct talks - a diplomatic breakthrough - since the Russian invasion of Crimea. Deshchytsia - who was a protester in Kiev three months ago - told reporters Tuesday that he expected to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, but the Russians had not agreed to meet.

On the sidelines of this summit, which was supposed to be focused on Lebanon, Lavrov was approached about the situation in Ukraine by a group of European ministers and Kerry. The conversation was "brief and informal" and included the top diplomats from Germany, France, U.S., U.K. and Lavrov, according to the senior State Department official.

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told "CBS This Morning" co-host Charlie Rose on his PBS program Tuesday that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to re-establish Russian influence over the former states of the Soviet Union.
"He doesn't want to bring them back into the Soviet Union," said Gates. "He doesn't want to recreate the Soviet Union. He just wants them, in effect, to be part of an alliance with Russia but where they essentially do Russia's bidding, and he's trying to prevent them from moving to the West."

In his remarks in Washington, Hagel focused on U.S. diplomatic and aid efforts since Moscow's incursion into Ukrainian territory. He said he'd speak later Wednesday with Ukraine's new defense minister; Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey spoke to his Russian counterpart earlier in the day. Neither Hagel nor Dempsey mentioned military options.

"I urge continued restraint to reserve room for a diplomatic solution," Dempsey told the Senate panel.

While the hearing was supposed to focus on the military's budget, both witnesses quickly addressed the ongoing events in Ukraine.

Since last weekend, Russian troops have taken control of much of the peninsula in the Black Sea, where Russian speakers are in the majority. Moscow doesn't recognize the Ukrainian leadership that came to power after protesters ousted the country's pro-Russian president last month. It has cited strategic interests as well as the protection of ethnic Russians in making its case for intervention.

Hagel said the U.S. was reaffirming its commitment to allies in Central and Eastern Europe, some of whom spent decades in the last century under Soviet domination. European countries are grappling with their own response to the crisis, fearful about moves reminiscent of Russia's Cold War policy of regional hegemony but equally concerned about damaging trade and energy partnerships vital to their economies.
Details on the new U.S. security efforts weren't immediately available.

The United States assumed control over NATO's air policing duties over Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in January. Belgium previously had the four-month rotating duty. The mission "not only protects the integrity of NATO airspace, it illustrates the alliance's core function of collective defense," the 28-nation bloc said in a statement at the time.

Meanwhile, hundreds of demonstrators waving Russian flags stormed a government building in Donetsk in eastern Ukraine and placed a Russian flag on top of it.
The region is the home area of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled the country after massive protests in Kiev.

An AP photographer, who was in Donetsk, said more than 2,000 people gathered in the square Wednesday afternoon outside the regional administrative building before groups of men broke through police ranks and smashed their way into the building.

Many of the protesters waved Russian and other flags. Many chanted "Russia! Russia!"




This does look like a potential civil war in Ukraine, and it is likely that Russia will either support their Russian speaking areas with military aid or openly invade. What will the US do? I should say, the NATO allies, rather, not just us. I'm afraid the old Cold War positions are being recreated. This is back to where we were in the 1950s and '60s. I wanted to like the Russians, they had begun to seem very human, but if their people are hopelessly warlike there is no basis for accord. I will hope for the best. I hope Obama and NATO display a strong front, but not to the point of going to war if it can be avoided. Economically and socially we need to avoid another war.




Rep. Alan Grayson's wife accuses him of injuring her – CBS
CBS News March 4, 2014

Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., is denying his wife's accusation that he shoved and injured her during a domestic dispute over the weekend, saying through his spokeswoman that his estranged wife's allegation is "an outright lie."

The Orlando Sentinel reports that a judge has granted a temporary protective injunction against Grayson after Lolita Grayson filed paperwork accusing the congressman of pushing her against a door during a confrontation at their home on Saturday, causing her to fall and injuring her.

The Sentinel reports that her petition states that Rep. Grayson "showed up, unannounced" to their home and he asked to speak with her. She refused and asked him to leave. She then accuses the congressman of "deliberately and with force" pushing her "very hard against the front door, causing [her] to fall to the ground as a result," the Sentinel reports.

Photos filed with the petition show bruises to her leg and shoulder, according to the Sentinel.

The alleged incident comes less than two months after Lolita Grayson filed for divorce saying their 24-year marriage was "irretrievably broken," the Sentinel reports.

Grayson's spokeswoman Lauren Doney called Lolita Grayson's allegations "absolutely false, completely unfounded, and clearly designed to vilify and harm Congressman Grayson."

She added that witnesses reject Lolita Grayson's story calling it "an outright lie" and said "it was Ms. Grayson who physically attacked the Congressman as he attempted to visit with his children." Lolita Grayson's petition did mention that "in order to protect and defend herself," she pushed the congressman's face and kneed him in the stomach before calling 911, according to the Sentinel.

"Since filing for divorce, Ms. Grayson's behavior has become increasingly erratic, and she has demonstrated an alarming disconnect from reality," Doney's statement continued.

Grayson, a Democrat, was first elected to his Florida district in 2008 before losing re-election in 2010. He ran again in 2012 and reclaimed his seat and is seeking re-election this November.




It seems to me that most of this story between the two people has not been told. Why did he show up unannounced? Did he think his wife would be using drugs or something? If she has been using drugs that would partly explain her being disconnected from reality and erratic in her behavior. The witness saw her as the assailant. On the TV news Grayson is on film saying that she assaulted him and that he “retreated.” I'm interested in this, since he is one of my state's Democratic congressmen, and also because I don't see what she would have been so very angry at him for, just because he visited without calling first. What is she hiding?




Ancient virus resurrected after 30,000 years, scientists say – CBS
CBS News March 4, 2014

As climate change leads to rapidly melting permafrost in the Russian tundra, a recent find has scientists worried that trouble may be lurking below. A 30,000 year old virus of unprecedented size has been found and reactivated.

The virus, dubbed Pithovirus Sibericum, appears to affect amoebas and not human or mouse cells. Named after the Greek word, "pithos," meaning a large earthenware jar, it was discovered by a group of researchers from Aix-Marseille University.

The virus, which is so large it can be seen under an optical microscope, was found in a 98-foot-deep sample of permafrost near the East Siberia Sea, where the average annual temperature is 7 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the Agence France-Presse.

The group's new discovery raises the frightening possibility that more harmful pathogens could potentially be revived. Perhaps, it could be something no human has ever encountered before, researchers say.

"There is now a non-zero probability that the pathogenic microbes that bothered [ancient human populations] could be revived, and most likely infect us as well," study co-author Jean-Michel Claverie, a bioinformatics researcher at Aix-Marseille University in France, told LiveScience in an email. "Those pathogens could be banal bacteria (curable with antibiotics) or resistant bacteria or nasty viruses. If they have been extinct for a long time, then our immune system is no longer prepared to respond to them."

As oil and mining companies begin to drill in these now thawing areas, some scientists -- like Claverie -- are worried that diseases that once plagued both Neanderthals and humans could become active again and infect their modern-day counterparts. Others are less concerned.

"We are inundated by millions of viruses as we move through our everyday life," said Curtis Suttle, a marine virologist at the University of British Columbia in Canada, who was not involved in the study told LiveScience. "Every time we swim in the sea, we swallow about a billion viruses and inhale many thousands every day. It is true that viruses will be archived in permafrost and glacial ice, but the probability that viral pathogens of humans are abundant enough, and would circulate extensively enough to affect human health, stretches scientific rationality to the breaking point."

"I would be much more concerned about the hundreds of millions of people that will be displaced by rising sea levels than the risk of being exposed to pathogens from melting permafrost."

The study was published March 3 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.




Should these scientists have resurrected this virus if it is potentially dangerous? Pithovirus Sibericum, according to this, does not infect mouse or human cells, so it isn't a problem, but others which may be found may infect us. It is most interesting to me because it is very large for a virus. Is it one of a group of large viruses that have died out also? Maybe they should do DNA studies on it to see if it does have any living relations on a family tree and how far back in time the DNA suggests it had its origin. Maybe it will be like the archaea found in undersea volcanic vents and in the geysers at Yellowstone. They are thought to be one of the earliest life forms.






Facebook Picks Up the Pace in Race to Beam Internet From Above – NBC

By Alan Boyle


Facebook took a leap into what has become a multibillion-dollar race to corner wide swathes of the globe where people do not have regular access to the Internet, placing a bet on drones this week as winged carriers of wireless.

Based on a flurry of reports, Facebook is staking out a drone-based infrastructure for providing data services to the estimated 4.5 billion people around the world who currently can't afford to go online. The company is said to be negotiating to buy Titan Aerospace for $60 million, apparently with the intention of using thousands of Titan's drones to deliver data in areas where ground-based and traditional wireless infrastructure is underdeveloped.

Other competitors in the data race include Google’s Project Loon, which would rely on a fleet of broadcasting high-altitude balloons, and a wide spectrum of satellite ventures. Each of the strategies has pluses and minuses, and it may take months — or years — to identify the front-runner.

Titan’s remote-controlled craft are not like the robo-planes that have caused such a stir in Afghanistan, Iraq and on the home front. Titan's solar-powered "atmospheric satellites" are designed to fly for as long as five years at a time, at an altitude of 65,000 feet. "At that altitude, it can do a multiplicity of missions ranging from communications, data, optical, weather sensing," aerospace veteran Vern Raburn, Titan's chief executive, told Reuters.

Drones vs. balloons?
That capability would make it a suitable platform for Internet.org, the Facebook-led campaign to widen global connectivity. It also appears to stoke potential competition with Project Loon, which is pursuing the same goal by developing a worldwide fleet of balloons flying as high as 90,000 feet.

Like Titan's drones, Google's balloon battalions are still in the early stage of development. Project Loon was unveiled just last year, and the system has undergone testing in New Zealand as well as several U.S. locales. High-altitude balloons make for relatively cheap data delivery platforms. However, they also drift with the wind, which would require coordinating the shifting locations of thousands of balloons around the world.

"I think Facebook's new approach makes perfect sense," Syed Karin, director of innovation for the Media Development Investment Fund, told NBC News in an email. "It's much more controllable than the balloons of Project Loon."

Both systems would be deployed well above the altitude where commercial airplanes fly, but both ventures would have to negotiate a worldwide tangle of aviation and telecommunication regulations. "With balloons or planes flying at 20 kilometers, country coordination for airspace usage will still be required," Karim said.

The project in which Karim is involved, known as Outernet, takes a different approach. Outernet's backers envision putting constellations of small satellites known as CubeSats into orbit, mostly to beam data down to the lesser-served regions of the world.

"Outernet is focusing on the problem of information access — offering a universally accessible information source, for free," Karim said. "What Outernet is providing is a broadcast data service. It's kind of like shortwave radio, with regards to the global pervasiveness of the signal. But the major difference is that instead of broadcasting exclusively audio or video, like current satellite broadcasters do, Outernet will broadcast content from the web.”

Satellite data providers such as ViaSat already provide two-way Internet service for some regions of the world, but at a cost of $50 a month or up. Outernet would focus on the regions that can't afford the cost — and could also sidestep many of the regulatory hurdles.

"The benefit of a broadcast system is that it guarantees privacy and can also bypass censorship," Karin said.

Follow the money
Karim said Outernet is aiming to put a 24-satellite constellation into orbit by 2016 for a demonstration of the system, with a target cost of $100,000 per satellite. The current generation of CubeSats can stay in orbit for only a few months, but Outernet hopes that further innovations could stretch each satellite's service life to a year.
The bigger questions have to do with how much of a market there'll be for aerial data services in out-of-the-way regions. On one hand, Outernet, Internet.org and Project Loon have been presented as humanitarian projects rather than money-makers. On the other hand, anytime Facebook and Google get involved in a technology, it's a good bet that money will somehow eventually be made.

"What's in it for these guys?" asked telecom investment expert Victor Schnee, president of Mobile Cloud Era. "That's an interesting question, but these companies have been such ground-breakers that you've got to follow them and figure out what they're doing."

Schnee believes the mobile cloud — a network infrastructure that makes information accessible and storable from any device, anywhere — is the next big thing in technology. Beaming information down from above might make that "next big thing" a reality around the globe.

Does that sound like bit-based pie in the sky? Some of the veterans who remember the rise and fall of satellite telecom ventures like Teledesic might think so. But not Schnee.

"I've been in this industry for decades," Schnee said, "and I don't regard anything as 'pie in the sky' anymore."




There are so many competitors for this extension of Internet service, few of which are ready to deploy now, that it is confusing. There will undoubtedly be more articles as the companies become operational. It will be interesting to see who wins out. I'll look for more articles in the future.





Fireworks on Capitol Hill After Former IRS Official Won't Testify

By Michael O'Brien


A tense scene ensued on Capitol Hill on Wednesday after a former IRS official targeted by Republicans in an investigation into the agency's targeting of conservative groups refused to testify before a House committee.

Lois Lerner, the former director of exempt organizations for the IRS, invoked her Fifth Amendment rights -- as she had during a previous hearing last year on the IRS's inapprorpriate scrutiny of conservative groups seeking non-profit status -- during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.

The scene became particularly tense after Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., immediately gaveled the hearing closed after peppering Lerner with a series of questions that she refused to answer. Democrats were barred from participating in the hearing in any meaningful manner.

Republicans had recalled Lerner to testify after arguing that she had waived her Fifth Amendment rights during a May 22, 2013 hearing by delivering a brief opening statement before asserting her decision not to testify.

Issa had suggested this past weekend that Lerner had, in fact, decided to offer testimony. Her attorneys disputed Issa's characterization, and she ended up invoking her Fifth Amendment privileges on Wednesday.

Issa quickly gaveled the hearing shut over the impassioned objections of Rep. Elijah Cummings, Md., the top Democrat on the committee who was barred from asking questions or participating in the hearing in any official capacity.




“Democrats were barred from participating in the hearing in any meaningful manner.” Lois Lerner has for the second time refused to answer questions. Why was Cummings barred from participating, and how can the Republicans justify that? It was my understanding that the issue on which organizations can be given non-profit status had been changed by the amendment of the language, and IRS examiners were as making the decision under a confusing new rule. The following Wikipedia article is long, but it is thorough in describing the situation. If you aren't very interested in this case, just skip on over it.


2013 IRS scandal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had targeted political groups applying for tax-exempt status for closer scrutiny based on their names or political themes. The Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating the IRS's actions as part of a criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder.[1] This led to both political and public condemnation of the agency and triggered further investigations.[2] Initial reports had described the targeting as nearly exclusively on conservative groups with terms such as "Tea Party" in their names. Further investigation revealed that certain terms and themes in the applications of liberal-leaning groups and the Occupy movement had also triggered additional scrutiny, though possibly at a lower rate.[3][4][5][6][7] The only known denial of tax-exempt status occurred to a progressive group.[8] The use of target lists continued through May 2013.[9]

The statutory language of IRC 501(c)(4) generally requires civic organizations described in that section to be "operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare". Treasury regulations interpreting this statutory language apply a more relaxed standard, namely, that the organization "is operated primarily for the purpose of bringing about civic betterments and social improvements."[10] As a result, the IRS traditionally has permitted organizations described in IRC 501(c)(4) to engage in lobbying and political campaign activities if those activities are not the organization's primary activity.[11]
Chris Van Hollen has filed a lawsuit against the IRS to stop the tradition of allowing groups engaged in politics to be registered under 501(c)4.[12]

Nonprofit organizations dedicated to social welfare are not required to apply for IRS certification in order to operate under Section 501(c)(4) tax exemption rules.[16][17] However, being certified by the IRS can help organizations attract more donations and provide some protection against further scrutiny.[18]

In 2013, examples of 501(c)(4) groups included Organizing for Action, organized to promote President Obama's legislative priorities,[19] and the conservative advocacy organization Crossroads GPS, founded in part by Karl Rove.

Public-interest advocacy groups such as Public Citizen and Democracy 21 complained that the IRS and Federal Election Commission were failing to provide adequate oversight for 501(c) nonprofit organizations that were pouring money into political campaigns.[25][29][30] As the New York Times reported at the time:
Almost all of the biggest players among third-party groups, in terms of buying television time in House and Senate races since August, have been 501(c) organizations, and their purchases have heavily favored Republicans. They include 501(c)(4) “social welfare” organizations, like Crossroads, which has been the top spender on Senate races, and Americans for Prosperity, another pro-Republican group that has been the leader on the House side; 501(c)(5) labor unions, which have been supporting Democrats; and 501(c)(6) trade associations, like the United States Chamber of Commerce, which has been spending heavily in support of Republicans.[29]

Shortly thereafter, Senator Max Baucus, Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, referring to the New York Times' and other media reports, asked the IRS to investigate to ensure that nonprofit organizations engaged in political activity were complying with IRS rules and not abusing their tax-exempt status.[31][32] Republican senators on the finance committee Orrin Hatch and John Kyl responded to Baucus' request by writing to the IRS that they were worried this kind of investigation would violate First Amendment rights, and they asked that a Treasury Department inspector general conduct a review of any such investigation to ensure its impartiality.[33][34

Senate[35] and House[36] Democrats in early 2012 continued to press the IRS to investigate abuses of 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status by organizations engaged in political activity. In a February 2012 letter to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, several Democratic senators led by Senator Chuck Schumer wrote, "We urge you to protect legitimate section 501(c)(4) entities by preventing non-conforming organizations that are focused on federal election activities from abusing the tax code."[37] The senators also urged the IRS to issue new rules to prevent this type of abuse.[38] In a follow-up letter sent in March 2012, the senators asked the IRS to clearly define the amount of political activity that is permissible for "social welfare" groups under 501(c)(4) rules, to require the groups to document in their IRS filings the exact percentage of their activity that is dedicated to "social welfare," and to require the groups to notify their donors of what percentage of donations could be claimed for tax deductions. The senators promised to introduce legislation to accomplish these aims if the IRS did not do so itself by promptly issuing new administrative rules.[35][39] None of these letters called for the targeting of groups on the basis of political ideology.[37]

Between 2010 and 2012, the number of applications the IRS received each year seeking 501(c)(4) certification doubled.[40] During this period, budget cuts and personnel cuts reduced the IRS's ability to adequately perform its core duties.[41] When the Obama administration requested in 2011 that Congress increase the IRS's $12.1 billion budget by $1 billion to allow the agency to hire 5,100 additional agents, Congress instead reduced the IRS budget to $11.8 billion, and the IRS offered buyouts to 5,400 of its 95,000 employees.[41

Beginning in March 2010, the IRS more closely scrutinized certain organizations applying for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code by focusing on groups with certain words in their names.[42][43] In May 2010, some employees of the "Determinations Unit" of the Cincinnati office of the IRS, which is tasked with reviewing applications pertaining to tax-exempt status, began developing a spreadsheet that became known as the "Be On the Look Out" list.

Over the two years between April 2010 and April 2012, the IRS essentially placed on hold the processing of applications for 501(c)(4) tax-exemption status received from organizations with "Tea Party," "patriots," or "9/12" in their names. While apparently none of these organizations' applications were denied during this period,[Note 2] only 4 were approved.[49] During the same general period, the agency approved applications from several dozen presumably liberal-leaning organizations whose names included terms such as "progressive," "progress," "liberal," or "equality."[49][50] (However, the IRS also targeted several progressive- or Democratic-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny, leading to at least one such organization, called Emerge America, being denied tax-exempt status.[48] Instructions to screeners obtained by The National Review obtained instructions to IRS screeners, and NR's reading of the instructions was that conservative and liberal groups were treated differently. The instructions stated that applications of tea-party groups should be sent "to group 7822" for additional scrutiny, but the National Review's interpretation was that screeners could approve liberal groups on the spot.[6])

An investigation by the New York Times reported that several organizations targeted for scrutiny by the IRS engaged in activities that could be construed as political. The Ohio Liberty Coalition, whose application was delayed in excess of two years, sent emails to their members regarding Mitt Romney presidential campaign events and handed out Romney "door hangers" while canvassing neighborhoods. Former IRS officials and tax experts say this type of behavior would provide a "legitimate basis" for additional scrutiny. Ohio State University law professor Donald Tobin said: "While some of the I.R.S. questions may have been overbroad, you can look at some of these groups and understand why these questions were being asked.”[57]

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, refused to release the IRS interview transcript. On June 9, 2013, Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) released portions of an interview transcript wherein an anonymous IRS manager who described himself as a "conservative Republican", told Congressional investigators that it was he who had initiated the targeted reviews, without any involvement from the White House, and that the extra scrutiny was not politically motivated.[58][59][60] In an appearance on CNN's State of the Union, Cummings said, "Based upon everything I've seen, the case is solved. And if it were me, I would wrap this case up and move on".[58] Issa responded in a statement, "The testimony excerpts Ranking Member Cummings revealed today did not provide anything enlightening or contradict other witness accounts. The only thing Ranking Member Cummings left clear in his comments today is that if it were up to him the investigation would be closed."[59]

During the period in which the applications were being scrutinized, the Cincinnati office of the IRS violated policy by releasing nine confidential pending applications from conservative groups to ProPublica, an investigative reporting organization.[18] ProPublica had made a records request to the office seeking only completed applications, which are public information.

At least as early as mid-2011, higher-ranking IRS officials knew that conservative groups primarily were being targeted.[79]
Targeted groups complained to various members of Congress. In response, a congressional committee asked IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman about the allegations in 2012. Shulman told the committee that the agency wasn't targeting conservative groups.[79] After Shulman denied that the IRS was unfairly targeting conservative groups, the congressional committee ended the 2012 phase of the investigation.[citation needed] Shulman resigned his post in late 2012, before the scandal came to light.[80]

On June 24, 2013, new IRS commissioner Danny Werfel revealed that an internal investigation had discovered that the targeting was both broader and longer-lasting than had previously been known. The report found that words such as "Israel," "progressive" and "Occupy" were also used as red-flags for greater scrutiny, and that screeners were still using such lists up until May 2013.[9] A spokesman for the Inspector General's office in charge of the IRS audit said they had been asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) “to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations.”[106]

It was revealed two days later that while certain progressive groups also faced long delays in getting the IRS to approve their applications, the progressive groups were not subjected to the same level of scrutiny as Tea Party groups

On June 27, 2013, responding to letters from Rep. Sander Levin, the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, Inspector General J. Russell George's office released a letter to Levin about the scrutiny of groups with "progressive" in their names.[108][109][110][111] Contradicting earlier claims of George's office, the letter acknowledged that he knew that the word "progressive" had appeared in IRS screening documents.

The letter further stated that out of the 20 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "progress" or "progressive", 6 had been chosen for more scrutiny as compared to all of the 292 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12."

In January 2014, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that it had found no evidence warranting the filing of federal criminal charges in connection with the scandal. The FBI stated it found no evidence of “enemy hunting" of the kind that had been suspected, but that the investigation did reveal the IRS to be a mismanaged bureaucracy enforcing rules that IRS personnel did not fully understand. The officials indicated, however, that the investigation is continuing.[134]




Report: CIA spied on Senate committee staff – CBS
By Stephanie Condon CBS News March 5, 2014

As staff for the Senate Intelligence Committee gathered information to conduct oversight of the CIA, the CIA was secretly monitoring them, according to reports from McClatchy and the New York Times.

The committee staff was reviewing documents in a secure room at CIA headquarters as part of its investigation into the CIA's now-defunct detention and interrogation program, but the agency was secretly monitoring their work, according to reports. Complaints about the spying have reportedly prompted the CIA inspector general -- the agency's internal watchdog -- to look into the agency's behavior.

"There is an I.G. investigation," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, told the New York Times. Feinstein has typically backed the intelligence community as its surveillance activities have come under fire. But asked about the conflict between the committee and the agency, Feinstein said, "Our oversight role will prevail."

Intel chiefs promise to release more info on spying on Americans
Gov't, Internet companies reach deal on disclosure
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., seemed to reference the surveillance in a letter to President Obama Tuesday, in which he urged the president to support the fullest declassification of the committee's CIA report.

"As you are aware, the C.I.A. has recently taken unprecedented action against the committee in relation to the internal C.I.A. review, and I find these actions to be incredibly troubling for the committee's oversight responsibilities and for our democracy," Udall wrote. "It is essential that the Committee be able to do its oversight work -- consistent with our constitutional principle of the separation of powers -- without the CIA posing impediments or obstacles as it is today."

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who like Udall has called for more transparency from the intelligence community, also seemed to allude to the CIA's surveillance of the committee during a Jan. 29 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. In that hearing, Wyden asked CIA director John Brennan whether the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act applies to the CIA. The law bars the intentional access of a computer without authorization.

Wyden published Brennan's response on Wednesday: "The statute does apply," Brennan wrote. "The Act, however, expressly 'does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity... of an intelligence agency of the United States.'"

Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., another member of the intelligence committee, declared in a statement Wednesday, "The Senate Intelligence Committee oversees the CIA, not the other way around."

He blasted the agency for refusing to "engage in good faith" with the committee as it studied the CIA's detention and interrogation program, and he called for the report's full declassification.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/us/new-inquiry-into-cia-employees-amid-clashes-over-interrogation-program.html?_r=0

C.I.A. Employees Face New Inquiry Amid Clashes on Detention Program
By MARK MAZZETTIMARCH 4, 2014

WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency’s attempt to keep secret the details of a defunct detention and interrogation program has escalated a battle between the agency and members of Congress and led to an investigation by the C.I.A.’s internal watchdog into the conduct of agency employees.

The agency’s inspector general began the inquiry partly as a response to complaints from members of Congress that C.I.A. employees were improperly monitoring the work of staff members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to government officials with knowledge of the investigation.

The committee has spent several years working on a voluminous report about the detention and interrogation program, and according to one official interviewed in recent days, C.I.A. officers went as far as gaining access to computer networks used by the committee to carry out its investigation.

The events have elevated the protracted battle — which began as a fight over who writes the history of the program, perhaps the most controversial aspect of the American government’s response to the Sept. 11 attacks — into a bitter standoff that in essence is a dispute over the separation of powers and congressional oversight of spy agencies.

The specifics of the inspector general’s investigation are unclear. But several officials interviewed in recent days — all of whom insisted on anonymity, citing a continuing inquiry — said it began after the C.I.A. took what Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, on Tuesday called an “unprecedented action” against the committee.

The action, which Mr. Udall did not describe, took place after C.I.A. officials came to suspect that congressional staff members had gained unauthorized access to agency documents during the course of the Intelligence Committee’s years-long investigation into the detention and interrogation program.

It is not known what the agency’s inspector general, David B. Buckley, has found in the investigation or whether Mr. Buckley has referred any cases to the Justice Department for further investigation. Spokesmen for the agency and the Justice Department declined to comment.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, gave few details about the dispute on Tuesday as she left a closed committee hearing on the crisis in Ukraine, but she did confirm that the C.I.A. had begun an internal review.

The episode is a rare moment of public rancor between the intelligence agencies and Ms. Feinstein’s committee, which has been criticized in some quarters for its muscular defense of many controversial intelligence programs — from the surveillance operations exposed by the former National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden to the Obama administration’s targeted killing program using armed drones.

The origins of the current dispute date back more than a year, when the committee completed its work on a 6,000-page report about the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation program. People who have read the study said it is a withering indictment of the program and details many instances when C.I.A. officials misled Congress, the White House and the public about the value of the agency’s brutal interrogation methods, including waterboarding.

Mr. Obama ended the C.I.A.’s detention program in one of his first acts in the Oval Office, and he has denounced the interrogation methods as illegal torture.

The Senate’s investigation into the C.I.A. program took four years to complete and cost more than $40 million, in part because the C.I.A. insisted that committee staff members be allowed to review classified cables only at a secure facility in Northern Virginia. And only after a group of outside contractors had reviewed the documents first.




I see the need for intelligence operations, but I don't think they should operate without oversight, because of things like the Snowden information and their program of interrogation which involved torture to gain information. There were even rumors at the time of the Kennedy murder that the CIA had been behind the shooting rather than Lee Harvey Oswald. I thought it was possible, as Kennedy was very liberal and very influential with the public – perhaps too influential for some very powerful members of the government who were ultraconservative, especially about racial issues.

This interference of the CIA with the oversight committee's activities is one more similar case. If I have to decide who I trust most, the CIA or our elected representatives in Congress and the Senate, it is definitely our representatives. They get removed every few years in most cases and are always being watched by the press under a powerful microscope to see that they are not breaking laws or wasting money. The CIA has no such oversight, except of course for the Senate. I hope the Senate continues its investigation successfully now and without further tampering.