In True the Vote (TTV) v. IRS, the crux of the case involves the targeting of conservative groups for increased scrutiny and undue harassment while simultaneously delaying the issuance of tax-exempt status for years. TTV’s attorney Cleta Mitchell is suppressing evidence that would help her client. We know because we walked her office through it back in February.
True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht (L) and her Attorney Cleta Mitchell (R)
The exact opposite of being targeted for mistreatment by the IRS is being treated with extreme favor by it. That issue becomes even more significant when an entity that received such favorable (and illegal) treatment by the IRS is connected to terrorism.
It’s not sufficient to show how conservative groups were targeted and liberal groups were not, especially when evidence exists that a group whose founder has ties to terrorism was treated with tremendous and undue favor. This raises the stakes and makes the case even better.
In short, the evidence being suppressed involves an entity founded in April of 2008. This foundation sought to solicit tax-free donations via 501(c)(3) status. However, the paperwork necessary for obtaining that status wasn’t filed until May of 2011 and only after a legal watchdog demanded an investigation. The IRS went into high gear and granted the foundation its tax-exempt status in less than 30 days. The date stamped on the approval letter bearing the signature of Lois Lerner is June 26, 2011 – a SUNDAY.
Malik Obama’s Foundation granted 501(c)(3) status on a Sunday.
Moreover, Lerner backdated the approval to April 30, 2008, a full 38 months. It is a crime for a foundation to solicit tax-free donations without tax-exempt status for more than 27 months. What should get Lerner into even more hot water is that the president of this foundation is a U.S. resident (not a citizen) but has expressed solidarity with Hamas (an officially designated terror organization) and is the Executive Secretary for an Islamic organization overseen by a wanted international war criminal who is the President of a country officially designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism by the U.S. State Department.
Providing further contrast is that TTV filed for 501(c)(3) status in July of 2010. 38 months later, that status was granted. However, unlike the other foundation, TTV followed the law and was awarded that status only after the IRS had a bigger problem on its hands than it realized and attempted to get TTV to drop the lawsuit in exchange for granting that status.
To TTV’s credit, it did not drop the suit.
Cleta Mitchell
Mitchell, a partner with Foley and Lardner, based in Washington, DC is the public face of the plaintiff’s legal team. However, TTV v. IRS was filed by the ActRight Legal Foundation in Plainfield, IN. When it comes to media interviews and issuing Congressional testimony, Mitchell is the go-to person. She sits on the Board of ActRight.
As Shoebat.com reported this week, the shocking revelation – courtesy of released emails – that Lerner thinks people like Engelbrecht are worse than “terrorists” and should be considered “assholes”, provided a golden opportunity for even more contrast.
Yet, when appearing on the Fox News Channel to discuss these emails, Mitchell avoided that contrast entirely. In so doing, she suppressed evidence from being introduced into the court of public opinion and hampered her client’s case. In this exchange, Mitchell makes the claim that Lerner was “intentionally biased” without delivering the roundhouse kick provided by the aforementioned example.
Ironically, Mitchell even admits that Attorney General Eric Holder will not prosecute complicit parties who harmed her client. She then rightfully claims that “they don’t want the truth out”.
Et tu, Ms. Mitchell?
One day earlier, at a House Oversight Committee hearing, Mitchell had another opportunity to introduce the explosive evidence that would help her client. She refused to do so. Below are two clips from the same hearing. In the first, Mitchell attempts to point out a disparity in the treatment of progressive groups and tea party groups without providing the most explosive example, an example she is suppressing:
Here is Mitchell at the same hearing. In this exchange, she might as well attempt to catch missiles with a butterfly net. She’s on the right side and makes the right charge but completely avoiding the right argument. After being asked if she thinks IRS reforms can be implemented, Mitchell responds by saying:
“I think the application process is completely broken.”
What better way to demonstrate this than pointing to Lerner giving illegally retroactive and expeditious 501(c)(3) status to a foundation whose president is connected to terrorism?
So what is the name of the foundation and its President that Mitchell will not name? The Barack H. Obama Foundation (BHOF) and its President Malik Obama, the brother of the President of the United States.
The IRS scandal and investigation is at a stalemate and Mitchell has the opportunity to put the IRS and its Congressional Democrat allies in checkmate.
Currently, Democrats are running interference for the administration by conceding that conservative groups were targeted but that it wasn’t political, it can be remedied with reform and that no special prosecutor is needed. Republicans and people like Mitchell argue that the targeting was political and that the accountability of individuals involved can only be accomplished with a special prosecutor.
By introducing the IRS’s treatment of Malik Obama into the scandal – Mitchell has the ability to do this – the Democrat congressmen who are currently defending the IRS will be forced to defend allegations that the IRS is funding terrorism.
Even the Democrats would have a tough time making that case just three months out of an election.
It is difficult to know why Mitchell is deciding to suppress evidence that would greatly help her client and the country but does have a history of running interference for sympathizers of stealth jihadists (Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan respectively), most notably during her time with the American Conservative Union (ACU) and the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC); both Norquist and Khan have held leadership roles there. Mitchell was made aware of their irrefutable connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and not only dismissed them but quite shockingly, smeared the messenger while doing so.
Mitchell’s ties to Norquist are extensive, as relayed by Shoebat.com.
On August 29, 2013, House Ways and Means Committee member, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) referred to the evidence Mitchell is suppressing as “Spot on” twice during a radio town hall in his district:
Note: In the context of this post, ‘suppression of evidence’ is not necessarily meant to apply to court proceedings. It is not known if TTV’s attorneys have attempted to introduce this evidence in court and it was subsequently ruled inadmissable. When it comes to Mitchell, she is suppressing evidence in the much more powerful court of public opinion by not introducing it via media interviews or in Congressional testimony.
An email sent to ActRight Legal for comment on this matter was not answered prior to publishing this article. We will keep this post updated if we receive a response.