Christine Victimized by Misuse of IRS

She has been vindicated, but don’t expect justice for Christine. Former Delaware U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell was victimized by an inaccurate tax information leak in 2010 designed to damage her reputation. Using a reciprocity agreement, a state tax auditor accessed her information and someone leaked inaccurate information to the public. State officials seem not to care who did it. They should. The next time, it could be one of them. If you allow the system to be abused because it hurts the other side today, who will speak up to defend you when the table turns?

This is bigger than one woman. It is about whether any of us can trust our government with private information. It is also about can we trust the state government to tell us the truth.

This entry was posted in Christine O'Donnell by David Anderson. Bookmark the permalink.

About David Anderson

Councilman David Anderson is a citizen activist who has served the community in several areas. He is a member of the Academy of Dover Charter School board of directors, a former Dover Human Relations Commissioner, past Chair of Delaware Right to Life PAC, Proud member of the Delaware Army National Guard, former Because We Care Inc. alternative school board member, Republican committee person, and co-founder of the Delaware Initiative and Referendum Coalition. He is currently Huck PAC state coordinator.

131 thoughts on “Christine Victimized by Misuse of IRS

  1. Nobody on July 29, 2013 at 10:02 said: ““The tax lien was distributed to journalists the same day, March 9, 2010, that Christine O’Donnell’s tax records were unlawfully accessed.” You keep typing this, and you keep failing to back it up with anything in print.”

    The Inspector General of the US Treasury will interview those in attendance at the March 10, 2010, kick-off event for Christine O’Donnell’s US Senate campaign. Note that contrary to popular belief, there is no right of journalists to withhold their sources.

    So reporters who attended on March 10, 2010, will be asked directly if they had the tax lien on March 9, 2010. I have made sure of it, that it will be asked.

    So have no fear. The sand Castle is crumbling. The illegal actions and corruption is coming to light.

    Luke 12:3 “Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops.”

  2. Nobody on July 29, 2013 at 12:13 said: “If you want to win the general election, the smartest route is to engineer a victory for the weakest opponent in the opposing party.”

    That is your opinion. It is a very rare and unusual idea in campaign politics.

    Campaigns are overwhelmingly focused on influencing how the voters view (a) THE opposing PARTY as a whole, and (b) the individual candidates.

    The idea of influencing a primary is a very low-level thought of very little attention or concern in politics…. particularly in a State like Delaware with a CLOSED primary.

    Even in States where Democrats can vote in the primary, this is not a subject that gets very much attention.

    However, in a State like Delaware in which only Republicans can vote in the Republican primary, it is an even smaller concern very rarely given much thought.

    Of much more direct and immediate concern and vastly higher priority is smearing the entire Republican Party in general and also specific, individual candidates — all of them — to make sure that the Democrat will win the general election in November.

    To build up one Republican over another would be a tremendous risk.

  3. Nobody on July 29, 2013 at 12:50 said: “So in other words, you have no evidence.”

    Oh, I absolutely do. It just isn’t in a link on the internet. We have dozens of eyewitnesses.

    Contrary to your assumptions, the internet is not the arbiter of truth.

    Not everything on the internet is true. And not everything that is true is on the internet.

    I do believe that there were news articles from March 2010 that mentioned it, but searching through all the more-recent news is time-consuming.

  4. Nobody on July 29, 2013 at 12:13 said: “People who actually work on winning campaigns, as opposed to wannabes like Mr. Moseley, have used this tactic for years.”

    No, the tactic is not new. But it is very rare, and is not part of the tactics of serious professional campaign professionals.

    One of the reasons is that elections are way too unpredictable.

    The danger is far too high, sky high, if Democrats attack only one Republican and not all of them.

    You have heard it say that a week (or a month) is an eternity in politics. Things can change very quickly and very dramatically.

    Therefore, taking action today based on ASSUMING what the race is going to look like 6 months from today would be extraordinarily risky.

    As a result, Democrats attack ALL the Republican candidates (except perhaps the GOP candidates who are busy attacking the other Republicans, so they let them do their damage).

    To attack one candidate in the opposing party and leave the other untouched would create an extraordinarily dangerous risk in a political campaign.

    This of course presupposes that smears and attacks are part of one’s tool set, which is true of scum-bag Democrats. I am not endorsing such tactics, merely observing that (a) Democrats smear all the candidates and (b) professional campaign experts TAKE NOTHING FOR GRANTED and do not assume that one candidate presents no risk.
    To attack one candidate in a primary, and not the other, creates an unacceptable risk.

  5. “We have dozens of eyewitnesses.”

    To what? To reporters being given this document you claim they were given? Yet not a single one has stepped forward to confirm your claim?

  6. Nobody, you are so intentionally confused.

    At the March 10, 2010, reporters asked Friends of Christine O’Donnell campaign staff about the March 9, 2010 tax lien filed just before closing time on March 9, 2010, which was not visible to the general public for several more days.

    All of those who were asked and all of the journalists who did the asking are eyewitnesses that they had the tax lien on March 10, 2010.

    As I stated, there is no journalist privilege to avoid answering this question.

    Why would anyone “step forward?” This issue has just come up, and noen of the reporting nor even Christine’s comments bring the issue fully into focus.

    However, the Inspector General understands this point — I made sure of it — and can ask any of those participants at the March 10, 2010, kick-off what they knew on that day.

    No doubt FOCD Campaign Manager has the sign-up list that day, when reporters sign in. So all we have to do is ask Matt Moran, who will require about 40 to 50 years to find it.

  7. I’m only confused because you tell a confusing story. Who passed out this information? How do you know multiple reporters had it?

  8. Many of the reporters who attended the March 10, 2010, kick-off for Christine O’Donnell’s 2010 US Senate campaign already had the March 9, 2010 tax lien. Some of them asked Friends of Christine O’Donnell staff about it. Some where heard talking about it amongst themselves.

    One of Christine’s biggest complaints is that she was asked about the tax lien long before she got notice of it from the IRS.

  9. “Many of the reporters who attended the March 10, 2010, kick-off for Christine O’Donnell’s 2010 US Senate campaign already had the March 9, 2010 tax lien.”

    As you realize, that’s all hearsay. Furthermore, whomever you claim distributed this document would have had less than 24 hours to reach numerous media people, many of whom would not have known on March 9 that they would be covering the O’Donnell news conference on March 10.

    It’s not impossible, but it sounds highly unlikely. I look forward to you proving your points in court.

  10. Anon, Moseley, et al.,

    The tax lien issue is beside the point. O’Donnell has > 175 ‘other’ major flaws in her character, her motives along with her penchant for self-aggrandizement, and her inability to view her own ‘self’ in a congruent manner.

    In other words, she a garden-variety narcissist who uses politics to satiate her appetite.

    She also has a lot in common with one Barack Obama: they both love playing the victim (cult of victimology) and blaming others for their own lack of leadership skills.

    Can you tell I don’t trust this person…

  11. Nobody on July 29, 2013 at 19:05 said: “As you realize, that’s all hearsay”

    Not when they talk directly to US Treasury Department, Inspector General’s Office, Criminal Investigative Division, Special Agent Dennis Martel or other IG staff.

    When they are giving their accounts direct, it isn’t hearsay.

    Furthermore, hearsay is trickier than that.

    For example, suppose I overhear a man Sven say on March 10, 2010, “What do you think about the contents of the classified Top Secret report from Caspar Weinberger?”

    Hearsay would be trying to prove the CONTENTS of Top Secret report with out of court testimony.

    It is not hearsay as evidence that the classified report was release on or before March 9, 2010.

    The fact that a person was asking about the Top Secret report on March 9, 2010, is NOT hearsay, because it is evidence of WHEN the report was available — not content.

  12. KL Lagola on July 29, 2013 at 19:10 said: “The tax lien issue is beside the point. O’Donnell has > 175 ‘other’ major flaws in her character,”

    No, the IRS IS the issue. You keep assuming that we are talking about Christine.

    Christine is my friend, even if we fight. I value Christine as a person even when she is rude.

    But this IS NOT ABOUT CHRISTINE.

    This is about the integrity of our system.

    That’s what the tea party movement was ALWAYS about — at least one of the things.

    Restoring integrity, values, and principle to our nation’s politics was always what the tea party was and is fighting for, at least one of the things.

    I don’t want to be in the position of saying Christine is not important as a person. But Christine is *NOT* what this is about.

    This is about corruption of our politics and our government.

    The *ONLY* thing people should be focused on is exposing the manipulation of elections and the lack of integrity in the process.

    If they can do this to Christine, they can do it to you, too.

    Remember the words of Martin Niemoller from Nazi Germany before World War 2:

    “First they came for the communists,” he wrote, “and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

  13. At the March 10, 2010, reporters asked Friends of Christine O’Donnell campaign staff about the March 9, 2010 tax lien filed just before closing time on March 9, 2010, which was not visible to the general public for several more days.

    The tax lien was available to the public when it was recorded on March 9, 2010 in New Castle County. So your story fails the test of time because all a reporter had to do was go to the NCCo offices the morning of March 10th to get a copy.

    But I don’t believe reporters did that. First, because I spoke with several people who were at her announcement and none of them remember any questions about a tax lien. In fact, what they all do remember is David Keegan, former 2008 campaign staffer, being thrown out of the announcement for trying to ask a question about not being paid.

    Here is the Dover post reporting on her campaign announcement without one mention of the tax lien: http://www.doverpost.com/article/20100310/NEWS/303109966

  14. Are we to believe that O’Donnell was questioned about a tax lien at her announcement and it didn’t make the news or the video of her announcement on the news? Does anyone believe that WDEL would cut out the part of her announcement where she was asked about the tax lien?

    More importantly, why is Jon Moseley in contact with the Fed when he wasn’t working on O’Donnell’s campaign at the time, and why was he speaking with the Treasury agent who called O’Donnell months before he contacted her about her IRS files?

  15. anon on July 30, 2013 at 10:03 said: “The tax lien was available to the public when it was recorded on March 9, 2010 in New Castle County. ”

    No, it was not. Have you been in that Clerk’s office in that courthouse? It would take DAYS for the tax lien to be handled, processed, and made available to the public.

    The tax lien was received near closing time on March 9, 2010. Neither reporters nor the public could have seen it until days later.

    And even then, how would anyone know to go looking for it?

    If the tax lien were visible on March 9, 2010, how would anyone know that it was there?

    Unless the IRS tipped off the news media or politicos “PSST! Go look in the court filings!” it would take days if not weeks for anyone to notice it.

  16. anon on July 30, 2013 at 10:32 said: “Are we to believe that O’Donnell was questioned about a tax lien at her announcement and it didn’t make the news or the video of her announcement on the news? ”

    YES, OF COURSE! Have you never been to a press conference or other event?

    The speaker, speakers, or panel only take a very few questions. Then the event closes down. THEN THE REPORTERS RUSH THE PODIUM AND TRY TO GET *INDIVIDUAL* INTERVIEWS with the main speaker (here the candidate) their staff, or anyone they can.

    In fact, reporters often don’t want to give tips to their competitors. Journalists often prefer to ask questions privately so that other reporters won’t write about the questions they asked and mooch off their research.

    Furthermore, there is a premium in the news business for quotes that a person gave UNIQUELY to that particular newspaper or TV or radio outlet. Journalists want a quote given specifically to THEM — not just to everyone. That is part of the DNA of news reporting. You want to come back to the news room with an individualized quote that no one else has.

    When I was the lowest newly-hired attorney on the totem pole at Judicial Watch, reporters would try to get me to say something by cornering me in the back or in the hallway, if they couldn’t get Larry Klayman to talk to them.

    In fact, what I heard about the March 10, 2010, kick-off was that Christine’s campaign team (meaning Matt Moran) SHUT DOWN the questioning EARLY (by making vague, ambiguous, incomprehensible hand signals in the back of the room and expecting people to understand his smoke signals) because David Keegan had showed up and was spreading smears around — urging reporters to ask this question or ask that question.

    So as I recall, the questions taken from the podium were cut SHORT.

    That results in the news media trying to talk to anyone they can after the official event closes.

  17. And because Christine refused to answer questions on a tax lien she knew nothing about, hadn’t yet received, reporters didn’t include it in their first-round coverage of the kick-off.

    But they will be asked by the Inspector General’s staff and we do not need to speculate or run “what if’s?”

  18. So which is it — reporters won’t share their information, or they will? You earlier said they were talking among themselves about it.

    I’d call this a tempest in a teapot, but that would be an insult to teapots.

  19. anon on July 30, 2013 at 10:32 said: “More importantly, why is Jon Moseley in contact with the Fed when he wasn’t working on O’Donnell’s campaign at the time, and why was he speaking with the Treasury agent who called O’Donnell months before he contacted her about her IRS files?”

    How many times do I have to explain that the issue here is the integrity of our elections and politics and the future of our country?

    What kind of country are we going to leave to our nieces and nephews, children, and grandchildren? Are we going to leave a country as good as the one our parents preserved for us? Or are we going to leave a corrupt banana republic for our nieces and nephews, children, and grandchildren to live in?

    Why can’t you wrap your head around that? What mental block makes it so hard for you to get that?

    Although I do not want to diminish or disrespect Christine as a valuable individual, I have always done, am doing now, and always will do what is needed for the best interests of the country.

    So when there is evidence that can catch the corruption red-handed, I am going to talk to EVERYONE.

    Whom do I need to be?

    Well, I am all that, and much, much more. Whatever I need to be, I am vastly more than that.

    David, er, anon (NOT David Anderson of course) — You asked “why was he speaking with the Treasury agent who called O’Donnell months before he contacted her about her IRS files?”

    David, er, anon: I explained all of that in my article at American Thinker:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/the_irs_intervened_in_tea_party_elections.html

  20. “How many times do I have to explain that the issue here is the integrity of our elections and politics and the future of our country?”

    You’ll have to explain it until it starts to make sense. As it stands, for most of us, checking the tax records of a known deadbeat doesn’t seem to spell the end of the republic.

  21. What many people fail to understand is what was taught to me in law school:

    It is a well-established principle in US law, that

    The law has a right to every man’s evidence. See, e.g., Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665

    A democracy cannot function without the truth being supplied by every member of society, so that the right decisions are made and justice is done.

    It is well-established that for the courts to function and similarly for the Executive Branch to do its job, the testimony and evidence of EVERY member of society is “owed” to society.

    This same principle applies to you.

    If you get sideswiped in a car accident, and someone sees the whole thing, the law holds that you are ENTITLED to have that person come and testify to what he or she saw. Even if the person doesn’t want to, they must.

    That is essential for our system to operate, and our courts have repeatedly said so.

    So where I have knowledge of something that is important to an investigation, IT IS MY DUTY as a citizen and even more as an “officer of the court” as an attorney to supply all the information and evidence that I have for the proper functioning of the government.

    As a result, if I know information that would bring about justice and stop corruption, it is my DUTY as a citizen to make sure the proper authorities know all about it.

  22. I think what Christine O’Donnell should do for the good of the country and to serve and save the nation is rent an apartment in Springfield, Ohio (Eastern side to be near Columbus for convenience), register to vote in the 8th Congressional District of Ohio, and start warning pretend Republican Speaker John Boehner to stop promoting Obama’s liberal agenda in the House, such as amnesty. After knocking off Mike Castle, no one could put the scare into Boehner to start acting like a real Republican more than Christine O’Donnell. Christine should warn Boehner that if he pushes amnesty, he can join Mike Castle on the golf course in retirement. She could still move back to Delaware. She doesn’t have to actually run or declare in Ohio. Just the warning enough could save our country from boat loads of bad legislation.

    See the latest on what we need to save the country from with John Boehner:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/stevedeace/2013/08/03/a-profile-in-failure-john-boehner-n1653290/page/full

  23. I, for one, would welcome that move. Of course, she doesn’t really live here in the first place, so Ohio is as good a place as any for a snake-oil saleswoman and the incompetent lawyer who loves her.

  24. ChristinePAC is sending out another fund-raising appeal will not raise any significant money.

    It does contain the improvement that it gives a deadline and a rationale for why the deadline actually makes sense. It is not entirely arbitrary.

    But conspicuously missing is any explanation of what the money donated is going to be used for.

    Successful fund-raising requires the dynamic:
    1) Let’s do X (something that the potential donor not only cares about intellectually, but also cares about emotionally and has a personal feeling of importance about, sufficient to part with money)
    2) If you give $Y, that can happen.
    3) But if you don’t give, it won’t happen.

    Successful fund-raising is a fork in the road, a “T” intersection.

    The fund-raising appeal must force the reader to either turn in one direction or the other:

    Are you going to give or aren’t you? Yes or no?

    If you never ASK for a decision, you won’t get a decision.

    Fund-raising requires saying “Unless we raise $Y, we will fail at this project.”

    That is why most politicians fail at fund-raising: They don’t want to put it in stark terms. But putting it in stark terms is the ONLY way to succeed at raising money:

    To do X, we need a total budget of $Y. If you give, it will happen. If you don’t give, it won’t happen. YOU DECIDE. The fate of this project is on your shoulders (the potential donor).

    That is why ChristinePAC has not raised any real money: They have never truly ASKED for donations. It has nothing to do with whether conservatives or the tea party are popular. It is because you have to ASK for donations in order to get them.

    If you don’t say what the money is needed TO DO, then you have not really asked for donations.

  25. During the 2010 election, all of those ingredients were IMPLIED, but sharply in focus.

    Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and others told conservatives to give money to Christine to stick a thumb in Karl Rove’s eye, and to help her win.

    The ingredients were clear: If you give, in sufficient quantities, you can stick a thumb in Karl Rove’s eye. Imagine the look on his face when he tells conservatives they shouldn’t support Christine, and millions of dollars pour in to her campaign. WE REJECT YOU, KARL ROVE. It is like throwing a shoe at Karl Rove. When ti comes to a choice between a conservative tea party candidate and Karl Rove, WE REJECT KARL ROVE. So, take that!

    So there is an emotional component. And there is a clear choice: If only a trickle of donations come in, then Karl Rove will be vindicated. If a flood of donations come in, then Karl Rove will have a pie in his face. It’s YOUR CHOICE — you decide.

    What’s it going to be?

    These factors were strongly and clearly present, but implied.

    When you don’t have all the talk show hosts telling their audience to make a donation, you cannot rely on implied arguments. You have to state your arguments explicitly and clearly.

  26. Now, what COULD an organization do about this problem, at this stage, considering everything else that is going on? What projects could be scheduled, assuming money came into fund them?

    1) Bombard an appropriate decision-maker with petitions demanding action.

    2) Even though there is a governmental investigation underway, bureaucrats are not necessarily diligent or motivated or thorough, and they have lots of other files on their desk. So, a separate investigation of the facts could be helpful and supportive of the official governmental investigation, such as chasing down who are all the potential witnesses, collecting and photocopying documents, interviewing people, running a test (such as how fast does it take for a tax lien filed with the NCC Courthouse to become visible to the general public after being received at the end of the day), maybe get affidavits from H&R Block, etc., etc.

    A budget for all of those investigative steps would be an appropriate, reasonable, and compelling reason for people to give to this project.

    3) Organize a demonstration at the IRS.

Comments are closed.