IRS Suspicion Widens: GOP Donors Question Audits

There is a widening circle of prominent Republican donors and activists stepping forward this week to declare that they were audited by the IRS, and many now are questioning if they were targeted for their political views.

"It makes you wonder," said Charlie Moncrief, a Texas oil executive who is raised more than $1 million for Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential bid. "You just don't know. But given what's out there now, you have to ask the question."

The wave of mistrust on the part of prominent conservatives comes in response to a report by the IRS Inspector General's office published Tuesday that suggested the IRS singled out conservative advocacy groups -- specifically those with references to the Tea Party in their names -- for special scrutiny after they had applied for nonprofit status. The report has triggered a federal investigation into whether officials inside the taxing agency let political motives guide their actions.

FULL COVERAGE: Internal Revenue Service

Now Frank VanderSloot, an Idaho businessman who donated more than $1 million to groups supporting Romney, told ABC News he believes he may have been targeted for an audit after his opposition to the Obama administration. So did Hal Scherz, a physician who started the group Docs4PatientCare to lobby against President Obama's health care initiative, and became a vocal critic of the president on cable news programs. Franklin Graham, the son of the evangelist Billy Graham, said he believes his father was a target of unusual IRS scrutiny as well, according to published reports Wednesday.

RELATED: IRS Has Long History of Political Dirty Tricks

Graham told Politico that groups founded by his famous father, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the family's international humanitarian organization Samaritan's Purse, were both subjected to aggressive action by the IRS. In a letter to President Obama, which he shared with the news outlet, he wrote: "I do not believe that the IRS audit of our two organizations last year is a coincidence -- or justifiable."

So far, the suggestions of impropriety at the Internal Revenue Service have been limited to the agency's review of advocacy groups that had applied for nonprofit status. The IRS Inspector General's office has not signaled that political factors could have bled into audits of individuals and the IRS maintained in a letter to the Inspector General that its agents made no decisions "out of partisan or political viewpoint."

The IRS reiterated today that politics "play[s] no factor in audit selection."

"The IRS stresses that audits are based on the information contained on the tax return and the underlying tax law," the agency said. "The audit process is handled by career, non-partisan civil servants, and we have processes in place to safeguard the exam process."

But many of those in an already skeptical group of prominent conservatives are unconvinced.

"I happen to believe there are people inside the IRS who feel emboldened," said Cleta Mitchell, a Washington attorney who represents several of the conservative groups that were audited. "I've heard of several instances of donors to conservative causes who were audited. We need to find out if this is just random or if it's more than that."

Mitchell said she is hearing from a range of high-profile Republicans who want to know if their politics motivated the government's decision to audit them.

"I suspect that they looked at individuals as well," Scherz told ABC News. "It is odd that nothing changed on my tax return and I was never audited until I publicly criticized Obamacare."

VanderSloot said he did not want to jump to conclusions when he first received notice from the IRS last June that he would be audited for the first time in roughly 30 years. The head of a nutritional supplement company, VanderSloot had been singled out during the 2012 presidential campaign for being, in the words of an Obama campaign website, "a bitter foe of the gay rights movement," a claim he says is untrue. VanderSloot has said he raised between $2 million and $5 million for Romney's campaign.

He said when he first heard about the audit, he did not believe he was being targeted because of his political advocacy. "I'm thinking this is America and they're not going to that," he said. Then he learned his wife and business would also face audits, and he grew more concerned.

Now, though, he thinks the matter warrants investigation.

"We can be suspicious, and I am suspicious as I can be about this," VanderSloot said. "But I don't think we ought to let our minds run too far in the field of accusations until we know what the facts are."

Democrats say the mistrust is inevitable given the allegations now facing an already unpopular government agency.

"The IRS has done something no one else has been able to do, and that is create bipartisan outrage," said Mo Elleithee, a partner at Hilltop Public Solutions, a left-leaning consulting firm. "But taking a step back, what may be one of the sad by-products of this whole disaster is that it does give the aura of credibility to those who are looking for reasons to distrust government."

CLICK HERE to return to The Investigative Unit homepage.

Judge scolds Trump, attorney during testimony

Judge scolds Donald Trump, attorney during heated testimony at Chicago trial

Associated Press -

CHICAGO (AP) -- A scowling Donald Trump raised his voice on the witness stand Wednesday while an attorney grilled him and then rolled his eyes at the "Apprentice" star's answers, leading a federal judge to scold both men in open court and order them to behave.

The admonition came during Trump's second day on the stand at a civil trial where he is accused of making false promises to an 87-year-old investor to get her to purchase condos at his glitzy Trump International Hotel & Tower in Chicago.

"You have been dancing around and boxing each other," U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve said, scolding Trump and plaintiff's attorney Shelly Kulwin. "This is not a boxing match.

"Let's get control of ourselves," the judge added before a brief recess.

Aggressive questioning on Wednesday focused on what Trump knew and when regarding the alleged bait-and-switch in which a profit-sharing plan was promised to Jacqueline Goldberg but withdrawn after she agreed to buy two condos.

The testimony offered a rare inside look at the management style of the 66-year-old Trump, known for scrutinizing the competence of contestants on his "Apprentice" TV show and then firing them.

Pressed over and over, the real estate magnate insisted he couldn't remember just when key business decisions were made or by whom, or even if he was present — telling jurors neither he nor his top executives made a habit of taking notes.

"We get things done. We don't write about it," he said.

A central issue at the trial is whether Trump himself plotted from the start of the tower's development in the early 2000s to entice investors with a profit-sharing plan — fully intending to cancel the offer after they put their money down.

On the stand, Trump portrayed himself as a big-picture guy who delegated others.

"I don't run hotels — I build them," he said.

The trial stems from a lawsuit filed by Goldberg, who agreed in 2006 to buy two condos for around $1 million apiece at the 92-story luxury building; it opened in 2009. She seeks the return of a $500,000 deposit and other unspecified damages.

With Goldberg sitting nearby, Trump accused her of agreeing to a buyers' contract that gave Trump rights to cancel the profit-sharing offer as he saw fit. Even though she knew that clause was there, he said, she went ahead and bought the condos anyway.

"And then she sued me," he boomed, raising his arms. "It's unbelievable!" The judge told jurors to disregard Trump's statement.

It took Trump and the plaintiff's attorney just minutes to clash as testimony started Wednesday morning. Kulwin complained that Trump, a New Yorker, kept rushing to answer questions before he had completed them.

"We're in Chicago," the attorney snapped at Trump. "We go a little slower here."

___

White House Releases Benghazi Email Chain to Try and Clear Its Name

White House Releases Benghazi Email Chain to Try and Clear Its Name

In an apparent effort to settle the on-going dispute over the development of the government's talking points in the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the White House released, early Wednesday evening, nearly 100 pages of emails outlining how those points were developed.

RELATED: Obama Administration Finally Admits That the Libya Attack Was Terrorism

The emails (all of which can be seen here) progress as originally reported by ABC News. Initial drafts from the CIA were subjected to feedback from administration officials, the State Department, and other CIA representatives.

RELATED: Fox News Says Obama Muzzled Benghazi Whistleblowers

What's more clear from the emails is the extent of the exchange between the parties. The initial ABC report, relying heavily on an unidentified person who had access to the exchange, gave the impression that the State Department was mandating changes unilaterally. On Tuesday, CNN raised questions about that formulation, showing one email which called ABC's presentation into question.

RELATED: Hillary Clinton Falls on Her Sword

Republican critics of the administration's response to the attack embraced the ABC report as an indication that the White House (and Obama) and State Department (and Hillary Clinton) were working to hide information that they considered unhelpful. Wednesday's document dump will certainly not entirely eliminate those concerns, but may further bolster the alternative view of the back-and-forth: that the State Department and CIA each wanted to distance themselves from the attack as much as possible.

This is the key page - CIA Deputy Morrell's hand-written edit of Benghazi talking pointstwitter.com/StevenTDennis/…

— Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) May 15, 2013

The Wall Street Journal explains why the administration likely released the documents at this point.

The decision to release them represented a major shift that officials hope will tamp down the controversy. Administration lawyers for months had rebuffed calls to hand over the emails on the grounds the exchanges were part of internal administration deliberations.

But administration officials have complained that congressional Republicans in recent days have been leaking selective excerpts from the emails to buttress their argument that the talking points were manipulated for political purposes.

Reporters, including ourselves, are poring over the contents; we will update as information is uncovered.

NY judge tosses indictment of officer in shooting

Associated Press/Richard Drew, File - FILE - In this June 12, 2013 file photo, Constance Malcolm and Frank Graham, parents of 18-year-old Ramarley Graham, weep during the arraignment of New York City Police Dept. officer Richard Haste, in Bronx Supreme Court, in New York. An indictment has been thrown out in the case against a New York Police Department officer charged in the fatal shooting of Ramarley Graham, an unarmed man as his grandmother stood nearby. As it became clear the judge was about to rule in the officer's favor, Graham's mother cursed and screamed, "They killed my child!" (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File)

NEW YORK (AP) — A judge on Wednesday threw out manslaughter charges against a New York Police Department officer accused of killing an unarmed man at his home as his grandmother stood nearby in a ruling that prompted a courtroom outburst by the victim's mother and a vow byprosecutors to still pursue the case.

Constance Malcolm cursed and screamed, "They killed my child!" as it became clear that the judge was about to rule in favor of Officer Richard Haste. Court officers immediately removed her.

When order was restored, Judge Steven Barrett told spectators, "I regret that there are people who are hurt by this," but he insisted that a flawed grand jury presentation by prosecutors left him no choice.

As Haste left the courtroom, protesters yelled, "Murderer!" The officer did not speak to reporters.

Haste had been charged in the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Ramarley Graham during a police operation targeting street corner drug dealing in the Bronx. He and other officers chased Graham into his family's apartment, where the teen was shot at close range.

The victim was struck in the upper chest and collapsed inside a bathroom as his grandmother and younger brother stood nearby. No gun was recovered.

The judge ruled Wednesday that prosecutors, in giving instructions to grand jurors, had improperly left the impression the jury shouldn't consider testimony by other officers that they radioed Haste in advance to warn him that they thought Graham had a pistol.

Haste testified in the grand jury that the radio transmissions convinced him Graham was armed and dangerous when he shot him in the chest. Jurors also heard evidence that Haste yelled, "Gun! Gun!" as a warning to other officers before opening fire.

"In effect, the grand jury was told communications of other officers were not relevant," the judge said. "With no great pleasure, I'm obliged in this case to dismiss the charges."

The judge stressed that he didn't believe prosecutors deliberately misled the grand jury and he wouldn't bar them from seeking another indictment.

Prosecutors said in a statement that they would appeal the decision or present the case again to the grand jury.

"It cannot be said more forcefully that we disagree with the court," the statement said.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who has worked with Graham's family, called the judge's decision "an outrageous miscarriage of justice and an insult to the family and supporters of Ramarley Graham." Graham's parents called for street protests.

But Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, said the judge's ruling was the right one.

"We believe the judge made a difficult but correct decision," Lynch said.

U.N. condemns Assad forces, but unease grows about rebels

Members of the Free Syrian Army help a wounded fellow fighter in Deir al-Zor May 14, 2013.REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi (Photo by Stringer/REUTERS)

By Michelle Nichols and Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly condemned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces and praised the opposition on Wednesday, but a decline in support for the resolution suggested growing unease about extremism among Syria's fractious rebels.

While the non-binding text has no legal force, resolutions of the 193-nation assembly can carry significant moral and political weight. There were 107 votes in favor, 12 against and 59 abstentions - a drop in support compared with a resolution condemning the Syrian government that passed in August with 133 votes in favor, 12 against and 31 abstentions.

U.N. diplomats cited concerns that Syria could be headed for "regime change" engineered by foreign governments and fears about a strengthening Islamist extremist element among the rebels as reasons for the decline in support for the resolution.

Russia, a close ally of and arms supplier to Assad, strongly opposed the resolution drafted by Qatar, which Assad's government has accused of arming the rebels seeking to oust him. But Moscow, which along with China has used its veto three times to prevent Security Council action against Assad, could not block the motion as there are no vetoes in the General Assembly.

Diplomats said the Russian delegation wrote to all U.N. members urging them to oppose the resolution. Moscow has complained that the resolution undermines U.S.-Russian efforts to organize a peace conference that would include Assad's government and rebels, a meeting U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said would likely take place in early June.

Syrian U.N. Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari told the General Assembly before the vote that the resolution went against the U.S.-Russia push for a diplomatic solution to the two-year-old crisis, which the United Nations says has killed at least 80,000 people.

"It is running against the current, especially in the light of the latest Russian-American rapprochement, which the Syrian government welcomed," Ja'afari said.

U.S. Deputy Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo argued that the resolution was consistent with the Russian-U.S. initiative and sent "a clear message that the political solution we all seek is the best way to end the suffering of the people of Syria."

British Prime Minister David Cameron told reporters at U.N. headquarters in New York that he did not want planning for the conference to become "too long a process." He said pressure should be put on all warring parties to come up urgently with names for a transitional government "that everyone in Syria can get behind.

Some U.N. diplomats and officials, however, are skeptical that the U.S.-Russian initiative will resolve the deadlock, which has prevented the 15-nation Security Council from taking any action on Syria, given the wide gulf between Moscow and Washington.

DOUBTS INCREASE ABOUT THE REBELS

Wednesday's resolution, which called for an immediate end to the violence and which had strong backing from Western and Gulf Arab states, was originally conceived to give Syria's U.N. seat to the opposition Syrian National Coalition.

But U.N. diplomats said it became clear in early negotiations that such a move would not pass the assembly, where many delegations fear their own governments could one day face rebel uprisings.

The resolution did, though, welcome the establishment of the Syrian National Coalition "as effective representative interlocutors needed for a political transition."

The resolution also expressed the assembly's outrage at the "rapidly increasing death toll" in Syria and condemned the "widespread and systematic gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms." It urged countries to provide urgently needed financial aid to alleviate the worsening humanitarian catastrophe.

The Syrian National Coalition welcomed the U.N. resolution, but said in a statement that much more needed to be done with a greater urgency to end the suffering of the Syrian people.

Syria accuses Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United States, Britain and France of arming the rebels. The countries have denied the allegations but the rebels keep getting arms.

South Africa Ambassador Kingsley Mamabolo said his country, which voted in favor of the previous resolution condemning Assad's government, abstained this time because it opened the door to "regime change" by forces from outside Syria.

Experts have long said the militant al-Nusra Front in Syria is receiving support from al Qaeda-linked militants in neighboring Iraq. The group has claimed responsibility for deadly bombings in Damascus and Aleppo, and its fighters have joined other Syrian rebel brigades.

Iran, Bolivia, Venezuela, North Korea, Belarus and other delegations that tend to oppose U.S. policy at the United Nations also voted no. Ecuador, which abstained last year, said it voted against the resolution because it feared it legitimized a coup and wondered "who will be the next country on the list."

Indonesia, which voted in favor of the August resolution, said it abstained mainly because of the resolution's implied recognition of the Syrian opposition.

China said it voted against the resolution because it failed to take into full consideration the "opinions of all relevant sides".

"Forcibly pushing forward the vote is not conducive to the unity of the member states and the mediation efforts made by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the international community to solve the crisis in Syria," Li Baodong, China's permanent representative to the United Nations said, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

Mohammad Khazaee, the ambassador of Syria's ally and arms supplier Iran, accused the rebels of using chemical weapons against Syrians, something the opposition says was done by Assad's government and not rebel forces. He also spoke of an increasing number of "terrorist and extremist groups" in Syria.

Russia also warned about terrorist elements in Syria.

A U.N. plan for a chemical weapons investigation has been blocked because Assad's government has refused to grant an international inspection team unfettered access in the country. The government wants the team to inspect only Aleppo and not Homs, both sites of alleged chemical weapons attacks that the rebels and government accuse each other of perpetrating.

The vote could show that recent images of savagery from the civil war - a rebel commander biting a heart ripped out of an enemy combatant - may be undermining the case of those arguing Syria would be better without Assad.

There have also been grisly images of acts committed by Assad's forces making their way around the Internet.

Another reason for drop in support for the resolution, envoys said, may be the fact that Assad remains in control of much of the country and has demonstrated that his armed forces and allied militia have not lost the war - although they have not been able to win either.

"I'm convinced a lot of countries voted for (last year's) text because they believed they were voting for the winning side," a senior Western U.N. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said in reference to the August, 2012 resolution. "They are not so sure anymore."

"Now also you have the Islamist, terrorist factor which is much more conspicuous," he said.

The Syrian conflict started with mainly peaceful demonstrations against Assad, but turned into a civil war in which the United Nations says at least 80,000 people have been killed. Islamist militants have emerged as the most potent of the anti-Assad rebels.

Wednesday's vote came as Washington and European governments have been mulling the benefits and risks of supplying arms to Syrian rebels.

A French official said on Wednesday that France was floating a proposal that the European Union should ease an arms embargo but delay acting on the decision to intensify pressure on Damascus to negotiate an end to the civil war.

(Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in BEIJING; Editing by Mohammad Zargham, David Brunnstrom and Bill Trott)